Thank you for your very perceptive and timely analysis! It's very helpful for me to think (as you've invited us to do) about the ways that all of us inside the Adventist community are challenged by society's perceptions of who we are contrasted with who we feel we are as individuals.

I think you've articulated very well not only the Adventist dilemma, or even the gay Adventist dilemma, but also the ubiquitous human dilemma--that is, trying to forge an identity and live according to it while everything around us screams "You are_____________!" and "You are_____________!"

Since, then, we all know what it is to live on the receiving end of biases, prejudices, and in some cases perhaps even hatred, we are challenged to live with that much more sensitivity to people around us who suffer from unfair prejudices and unwarranted hatred!

Thanks, Jonathan, for this thoughtful and galvanizing article!

I wish that this could appear in the Review.

Noting the commonalities between identities - how much more unites than divides us - is exactly the sort of thoughtful, inclusive approach that lies at the heart of creating Christian community.

I appreciate how Jonathan raises our standards here, taking the traditional principle of a faithful remnant - believers with something to say to compromised, rote memory Christianity - and asks us to love in Others, ourselves.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Jonathan! One would think - and hope - that those who have been on the receiving end of prejudice would be more sympathetic to others in that same situation. But when an oppressed group finally finds acceptance, it is more likely to join the oppressers than the oppressed. Who would jeopardize their new-found status by championing a minority? I see that especially in the Black community, as regards homosexuals (witness Prop 8 supporters!). I hear a lot of conversation about this among the gays/lesbians I know - voicing their determination not to repeat this pattern. Of course, Adventists are always striving to find respectability among other Christians, so it's not easy for us to take an unpopular stand on this issue!

The other thing I'd urge is education! education! education! Now that the church is beginning to feel the challenge of facing this issue - and bringing all its big guns to bear on maintaining its status quo - I have hope that at least some of our more open-minded members will come to see beyond their prejudices and misinformation, as those who have already done so are willing to speak up.

I also think that if more g/l Adventists had the emotional strength to come out of their closets and openly take their place in the church, instead of quietly leaving in despair, more members would see the true face of homosexuality.

And Alex, you might as well give up your wish about the Adventist Review! Since my innocuous story about our family was published 13 years ago, bringing a strongly negative reaction, there has been NOTHING even remotely NEUTRAL published there on this issue.

We can never look to the Review to publish any new idea on anything. It continues with old, tried, and trite mindless articles that few read but the dyed-in-the-wool old extremely conservatives. For contemporary issues, Spectrum leads the way to open discussions, unthreatened by censorship.

I looked for the word Sin in the article. Did I overlook it?

Anyone "acknowleging" ANY sin and asking Christ for forgiveness and victory over known disobedience is my "brother/sister" regardless of their acomplished "victory."

In a secular way, I will still show "them" kindness and respect but not my acknowlegement that the "practice" is ok. That goes for "practicing" adulterers, or ANY form of sexual impurity or sin that openly brings "reproach" on the church...including attending a NEO-NAZI banquet without not condoning their position and making it known.

I understand that view puts one open to misunderstanding and a great "lack of freedom of speech" and chastisement. Ask Ms.California.

regards from a "sinner",
pat

We all know "practicing adulterers" who are regular SDA members in good standing. Who has asked for condoning? They only want to belong to the Adventist community, unlike in years' past when they were openly disfellowshipped.

Any institution, and churches are no exception, that does not recognize changing societal mores will go the way of the dodo bird.
Some of us "oldies" well remember when women who wore hats with flowers or feathers were severely reprimanded,ditto for any forms of jewelry, including wedding rings, but excluding those that could be fastened to the dress, not to the body. There were many more, too many to recall, that excluded one from membership.

Movies, dancing, card playing, reading fiction, and a host of other prohibitions were what the youth remember of their Adventist upbringing, not Jesus and his love, but all the don'ts.

If the church cannot be a hopital for sinners we all will be cast out. Is one who is "practicing" adultery somehow different from one who is "practicing gayness"? Is either a one-time event, or a lifetime situation?

There are still churches, one in my area, where a young unwed pregnant teen was forced to openly "confess" her sin if she wished to maintain her membership. This reeks of early American puritanism and has no part in modern Adventism. If anyone here cannot meet and worship with adulterers, gays, or any other "sinners" go out and start your own private denomination.

We are the chosen few,
all others will be damned,
there is no room in heaven for you,
we can't have heaven crammed.

Elaine,

My point is when sin ceases to be recognized as sin there is no "biblical community" and no hope of "repentance and salvation."

There is no "peace" but only those whom are falsely saying "peace and safety."

Only those who "act/respond" as in Ezekiel's day, "you are to them like a sensual song by one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but they do not practice them. 33 “So when it comes to pass—as surely it will—then they will know that a prophet has been in their midst.” Ez.33;32,33.

and I am referring to "biblical sin" not man made restrictions/regulations..."Some of us "oldies" well remember when women who wore hats with flowers or feathers were severely reprimanded,ditto for any forms of jewelry, including wedding rings, but excluding those that could be fastened to the dress, not to the body. There were many more, too many to recall, that excluded one from membership.Movies, dancing, card playing, reading fiction, and a host of other prohibitions were what the youth remember of their Adventist upbringing, not Jesus and his love, but all the don'ts."

regards,
pat

PS. There is equal danger in "overstating" as well as "understating" what scripture says. BOTH lead to rebellion.

It's really time that we started moving away from the idea that sexual orientation one way or another is related to sin.

Anyone who is still linking sexual orientation and personal morality demonstrates ignorance of two things:

1. The overwhelming corpus of scientific research demonstrating conclusively that homosexuality is not a matter of choosing, but that it is an innate psycho-physiological component of one's make up.

2. The social-scientific and textual analysis of the "clobber texts" that demonstrates with equal certitude that Scripture does not have anything to say about committed, monogamous homosexual union.

It's time that we stopped living in religion's dubious past, and pay attention to the direction in which contemporary scholarship is pointing us.

If we truly believe what we preach about the unfolding of God's revelation, to do anything less would be unfaithful to our teachings.

Jared,

That is your exegesis and eisegesis...not mine. You are entitled to it...and myself to mine.

regards,
pat

No, sir. I am talking not about the exegetical work that I have done on the biblical texts. I'm talking about what people who have devoted their entire lives to understanding and interpreting the Scriptures in their historical contexts are saying. People like John Jones, one of Adventism's best New Testament scholars. And that's just citing an example from our own faith tradition.

This is not a matter of one's personal reading of Bible texts, it is a matter of where the corpus of biblical and scientific research points.

Jared, the only problem with your two points is that you are mistaken on both points.

There may be a lot of "evidence" that homosexuality is "inborn." There's a lot of "evidence" that contradicts the Bible on various points. How do you decide which to believe? Do you believe the scientific evidence which contradicts the Creation narrative, the Incarnation, resurrection, or ascension of Christ?

As for point two, the dismissal of the "clobber" texts, you said it very well when you reminded us that Scripture says nothing about committed, monogamous, homosexual relationships. That's the point. It has everything to say about heterosexual relationships. It even addresses polygamous ones, indicating that they were tolerated by God.

Heterosexual polygamy was preferable to homosexuality in Scripture.

As for the articles observation that it will soon be worse to be homophobe than homosexual, I'm not so sure. It could be that there is going to be a violent and repressive backlash against the gay community. Recently, all America watched a homosexual bully and humiliate a young woman for simply expressing her beliefs that marriage should be heterosexual.

I really wonder what kind of men are going to stand around while their women are attacked and trashed publicly by gay troglodytes. What kind of society produces such men? The very idea contradicts the natural order of things.

Perhaps the rule of the Taliban in America is what is needed, to set people back on the right course.

Jared, the SDA conservatives like Pat Travis don't accept scientific research - even when it is as solid as physics and chemistry.

They don't accept what the OT experts tell them about Daniel, or what the NT experts tell them about the origins of the NT.

You expect them to accept the sciencific study of sexuality and the opinions of mere life-long scholars?

Why?

/Bevin

Well Jared,

I know a host of Biblical scholars exceeded by none who would disagree with their/his exegesis.

Bruce Waltke and Roger Nicole as starters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Waltke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nicole

As I said you are entitled to yours and the consequences we both bear as to our choices.

regards,
pat

Thanks, Jared. I wish I could mention the names of some other outstanding biblical scholars who agree with John and Fritz Guy, but who fear losing their positions as church employees. "Perfect love casts out fear," but our church has not yet reached the state of perfect love.

I believe that the discussion of this issue in nearly all churches today, as well as the growing scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is hard-wired before birth, make this an issue of "present truth" in which we need to take a new look at our understanding of Scripture. God does not change, but He has promised that the Spirit will continue to lead us into all truth. All those who cherish our pioneer understanding of "present truth" should have an open mind in studying this issue without bias.

Hansen, doesn't it strike you as a little hypocritical for a young woman to flaunt her charms (natural or unnatural)in a very skimpy bathing suit, and then criticize people who love each other? Yes, the questioner was not very polite to Miss California, and not all homosexuals approve of his reaction to her answer. Btw, isn't "troglodyte" rather rude language?

And the reason the Bible doesn't address committed monogamous same-sex relationships is that until the late 19th century, it was universally believed that ALL people were "naturally" attracted to the opposite sex, and that those who had same-sex relationships were going against their nature - iow, perverted.

But please, couldn't we avoid getting side-tracked by all these old, tired arguments, and focus instead on Jonathan's thoughtful piece?

Hansen,

"Perhaps the rule of the Taliban in America is what is needed, to set people back on the right course."

No...we need religious liberty!

We do need "the church" to stand for what scripture says concerning "faith and practice" and not what "society or contemporary thought" declares to be true when in opposition to the sound exegesis of scripture.

Carrol...it was me that mentioned Ms. Calif. and she was simply offering her opinion as an answer to a question. She was not there on a mission to promote or declare her purity in opposition to anyone as I see it.

My point also was what hostility the girl got from the press and "judges" for her answer. I thought "the left" was open minded and loved "free speech."

pat

"There's a lot of "evidence" that contradicts the Bible on various points. How do you decide which to believe?"

Do you still take the biblical "evidence" for leprosy, demon posession, menstrual uncleanness and that giving birth to a female leads to exclusion from the mother for two weeks, and one week for males? Or that the cure for blindness is mud and spittle?

How much of the Bible "evidence" for medical, psychological, or all the newest scientific "miracles" we are offered today should be replaced by the biblical presumptions/treatments?

As others have written, where, in the Bible, can one find any evidence that many of the anomalies (meaning represented by less that 100% of the population) were understood? If the Bible is to be the "last word" I doubt anyone here dismisses all scientific knowledge available today and returns to the Bible for the cure and treament as is reported there. After all, it was only written as a contemporary understanding of the world they knew, not prescience to advise for the 21st century. To do so would be to
become biblioaltry or religious abuse.

Elaine,

The Bible doesn't address "dispositions,propensities and proclivities" it addresses in the NT what is appropriate behavior for those "growing in Christ."

regards,
pat

Elaine....

For someone who advocates an open mind, yours is certainly made up.

Have a happy day in Elaine land.

"For someone who advocates an open mind, yours is certainly made up.

Have a happy day in Elaine land."

Michael,

Since when does being open-minded mean refraining from making a statement of belief?

Open-mindedness is about two things:
1. allowing for the possibility that I haven't got everything figured out.
2. Being willing to reevaluate my beliefs when new evidence or arguments are introduced.

Also, does anyone here find childish taunts like, "have a happy day in Elaine land" acceptable? We're all adults, can we please act and treat each other as such?

The above article argues that all Adventists should advocate for the rights of all misunderstood minority groups, such as gay Adventists, since all Adventists belong to the same universal class of a misunderstood minority. Is this sound reasoning as proponents of same-sex monogamous unions would like us to believe? What's new? It's the same old fallacy.

Homosexuality is an interesting thing - it used to be considered a mental illness but now it is simply viewed as a sexual desire for a person of the same sex. Pedophilism is still considered a mental disorder but a pedophile simply has a sexual desire for children. Of course, one is considered a crime because it involves an underage, nonconsenting person, but the sexual desire is probably the same.

It's not a sin to be a non-practicing pedophile just as it is not a sin to be a non-practicing homosexual. Is it?

I would say have a happy day with Spectrumites in Spectrum Land. Again, the most favorite Spectrum topic appears for a rehash of whitewashing God's abomination without a thought of using the power of Jesus to become an overcomer. California is to vote until we get it right; and the Spectrum topic is to be rehashed until posters get it right -- love the sinner and sin. No mention of "Go and sin no more" allowed with the open-minded Spectrumites. Oh how I wish inquirers of the faith would not find this website -- that is my prayer. Appearing mature, good, and intellectual with strings of poison running throughout.

"Oh how I wish inquirers of the faith would not find this website -- that is my prayer. Appearing mature, good, and intellectual with strings of poison running throughout."

Jody,
Feel free to disagree with what people say; I do it all the time. But what are you hoping to accomplish by sharing your outright disapproval of this conversation? Has that approach ever convinced anyone that your point of view is better?

There are strings of poison running throughout my life and my character. Aren't there in yours, and everyone's? Rather than focusing on how badly we hope that God will keep seekers from having conversations with people we disagree with, perhaps we should pray that God will allow his love to be visible in spite of whatever is toxic in each of us, being that we all harbor misunderstandings about God.

I think you have Spectrum pegged wrongly. If you want to add "go and sin no more" to the conversation, someone may disagree with you, but it is allowed. Here's what shouldn't be allowed ("in Spectrum Land", or anywhere else): entering a conversation just to say "you're doing it all wrong and I think your influence is poisonous."

If productive conversation is ever to be had, we all must be willing to trust that each of us is doing the best we can, with the tools that we have, to interpret and relate meaningfully to God and his Word. How can anything less be productive or meaningful?

Jody, My thoughts exactly!

The "hard-wired" argument is hardly convincing to anyone who has contemplated human life. We are all hard-wired towards sin. There is no doubt that I am hard-wired to be a heterosexual adulterer. The question is whether we will let these sinful impulses take control of our lives or whether we will live a Spirit led life.

Most people have at least one area of great moral weakness. (Pity the person who is morally weak on many points.) Admitting our moral weak points, confessing our problems and discussing our sinful impulses is helpful. The problem arises when we start claiming, contrary to God's word, that our sinful impulses are righteous acts.

9 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,

10 not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world.

11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.

12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?

13 God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."

**************************************************************

Elaine...

Are you saying that the church should never exclude anyone, no matter what their behavior? If so, this flies in the face of the above counsel that Paul gave to the Corinthian church.

In it, Paul is making a clear distinction between those who practice immoral behavior in the world and those who do so while naming the name of Christ. And he is making a clear distinction between the attitudes and actions of the church towards each.

The context reveals that the church was tolerating a man who was sleeping with his stepmother, and seemingly flaunting it openly. They were apparently priding themselves on their open, liberal and accepting spirit. Instead, Paul takes them to task, saying that not even the pagan world tolerates such behavior, and that the man should be expelled from the community. Apparently Paul meant this as an extreme wake up call for both the individual (so that he would recognize his condition and be saved) and the church body as a whole.

While I agree that the church is to be known as a hospital for sinners and as a place of grace and recovery, it is not to be mistaken as a place where anything goes. In fact, the churches that seem to be growing the fastest in North America, are the ones that not only extend grace, mercy and acceptance, but also articulate the highest expectations of involvement, service and lifestyle to members and prospective members. Those that teach and model grace and transformation, not those that give a message of comfort in our sin...more often unspoken than verbal.

Its called love and limits. And the church must preach and practice both.

Thanks...

Frank

I'm hoping that all will focus on the merits of the thesis that Jonathan Heldt has presented.

Arguments over moral weakness, proof texts, and slams at the growing Spectrum community have been done plenty of time with no effect. To save folks with those tendencies time, feel free to click here and see previous responses to those arguments.

http://spectrummagazine.org/freetagging_nodes/homosexuality

To the other "been done" refrain about this being Spectrum's favorite topic, feel free to revise that in light of the evidence.

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/tag_cloud

When folks are so obvious wrong, for so obviously pejorative reasons, it's hard to take much of what they say seriously
______

Back to the issue, Jonathan makes an interesting argument about essential Adventist identity. And if I may simplify it with a broad-brush hypothetical, what's more resonate to the Adventist message of truth?

A conservative evangelical who condemns homosexuals, but believes that we're cultish for our Sabbatarianism, OR a gay Adventist who worships with us on the seventh day?

When I poke around the web, I see scads of Adventist sites representing hundreds of man hours defending our understanding of the law and Christ's righteousness, mostly directed to conservative evangelicals.

Furthermore, I read lots of ex-Adventist sites who attack us over law and grace. People aren't leaving because young Adventists feel more free to express their same-gender love. They are leaving over other issues in our church.

Jonathan raises a question for me: why this obsession to be understood by conservative evangelicals who often throw back more texts over the law or end times, more than anyone here can throw at a gay Adventist?

It's Mormons, some Catholics and conservative evangelicals who are really driving this anti-gay political agenda. Why do Adventists need to be in their camp? Our theology is often very different. Our sense of time is different. Our ideas of separation of church and state of vastly different.

Frankly, this is the same crowd of which our pioneers called folks out. They called it Babylon and now some Adventists seem to be forgetting that peculiar history.

Gay Adventists? A peculiar people? As a straight male, I've proud to draw upon our movement heritage and call Adventists out to support our community members who are also coming out.

As Jonathan points out, we've got too much in common. Let's focus on what God calls us to do:

And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8).

Carol Grady,

Describing the adversary of Ms California as a troglodyte is entirely appropriate. The American Heritage Dictionary defines troglodyte as a "reactionary or brutish person."

I might have,not incorrectly, referred to him as a Cretan, as well:

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

Was it appropriate for him to refer to Ms CA as a [w]itch? Hardly. You can see the kind of intolerance manifested by that debacle. Mr. Hilton probably set the "gay rights" movement back to the days when to "come out" was to risk a beating in the streets,at least in the minds of those so inclined.

It's interesting to me that two of the most arduous apologists for homosexuality on this site both have "dogs in the fight," one a son and the other a brother. Another is really not a Christian at all, considering the Bible a book of tales concocted around a camp fire by a people with lack of self esteem.

I'm not personally acquainted with Bruce Cameron, but speaking as one without a dog in the fight, his remark seems on target:

"The "hard-wired" argument is hardly convincing to anyone who has contemplated human life. We are all hard-wired towards sin. There is no doubt that I am hard-wired to be a heterosexual adulterer. The question is whether we will let these sinful impulses take control of our lives or whether we will live a Spirit led life.

Most people have at least one area of great moral weakness. (Pity the person who is morally weak on many points.) Admitting our moral weak points, confessing our problems and discussing our sinful impulses is helpful. The problem arises when we start claiming, contrary to God's word, that our sinful impulses are righteous acts."

The struggle for many Adventists, myself included, is striking the right balance of being loving, encouraging, and understanding while also remaining faithful to Scriptural teaching. Yet just as we're called to speak out against social injustice or excess in the political and corporate worlds, many believe we also have an obligation to clearly speak regarding biblical teachings of sin in the personal arena.

On the thesis:
While our theology and understanding of current and end-time events may be quite distinct from mainstream evangelicalism, our biblical understanding of sin and restoration tends to be quite similar to the views held by other conservative Christian denominations. Thus while we differ in many areas, we agree on certain issues. I venture to guess that the topic at hand is one of those areas in which our church, as a whole, tends to agree in principle with our evangelical friends.

Thus our uniqueness is based on fidelity to Scripture, and we do our best to clearly articulate our biblical understandings for several reasons, not the least of which is a sense of the importance of accurately understanding biblical teachings. Being different within the Adventist community because of what is viewed as a non-biblical perspective likely doesn't resonate with the typical Adventist experience of being unique because of holding dearly to Scriptural teachings.

I think Hanson makes a good point about the cultural antagonism between the gay groups and conservative Christians. The Miss California episode is a prime example. So if the Christians are constantly made fun of and called names by these gay groups and leaders there appears no area of compromise. We certainly don't notice a kinder and gentler attitude from the public gays towards conservative Christians. Since Christians have thousands of years of Christian history and tradition on their side I doubt gay antagonism will help anything. It does seem to me that the conservative Christian side nas been far more tolerant of late while the gay activists far more abusive and intrusive.

The question is in the Adventist church how does the broader respective antagonism play out? It is definitely in the minds of those involved in the Adventist church.

Ron

What I find fascinating about this thread, is how clearly so many of the responses to the original posting, simply illustrate its point.

I've wondered if, sometimes, Christians' responses to homosexuality is based more on their membership in a dominant culture than their adherence to the Bible. (Similar, say, to how American Christians, in the distant past, used Bible texts to justify the continued enslavement of another race. )

That is to say, how much of Christians' response to homosexuality is originally and perhaps unconsciously determined by the dominant (ie, hetero) social culture's visceral response to homosexuality? The lessons of slavery tell me that it's not too difficult to find a few texts to support a stance that may, overall, actually be quite unbiblical, by considering a few texts without the larger context of the message of the entire bible in its great wholeness. Like a pointillist painting, where examination of a small area shows tiny single brushstrokes of purple, but the painting as a whole is a much, much larger palette of image and meaning that is completely subverted by focusing only on the tiny vertical brushstrokes in one square micrometer of surface area.

I don't know---but I do know that moral judgment of my brothers and sisters in Christ, is not mine to make. If judgment is called for, it's God's judgment to make.

Poetry Rocks...I thinky you've responded well to the topic at hand. It seems many of the respondants here are still arguing over whether or not it's okay to be gay. The post wasn't about whether it's okay or not, but what the response of the church should be to its gay members.

The conservative Christians invoking the name of Miss California here as away to feel persecuted are the same people that are still saying that we gay people have no place in the church, unless we stop being gay. So far the response is the same, and that is, "You are not good enough to be part of our membership".

I understand the dilemma when two groups are using the same words and speaking different languages. I am a gay man. Whatever conservative church members have to say about it, or whatever they say the bible says about it, it doesn't change the fact that I am gay. But the difference is, I look at being gay as part of my identity, they look at it as a sin that I need to repent of. How can I repent of my identity? How can I repent for having blue eyes or preferring cats over dogs? It's essentially the same thing to me. And I guess to the church in general, my homosexuality has become an unpardonable sin, since I cannot repent of something that I dont' see as sin.

So if I see it as my identity, but the church sees it as sin, where does that leave me? Are my prayers less valuable now? Is God lying to me when he tells me he loves me as I am? Is there no place for me in the institution?

On that last question I have realized there is an answer. There is no place for me in the Adventist church. As an honest man, I am unwanted. I am wanted only if I pretend I am something I am not. In other words, I am only wanted as a liar.

As an Adventist with gay friends, I believe that it is important to love the sinner but not the sin. Each an every person is a loving creation of God, but as was mentioned earlier, we are born with tendencies toward sin. We can put any new age spin on the issue and try to quote science or try to say that the bible only dealt with the perception of the age it was written in, but in the end all we have to do is read Leviticus 18:22 and it clearly says..."'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." This clearly states how God feels about homosexuality.

Jamie,

God does love you very much, but if you tie your identity up in something he considers a sin and you hold on to that sin and are not willing to give it up, then he will have to turn his back on you. If that sin is more important to you than God and you are unwilling to turn away from it, it will eventually separate you from God. As christians, we find it difficult to know how to love our fellow christians who are homosexuals because the bible tells us that we shouldn't associate with immoral people and that is why you feel as an outcast. I am truly sorry for the way you feel.

Will we look back one day in the future and see how we judged those who were different? The Jews of their days thought the Samaritans were dogs; that all non Jews were pagans, and beneath them; that slavery was condoned by the Bible; that patriarchy and women's submission to men was God's will.

When we cling to the societal conditions that prevailed during Bible times, we are unable to move past and be able to speak to the world today. Eliminating some as sinners, allows us to brush off our clothes and look upon them with disdain just as the Samaritan looked upon the robbed man. With God there is no distinction; it is man that separates. "If you have done it into the least of these, you have done it unto me." The way you treat the outcast is the way you would treat Christ if you believe that saying.

"The Bible doesn't address "dispositions,propensities and proclivities" it addresses in the NT what is appropriate behavior for those "growing in Christ.""

How true, how true! Too bad there are professed Christians who insist that overtly and deliberately acting out the lifestyle of a sinner, that of an active homosexual of lesbian, is perfectly OK. Not so. God is dishonored when His professed followers attempt to avoid calling sin by its right name and condone, yea even encourage, violation of Scriptural injunctions.

We know that sexual sins are sexual sins, heterosexual or homosexual, no matter by whom committed. The intellectuals in Spectrumland can never make right what God in His Holy Writ has condemned.

Check out this link. I was reading comments on here last night and knew that I had read something that spoke to all that is being discussed here. I just found it again this afternoon. The Bible defines many sins, among them homosexuality, but thankfully through confession, repentance, and the Grace of Jesus, we are forgiven.

Christine

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

Christine and others
Anyone who has looked into this issue should understand that who we are physically attracted to, comes from a variety of sources--some genetic, some pre-natal, some post-natal but at an early enough age that for most, this is not a conscious decision on their part. I did not have to think about who I was attracted to from an early age and I suppose you did not either. In the same way, most homosexuals do not decide consciously which gender they are attracted to. There may be some differences with genders as to possible factors but in most cases, it is not a conscious choice but something they are from a very early age.

Your link only focuses on the genetic aspect that may be a factor with some but apparently not all. Just as many other posts have stated, as we understand epidemiology better, as a church and society, we should also change our behavior as well and not maintain a static response based on early society's response. How much of what was written in the early bible is God's word verbatim? Versus how did we see Jesus deal with "correct" biblical behavior such as leprosy and stoning prostitutes and adulterors as well as many other commands. Do you take all the statutes in the Old Testament as the way you live or just pick and choose which ones you feel still apply? What is your basis of doing that? Assuming your name reflects the fact that you are a female, as a male I should say you are totally out of place daring to write in this forum of mixed genders and I should not listen to what you say--based on Paul's writings.

I truly believe that God gave us intelligence and the gift of the Holy Spirit to allow us to make decisions based on current understanding. Inspiration did not end with the Bible writers and should not be a static process IMHO.

Correction to above--if it is a process, it is not static by definition. LOL

Hansen:
Actually I have hundreds of "dogs in the fight," although I certainly wouldn't refer to them that way. When homosexuality comes to have a beloved face, it is impossible to see it the way one did before, when it was impersonal. I'm thankful that God sees each of His gay and lesbian children as individuals and understands what they have been through, especially the trauma inflicted by their brothers and sisters in God's family.

You may feel that "troglodyte" and "cretan" are words that correctly describe Miss CA's questioner; I still maintain that they do not belong in a courteous discussion, such as is desired on this blog.

Ron said:

"The Miss California episode is a prime example. So if the Christians are constantly made fun of and called names by these gay groups and leaders there appears no area of compromise. We certainly don't notice a kinder and gentler attitude from the public gays towards conservative Christians. Since Christians have thousands of years of Christian history and tradition on their side I doubt gay antagonism will help anything. It does seem to me that the conservative Christian side nas been far more tolerant of late while the gay activists far more abusive and intrusive."

Hmm, I believe it started with the Christians telling their young people, who were raised in the church and loved God, that they were an abomination and there was no place in the church for them. After being hated, condemned, rejected and persecuted, is it any wonder that gays don't feel much affection toward their former Christian brothers and sisters? Some of the things said in this blog put the lie to your suggestion that Christians are more tolerant lately.

And finally, mr:

The word in the "Holiness Code" of Leviticus that has been translated "abomination" or "detestable" is really referring to a state of uncleanness or impurity, similar to touching a dead person or sitting where a mensturating woman has been seated. It does not have the same meaning that we attach to it today.

You also told Jamie that he is holding on to a sin by saying his identity is homosexual. Do you not identify as being heterosexual? That simply means that your attractions are toward those of the opposite sex. Do you not realize that some people are born with an attraction to those of the same sex, and just as you could not be attracted in a physical way to the same sex, they cannot be attracted in a physical way to the opposite sex. Whatever you may believe about same-sex behavior, surely you can understand that a person has no choice over the way he is born.

Jamie,

Thank you for sharing your experience honestly and courageously. I hope that you will continue to speak up.

The thing that will ultimately bring change (as I've said before), is probably not the findings of the scholars so much as the honest testimony of our sisters and our brothers.

Your experience is a very valuable one--particularly for this conversation, and I appreciate your sharing it!

Mr,

The Greek OT of Leviticus 18 uses the same word to describe homosexuality as is used in the expression "abomination of desolation." Those who practice abomination will be excluded from the New Jerusalem. Abomination is also used with reference to the so called "whore of Babylon" in Revelation 17. The Strong's number is 946. As I understand the passage in Revelation 22, practicing homosexuals would be excluded from the Lamb's book of life.

Re 17:4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations <946> and of the unclean things of her immorality,
Re 17:5 and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS <946> OF THE EARTH."
Re 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination <946> and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Another refutation of homosexuality is found in Romans 1:24. Homosexuality is there described as "impure" or "unclean." The Strong's numbering system has assigned #164 to the Greek word. It is used several times in the NT:

Mt 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness <167>.
Ro 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity <167>, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Ro 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity <167> and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
2Co 12:21 I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity <167>, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.
Ga 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity <167>, sensuality,
Eph 4:19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity <167> with greediness.
Eph 5:3 But immorality or any impurity <167> or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
Col 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity <167>, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
1Th 2:3 For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity <167> or by way of deceit;
1Th 4:7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity <167>, but in sanctification.

Yes, I am a GAY Adventist!!

I am "gay" in the most traditional sense of the word.

I am a happy Adventist. Like everyone else I struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil. But I am happy that Jesus, by His Holy Spirit can help me live about earthly attractions and help me live life in the most fulfiling way possible.

I really enjoy fratanizing with other sinners who acknowledge that they were born in a mold that was twisted and broken. Such people do not demand that I accept their particular sinful struggle as righteousness.

I don't know whether to label a GLB orientation as an inherited or cultivated orientation. To me, this is beside the point. I don't even anticipate that those with such an orientation will necessarily be totally healed of such a tendancy to sin.

If I were an SDA with a proclivity to steal or if I were a chronic liar, I would not parade myself in the church of God as a STEALING Adventist or a LYING Adventist. Why then is the term GAY Adventist a term of distinction?!

The Apostle Paul indicated that there are things that saints don't mention.

Carrol, Do you think that you are the only one with connections to the gay community that are other than impersonal. My "connection" to the community goes back more than 40 years.

The town where I grew up had the distinction of being home to the Hog Farm, one of the original hippie groups of the sixties. It also hosted people with connections to what have turned into the Mexican drug cartels, going back to their early days. Throw into that mix an Italian family, who operated a family business. That business was a place where middle aged men of Italian heritage without visible means of employment loafed about duing the daylight hours.

The son of that Italian family was a homosexual, a predatory one. We all knew him. He was not marginalized because of his sexual proclivities. He associated freely with many of the young people in the town. To be honest, he once protected me from a sociopath who came into my home with a loaded .357 and made threats against my life. So I have no grudge to bear against him.

I only learned recently that this Italian friend of ours seduced one of the members of our social group. The young man later married and has been in a heterosexual relationship most of his adult life; nevertheless, in his younger years he fell prey to the lusts of a predatory homosexual.

Have you become the arbiter of proper discourse regarding homosexuality? Perhaps in your own mind. Ms California was persecuted by a gay activist, not for bashing the gay community or even judging them. She was persecuted for simply saying that she was raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman.

How were your children raised? Did any of the parents who post here raise their children to become homosexual or with a view to them marrying a member of the same sex? I doubt it.

Would you like to see your children denied the things to which they aspire for simply describing how they were raised? Obviously, if brutish individuals have their way, they will be.

mr. Unless you are actually keeping to ALL of the rules set forth and Leviticus (and I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you haven't killed anything in ritual sacrifice lately), then maybe you shouldn't quote Lev 18:22 as the reason God is displeased with me.

My identity isn't "wrapped up" in being gay, but being gay is certainly a part of who I am every bit as much as being straight is a part of who you are (assuming you are straight...we've seen enough examples of people condemning homosexuals who later turn out to be gay to know that it isn't an isolated phenomenon). I simply don't believe that being gay is a sin.

Jared, I'm not sure how much I'll continue to post. I find most of these conversations difficult because the two sides represented see these things in such a profoundly different way from each other that productive discussion is near impossible. When one side sees being gay as a sin, they can harp about how sinful it is and about the need for repentence, and about why they can't welcome us in their churches all they want, but it won't make us straight. If it could, it would have already because almost everyone of us have prayed desperately that God would make us straight.

The good that can come from people like me commenting is if some poor gay kid comes on here and realizes that it isn't ALL condemnation...that there are some people who realize that they are who they are, that change is highly unlikely for them, and that they can still be loved and valued. Maybe not by the church, but certainly by some people in it. And some of us don't think that being gay is a sin at all.

Hansen, the upset over the beauty contest is just ridiculous all the way around. The judges ask all of the contestents questions and base their judgement partly on their answers. She was absolutely right in stating what she believed. All this nonsense of her being denied her free speech is just fear-mongering. She was allowed her free speech, and said what she truly believed. Good for her.

That said, one judge, based on what HE believed, didn't want to vote for her. There were probably others he didn't vote for because of things they mentioned too...since someone has to win and someone has to lose, clearly they don't all vote for everyone equally. He was in his right to make his decision based on how he felt just as much as she was right to state her opposition to the equality of gay people in a non-theocratic society.

And for the record, Perez Hilton HARDLY represents the entire gay community any more than Fred Phelps represents the entire Christian community.

Being gay is not the sin -- it the "practice" of homosexuality that is forbidden by clear Scriptural injunction.No matter how much one may try to deny the Scriptural prohibition it's there and succinctly stated no matter how much quibblers promoting the practice may wish to deny it.

Jamie,

Certainly know, that you are not alone. I too am uncomfortable with the tone of those that judge and condemn. I want to think and believe they mean well but they certainly can't realize how hurtful and alienating they are.

Take a break from these posts if you must- I do too sometimes. But please return; your perspective and opinion is very appreciated and valued! There are many of us in the "Christian straight community" (ugh labels!) that do not believe that being gay is a sin! We are all God's children! Loved and accepted unconditionally!

Addendum to previous post: There are many of us in the "Christian straight community" (ugh labels!) that do not believe that being gay &/or "the practice of homosexuality" is a sin!

Your Friend,

Well said!! I should make absolutely clear that I believe what you say.

Being gay is not a sin. It is a particularly unfortunate part of some people's sinful condition. To believe otherwise begs the question of why so many practicing gays loathe themselves and the way they are.

But may God help us if we affirm any gay lifestyle!!

Dear Jamie,

Let me state right up front:

1. I have no difficulty with you realizing who you are.
2. I also have no difficulty with your believing that change is highly unlikely for you.
3. I want to love and value you.
4. Being gay is not a sin; however it is a particularly unfortunate part of your sinful condition.

5. However, living a gay lifestyle that follows the weaknesses of the flesh is a sin.

there are some people who realize that they are who they are, that change is highly unlikely for them, and that they can still be loved and valued.

Peter, I respect your right to have your opinion. I simply disagree with your points 4 and 5.

You really think that the gays who loathe them selves do so because they are "practicing gays"? You seriously don't see how the church has contributed to that self-loathing FAR before they were ever "practicing"?

I know many practicing gays who are NOT self-loathing...and there are more all the time thanks to more and more people becoming enlightened to the fact that gays--even ones who sleep with other gays--are fine just the way they are. More and more of us realize that, despite the hate (often wrapped in the language of the love of a parent who just bashed a child in the face 'for his own good') that we are still worthy and valuable just as we are.

If we are to be saved, it will be by grace like everyone else. And frankly, I suspect you'll find a heaven full of gay people who are still as gay as they ever were, just like God made them.

Peter,

I agree with your #4 and #5.

From a person who has special people close to Him that are related to the issues and one who has his own sinful propensities in other areas.

regards,
pat

Peter and all,

Get over the gay issue and just love people for what they are. Gays are part of the human experience and God created all humans. No person would choose to be gay or as you think, would refuse a change if it were possible. Once one realizes he is who he is he has to make the best of his life, and no one else needs to meddle into another's life. Why a percentage of people are gay no one knows, but as good loving chritians we should respect everyone regardless. Companionship and sexual relations is part of being a human and a goft from God. Why would a creator give us these gifts equaly and then discriminate against a few for not feeting with the majority? To all, just love as Jesus did and stop meddling on someone elses life. Gays have always been here and will be in the future. Even adventist ones.

Peter wrote "However, living a gay lifestyle that follows the weaknesses of the flesh is a sin"

A gay life style? So, when heterosexuals do their thing, are they following the weakness of their flesh too?

That's where you all are wrong.You cannot and will not try to realize that a homosexual is not a heterosexual who is going against the tide. Gays are not heterosexuals who made a U turn and went the other way. They are (just as you are) God's created beings with a slight difference. The sexual side of that difference is a minor one. Can we dwell more on our similarities (which are so many) then on our differences? Please!

Correction, regarding texts in Revelation: Chapter 21 is the correct chapter, not chapter 22. Revelation 21:27 says that those who practice abominations, of which homosexuality is one, according to Leviticus 18:22, will not have their names in the Lamb's book of life.

No offense to anyone, but that's what the Bible, correctly interpreted, says.

I was looking at the recent comments scroll up... and saw this:

- The Gay Adventist Dilemma
- So, This Adventist Goes Into a Bar …

Don't know if anyone saw the humour with that.

Anyway, I don't want to be antagonistic, but I'll tell you what confuses me in this debate. Exactly what is it that I am being asked to accept?

I have had friendships with Gays, have worked with Gays, have gone to uni with Gays (OK it was a major secular uni). But I'm still homophobic. I don't know what is being asked of me, or what I'm meant to do about it.

If anyone suggest that I don't act loving and caring towards Gay people because they are Gay, then I am offended - because I truly try to treat everyone with love and kindness how I believe that Jesus would.

Am I expected to become non-homophobic to achieve what Jesus would do? Am I to accept the criticisms that I am not loving enough towards Gay people?

Chris, I think you're being asked to put yourself in a gay person's place. Imagine for a moment what it would be like if you lived in a world where the "normal," accepted, state was to be attacted to the same sex, and that it was considered sinful, unnatural, and an abomination to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Now suppose you found that no matter how hard you tried, how much you prayed, you were unable to be attracted to men (I'm assuming you're male), and found yourself still attracted to women.

Along with that, suppose you had grown up in a loving, Christian/Adventist home, and wanted nothing more than to have such a home yourself. Suppose you loved God and wanted to be an active, contributing church member, but there were a lot of church members who insisted you had "chosen" to be "perverted" and "wanted to have sex with women."

And suppose the others, who accepted the idea that you were born that way, said the only way you could be a church member was to give up all hope of ever having a family of your own, and to spend your entire life in celibacy. And even then, you wouldn't be allowed to serve in the church, because you would be a "bad example." (Just as a reminder, Adventists consider the celibate Catholic priesthood to be an abnormal lifestyle. And we have all heard stories about the difficulties many priests, even in a supportive, religious environment, have with this requirement.)

Suppose you heard this verdict when you were a teenager, when your sexual desires were at their peak, and when you and a girlfriend who shared your "proclivities" had fallen in love and wanted to spend your lives together.

How would you want to be treated in such a scenario?

Jamie,

Thanks for the clarity of your thinking and writing. I trust that I have been as clear and forth-right as you have been.

I once was the pastor of a church in country X where one of the elders was homophobic in his sermons even though he knew that one of our fellow church members had a son who had died of AIDS because of his gay lifestyle.

This was certainly distasteful in the extreme.

To suggest that active gays are fine the way they are, is equally distasteful.

Ed,

You advise me and all who feel with me that the gay lifestyle is condemned Biblically to get over it and just love people the way they are. I wish I could get over it but it is people like you who keep it on the agenda.

Further you inform us that in your thinking, "Companionship and sexual relations is part of being a human and a gift from God. Why would a creator give us these gifts equally and then discriminate against a few for not feeting with the majority?"
In the country where I live now, the informal name for the male organ is "chili pepper" and two peppers just do not fit together. It seems to me then, that there can be no sexual relations between them. Further, God said (in terms of couple relationships) "Be fruitful and multiply." He didn't say, "Have fun and be sterile."

You state your position very clearly, Ed.

Ed, earlier I stated my belief that whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture thing is really beside the point. The only question of real relevance is as follows - "Is a gay lifestyle a work of sinful human flesh, and if so does my God expect me to live above it with his help?" All of humanity is subject to sexual temptation!!

I'm imperfect, I am not casting stones. If opening in dialogue in this issue is what is wanted, then this in my first attempt, and I am trying to be open and honest. I feel this is an issue that a lot of us have been happy to bury our heads in the sand.

I fear that imagining in this hypothetical is not going to be sufficient for me to understand the plight. But I will let you comment on that adequacy - after hearing my thoughts out.

The first part, asks me to imagine being in the other persons shoes - with regards to their desires. My homophobia makes that difficult. But you have changed that to align with my heterosexuality, so I don't need to think about that. Then, being taught that the attractions I felt were different, and even worse "unacceptable" - I can't imagine the amount of guilt.

The closest I can come to in this part of the scenario in my experience is my fight with pornography. This is considered normal by the world, but unacceptable in an Adventist framework, which teaches me that it is not acceptable by God. As I struggled through said formative years with this issue - with the associated torment of guilt, strangely mixed with public acceptance and even parents turning a blind eye. Perhaps you could argue that this is unequal comparison. But in terms of me trying to relate - that is all I can offer in this reality. I still have a weak tendency towards that, and I always fight this with Gods grace. I construct a mental barrier towards it, even though it is against my natural desires.

I can't relate to falling in love first, and then finding out later when it is too late, that my love is taught as wrong. The closest I can come to here are the cruel rejections that we face as teenagers - that our desires can not be met. A fundamental difference here is that I have been told that my feelings were natural.

So, I need to somehow put into the same box, both the guilt of pornography along with the rejection of teenage crushes, to try and simulate a model that I think you want me to feel. That's the best I can come up with on that one.

The next bit is about a loving Adventist home. I have to continually prop up my mental wall against my pornographic tendencies in order to maintain the loving Adventist family that I am father of now. I can't relate to having both my desire and phobia being able to prevent it though.

Your scenario also requires me to have desired something that is fundamentally different to the loving Adventist home that I might have grown up with. This fundamental difference, I have no way to relate to - it's kind of an error in your model, because one would think that they could see that fundamental difference before it was too late, as you suggest actually happened. To believe that they didn't see this fundamental difference in family structure, challenges the idea that they have formed their orientation already. I don't know what to make of this really. It is also scientific reality that I am fighting against wanting to make a family, I would have to realise that adoption etc would be required, thus highlighting a fundamental difference between what I wanted, and the natural family model.

So, apart from that, I would be torn between my desire for a loving home, and my sexual desires. Actually, I can see that it is more than just being torn between them. There might be a phobia standing in the way of me having a loving home as well.

If it was just the sexual desire preventing me, then idealistically I would choose the loving home and sacrifice my desires. But that would be inexperienced idealistic thinking, as we do in our youth, because I also imagine that there would be an extremely difficult ongoing battle that follows - even worse than my current fight with pornography, because at least in my life, I still have a loving wife who I am attracted to.

The alternative to sacrificing my sexual desire would be to sacrifice my desire for a loving home. I can't imagine being able to make that decision. I can only guess that this would be terrible. I accept that I probably fail in imagining your scenario at this point.

I can't relate to this part really, I can only provide a listening ear. I understand that phobias can be overcome, but I think if it were me, then these mutually exclusive desires would tear me apart. I imagine that I would develop some sort of coping mechanisms, maybe some not as healthy as others as well? That is just me trying to imagine what I would do. I am not making any judgements on that.

Serving in the Church. There are two issue you present me with here. One is celibacy, the other is wanting to continue to practise a lifestyle that the Church teaches against.

As to the lifestyle issue, I can only vaguely relate to this, via alcohol, or sexual promiscuity, pre-marital sex, pornography and other lifestyle factors that I have to deal with in my life, to practice what the church preaches. These however, I accept that we do not place so core to our identity as our sexual orientation. Most of us take this for granted, and I see that others have it forced in their face. So I struggle with understanding this one to the depth that you are asking me to.

Would I want to continue in a lifestyle that the Church was rejecting? If that part of my lifestyle was more important to me than the church, I would have to choose which one to sacrifice. So, I would choose to see that one of them is wrong. I could choose that my lifestyle is wrong, and become celibate. Or, I could think that the Church that I want to serve is wrong, that it has made a grave mistake with this issue.

Am I being asked to believe that what the church teaches is wrong in this area?

In your scenario, I would like to think that I would choose the celibate path, as you posed this as a possible option. I can't imagine thinking that was a possible option, but I guess some do consider that. There are some good reasons to allow celibates to serve in the church, e.g. Paul, in 1st Cor. 7.

Finally, I can recognise a lot of pain in what you are telling me. I believe that God feels all of our pain, and we are to love one another. It seems that my ability to put myself in those shoes is severely limited. I am very sorry for not being able to do exactly what you have asked of me.

This is my understanding...

Something is right and wrong because God says so in His revealed Word.

Where something is not specifically/explicitly revealed there is "liberty" and latitude in interpretation.

That is why sex is pure, fun, wholesome and fulfilling in the parameters God allows and created for us. That is why beastiality, adultery,homosexuality etc...is wrong...simply because He says so.

Possessing Faith in the Christian faith is accepting the above principles...because God says so and it isn't "rocket science."

If not, I have faith in my own understanding and desires as being ultimate truth and desire to live in autonomy against what God says/reveals is true and acceptable behavior...REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. This subject or any other.

There is "Black and White" and there IS grey. There is "revealed" danger in calling "evil good and good evil."

regards,
pat

Chris, thank you for your honesty. What are you being asked to accept? That's probably a big question, and maybe I'll answer it in a story of a conversation that happened at my former church.

The discussion was about gay people and whether they should be allowed in the church. A woman who was divorced and on her second marriage said, "We have to draw the line somewhere". I answered,"Why can't we let God draw his own lines? Surely, He's capable"...and then I went on and said something I maybe shouldn't have. I said, "If we are going to start drawing lines based on what the bible says, then anyone who has been divorced and remarried should not be allowed in the church either. Jesus Himself, who said nothing about homosexuality, condemned such a relationship as adultery, so if you are drawing lines, then remarried couples should be on the outside as well."

For the record, I think remarried people should be allowed in church. And I think gay people should be too (though I feel no need to go, myself). I think what is essentially being asked of you, Chris, is to leave my sexuality between God and me, and just love me as a fellow human being. In fairness, then what is being asked of me is to leave your homophobia between you and God and jsut love you as a fellow human being too.

For those who bring up lying, stealing, and pedophelia as a comparison to being gay, I understand where you are coming from growing up in a framework where homosexuality is put on par with all of these things. Outside of that framework, however, it is not. Lying hurts other people, stealing does too, and pedophelia can easily ruin someone's entire life. Consensual adults engaging in same gender sex does not cause other people suffeing, (except in their own minds when they burn with hatred for us). That is a major difference and why I can call those other things 'sin' while knowing that homosexuality is not.

Jamie,

Thank you for this opportunity. A few answers I see.

1) Just treat and accept gay people as any others. I believe I do this already. So I believe that I have answered your response to me.

2) But in earlier posts, your comments to others suggest that I should accept that our moral framework is mistaken. That homosexuality is not a sin, and that the church is wrong for teaching this.

3) Then there is the implication that we should support gay people in promoting homosexuality is not a sin. Which if true, is a worthy cause, because of the injustice done by the church, and the damage it has done.

I can't get to step three, without passing step two. That is my dilemma.

So yes, what appears to being asked of me, is very large indeed. When you say to just leave it between you and God, are you really asking me to realise that my moral framework is unjust? I find that a strong personal challenge. One that I will pray about.

Pat Travis wrote: 'Something is right and wrong because God says so in His revealed Word.

Where something is not specifically/explicitly revealed there is "liberty" and latitude in interpretation.

That is why sex is pure, fun, wholesome and fulfilling in the parameters God allows and created for us. That is why beastiality, adultery,homosexuality etc...is wrong...simply because He says so.'
___________________________________

"God [also] says so in His revealed word" (Leviticus) that a man touching a woman during her menstrual period is an abomination and that both of them must be cut off from their people; that all adulterers and disobedient children shall be stoned to death; that planting two kinds of seeds in the same field or wearing a garment made of two different fabrics is an abomination. It seems like the church won't have anyone left if they start killing and/or excluding all the people that God's word says in black and white are abominations!

Jan, you illustrate how selectively Scripture is used: Every one of us has likely committed abominations as you described above. How many have never worn clothes containing cotton and polyester or cotton and linen? God said that was an abomination.

Chris you asked:

"Am I being asked to believe that what the church teaches is wrong in this area?"

Has the church never been wrong, or changed 180 degrees? There are many doctrines and beliefs that even the SDA church has changed. One particular, is mentioned above: adultery is spoken of in the Bible as sinful. Yet, if you know no one who has been divorced and remarried and is still a good church member, maybe even an officer, you have a church of "perfect" saints. It must be very small.

When Paul said it is better to marry than burn, he wasn't speaking of desiring a home life, but the control of sexual desires. Which is a very poor reason for either straight or gay unions. The desire to love and be loved, to have someone you can share life's burdens and joys with is an innate human desire. Can anyone deny that God gave humans this desire? To relegate anyone to a lifetime of celibacy in order to honor God is the same reason for celibate priesthood and we know how successful that has been.

You over generalise again to try and make your point.
Extramarital affairs are appropriate grounds for divorce.
Do you personally oversee divorces in your church, knowing which are condoned and which are not?

Carrol wrote in answer to my statement:

--
Ron said:

"The Miss California episode is a prime example. So if the Christians are constantly made fun of and called names by these gay groups and leaders there appears no area of compromise. We certainly don't notice a kinder and gentler attitude from the public gays towards conservative Christians. Since Christians have thousands of years of Christian history and tradition on their side I doubt gay antagonism will help anything. It does seem to me that the conservative Christian side nas been far more tolerant of late while the gay activists far more abusive and intrusive."

Hmm, I believe it started with the Christians telling their young people, who were raised in the church and loved God, that they were an abomination and there was no place in the church for them. After being hated, condemned, rejected and persecuted, is it any wonder that gays don't feel much affection toward their former Christian brothers and sisters? Some of the things said in this blog put the lie to your suggestion that Christians are more tolerant lately.

--

So a woman asked a question about gay marriage who holds the same position as Obama and the majority of Americans should be called names because Christians have historically had the belief that homosexual sex is a sin? There fore it is Christians fault for having beliefs that differ from homosexuals. I am beginning to see, Homosexuals are right and everything they do is justified because anyone who disagrees is wrong and therefor abusive. Does that seem kind of far fetched? I guess not because you ended your statement by saying that people expressing their opinions on a discussion forum prove that Christians are not more tolerant lately.

Frankly it is that kind of misuse of logic that hurts homosexuals more than anything else happening now. People hear that kind of thing and they understand that there is no attempt on the homosexual side to understand the other side. It is rather like the gay activists that invaded churches on the East coast a couple years ago. They see people like the above comment where whatever the activists do is justified because they have been the minority for so long. And no responsibility for their own mistakes and foolish behavior.

Ron

Chris, I think I see part of the problem, and that is in your phrase "promoting homosexuality". No one is asking you to promote anything, just asking you to accept people as they are, which I suspect you already do. If a gay man, even an active gay man, stands at the front of the church, and pours his heart out in song to the God he worships, he is not promoting homosexuality or any lifestyle...he is simply singing from his heart to God. But many churches would not let a gay man with a partner do that because they believe him to be immoral. Worse, they try to get him to not be gay, and often that brings a lot of heartache, not just to the man, but to the woman he may end up marrying who doesn't know why she can't seem to make herself beautiful enough for her husband, and to the children they may have later who wind up as part of a broken home because dad finally realized that nothing was going to change him. Believe me, this happens time and time again.

You do not need to accept that your moral framework is mistaken. You just need to accept that it is YOUR moral framework, and may not be the framework in which others see things.

I'm probably not the best person to ask about this, because I have left the church, and I have left for reason having little (or maybe nothing) to do with my homosexuality. So I speak from memory of how I felt when I was in there. And my former church, many of whom know I am gay, welcome me with open arms whenever I come there.

The other thing I think gay people, Christian or not, ask of you is to leave your moral framework out of the political field. Allow governments to treat us equally...FULLY equally under the law without fighting to keep anti-gay legislation on the books, or pro-gay legislation off the books. I'm lucky, I live in Canada and am considered equal under the law in all ways. I used to respect my church so much for their stance on keeping church and state separate, but during the Prop 8 battle in California, it seems our church dropped the ball and started fighting FOR religious beliefs to be written into the State constitution. Gay people marrying each other does not harm straight people, or religious people in any way whatsoever.

Chris, I really do appreciate that you are trying to understand. And maybe you and I can never come to full understanding of each other. But I suspect if we lived close by we'd be able to sit across a table, each sipping a hot drink, and have a respectful conversation, and maybe even a friedship. And that's what's important, not you having to change your beliefs to fit mine or vice-versa.

Ron, I think you overstate and misrepresent the beliefs of the majority of gay people. I think you misunderstood something somewhere along the conversation.

Johnathan,

Congratulations on your courage to come out at PUC and taking steps to live your life with integrity and honesty. This is the greatest gift you can give your church and school community as well as the best way to assure your own emotional health. Don't listen to those who equate your sexual orientation to a proclivity that can be eliminated from your life if your church were just to stand firm against you or if you were just good enough to accept the fact that the wholeness of your sexual orientation is sinful.

Your piece shows that you are mature beyond your years and have a talent for written communication. Thanks for writing this article.

The practice of homosexuality is wrong for one reason only... it goes against the plan that God made for how human beings relate to each other. As a homosexual, I believe that for many if not most this orientation is not a choice. But because I believe in Jesus and accept that the world he planned and created has been messed up by sin, I believe that any lifestyle that contradicts his original plan is a lifestyle I cannot live. Sure, to be a homosexual and not practice it is difficult. Most people have a much easier time dealing with other sexual sin. But the difficulty does not give me a free pass to ignore the word of God. Sin is not fair. But it's still sin and should be resisted by Christians.

Daniel, you, and those who hold the same opinions should be honored in choosing the best course, but for yourself, and not others. It is for those who wish to impose their beliefs on others that led to this nation's honoring of religious liberty and freedom from religion.

It is nearly always the most religious folk who wish to impose their beliefs on others, rather than realizing that each individual must decide for himself what to believe about such very personal decisions. The Mormons believe theirs is the true belief; Adventists also believe that they have the truth; and this could be said of many other religious denominations. But to enshrine those beliefs in the civil laws is to bring religious beliefs into the courts which is against all our nation has stood for.

Churches may decide who they wish to become members. But, so far as is known, it is the local church which has the last word on membership as well as those holding positions within that church. Most of the larger churches, and perhaps others, do not question members on their lifestyles, whether they have been married or divorced, had an abortion, or have a same-sex partner. Should those questions be asked of long-time members, or prospective ones?
Why should only homosexual issues be questioned and many others that are SDA beliefs? There are very few who could affirm, with full integrity, to belief in all the 28 Fundamentals--even pastors have so confessed. So, for those who object to homosexuals "invading" their "pure" church, do you wish to be the one evicting them? Should they be allowed to attend and worship, sans membership? Have you found the church with no known sinners?
And is there a hierarchial list of sins on a scale of 1-10?

Ron: I was not defending the attacks on Miss California. I was simply saying that it was the followers of Christ who first said hateful and hurtful things about homosexuals.It is very easy for secular people to see the hypocrisy of Christians, who are supposed to be loving and kind to everyone, when they are the ones who show the most unkindness and hatred toward homosexuals.

Chris: I appreciate your honest efforts to put yourself in someone else's shoes. It's true that no one can really understand another perfectly; we don't even understand ourselves and our hidden motives the way God does. Maybe it's easier when you see the suffering of someone you love dearly, especially if that someone is your child.

You said: "idealistically I would choose the loving home and sacrifice my desires." There's one part to the scenario that I left out. Many Adventists believe that the best answer for homosexuals is to marry a heterosexual partner and just "suppress" their own sexual needs. However, I have listened to the stories of dozens of straight spouses - both male and female - and they suffer just as much. If you are a father, would you truly want your daughter to marry a gay man?

Pat: If you recognize that we don't live in a black-and-white world and that there is a big area of gray, why can't you recognize that we sometimes have to make the best choice we can, even if it isn't the ideal one?

And now, I think I've said all I'm going to on this topic.

Hi Carrol,

"Pat,...Why can't you recognize that we sometimes have to make the best choice we can, even if it isn't the ideal one?"

I do recognize that Carrol.

I also know and have experienced that if there is no "black and white" there is nothing on which to base "the best choice" when it comes to the gray areas. There indeed is an occasion for "relativism."

But...I can not think of many "gray areas" to say how one might vary from "man is not to lay with man and woman is not to lay with woman."

I also have not said that "there may not be pleasure in sin for a season and it may seem to us that something that seems so good can't be wrong" for there most definitely is "pleasure in sin" for a season...at least from my experience.

I've said about enough too Carrol on the subject. This subject really isn't my mission in life.

regards,
pat

Someone up tere was commenting on heterosexuals as being the ideal that God had created, because He ordered them to multiply, and not sterile people or homosexuals. Yet, we all know that sterile people are allowed to get married and to be in a relationship. Gays, because of a chosen misunderstanding by church members (as it is seeing here), are told they do not have a choice but to either go celibate or to go and marry in a not honorable forn, to marry a heterosexual partner (an innocent bystander) to make belive he is heterosexual. We are talking about practicing deceit instead of being who they really are. And many would approve of such decisions for it has happened time and time before. We hope others thinking of making such a mistake would realize it's not necessary to go in that direction. Being gay is a different state, but so is being black, and all the other differences we have in the world. Every one is given by God a chance at happiness, and in the search of such, we will be alright as long as in the process we do not hurt any of our fellowmen/women. One who grew up as a christian and gay will know how to make the right choices in the pursue of happiness, and that regardless of what others may think. After all we as individuals were not given by God any control of someone elses's life. Only I know what a complete life would be for me. That's why we were made as individuals.

The real Adventist gay dilemma is why are Adventists treating homosexuality as an identity? I'm appalled that our sexual orientation should be the determiner of our identity. The Bible is very clear that we are not condemned because of our sinful nature because Christ took away that condemnation when he died on the cross. It is the conscious and willful thoughts and actions against God's law that condemn us.

Thus, to have a propensity of sexual attraction toward the same-sex is not a condemning condition. It is when a man commits adultery in his heart with another man either by looking lustfully at him or engaging in sexual acts that he is then condemned by God's law.

The Bible is very clear that homosexuality (behavior), not a state of being or orientation, is not to be practiced. Paul said, "I die every day" (1 Cor. 15:31). Now if we died with Christ, we died to sin; how can we live in sin any longer? For we believe that we will live with Christ, because anyone who has died to sin has been freed from sin.

Our dilemma as Adventists is that we have fallen prey to the idea that a homosexual (state of being, or sexual orientation) and homosexual behavior are the same thing. When we can accept that our sinful nature is not what condemns us, but it is willfully and knowingly breaking God's law of love, then we can break down the barriers of self-righteousness, hypocrisy, and stereotypes. Then, we can begin to love as Christ loves and help each other to grasp hold of the transforming power of Christ. We do not have to be in bondage to our carnal nature. We can be free any temptation.

The answer is not to marry someone of the opposite sex hoping for some transformation. People cannot change their carnal desires or escape temptation without the power of Christ. I have read personal testimony of men and women who have been over-comers in Christ--getting the victory over their propensity toward the same-sex. Everyone is called to "be holy, because [God is] holy" (1 Peter 1:16). We all have a sinful nature, we all have sinned, but each of us struggle with different propensities. But we must be over-comers through Christ because "[t]o him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God" (Rev. 2:7). If we cannot let go of self and live in Christ's strength, then we are refusing the transforming power of the God of the universe by attempting to rationalize that our carnal desires can be fulfilled while claiming to walk in God's will.

So, Adventists, instead telling people how awful they are for what they are doing, should be pointing them to the true source of happiness, freedom, and wholeness. We cannot continue in sin and expect to participate in God's saving grace. God calls us to die to self and live in him, to sin no more, but if we do sin we have an advocate working on our behalf.

I cannot think of a single time when civil rights and liberties were expanded in history that the majority of people do not look back on and praise those who fought for increased freedom for the unprivileged or oppressed group. Most of us say to ourselves that, if given the chance, we would have been on the side of compassion and equality. Well, this is the chance for the modern church.

Ellen White and other early Adventists took a stand for abolition, even though a prevailing interpretation of the Bible insisted slavery was ordained by God. I fail to see how their struggle against that extreme form of white privilege is in any way different from our current struggle against heterosexual privilege. Both sides can use the Bible to "prove" their point, and it really comes down to taking a stand that is in keeping with the nature of God. When I think of issues of heterosexual privilege in that light, I cannot help but be on the side of love, free choice, commitment, and equality.

But unfortunately, we get bogged down in these discussions of "sin." I would define sin as that which separates us from God and is not beneficial/expedient/profitable as Paul says of sexual immorality in 1 Cor. 6:12. If someone finds a true, loving companion to be by their side in life and support them, thereby bringing them closer to the heavenly Bridegroom, that is not sin, nor is it immorality, regardless of gender or their physical expression of love. Neither their love nor love-making causes separation from God, but the judgmental, self-righteous response of the Christian community may be the wedge of sin. That's our sin as a church though, not theirs.

What surprises me is how many people take a few verses about homosexuality and go crazy, and yet still carry on wearing cotton polyester brings. The only thing that makes it better is knowing that God's wrath will be upon those wearing such sinful clothing, and they will have to answer for their abomination in the end.

?? 'brings'?? I meant "cotton-poleyester BLENDS", as I'm sure most of you have surmised.

Scott:

"Everyone who sins breaks the law; sin is lawlessness" and "[a]ll wrongdoing is sin" (1 John 3:4; 1 John 5:17). There is nothing "beneficial/expedient/profitable" about breaking God's law of love. We are commanded to "[f]lee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body" (1 Cor. 6:18-20).

Your definition of sin partially correct in that it separates us from God. However, in the next few sentences you void what you have just stated by saying that sex between two people of the same sex does not separate them from God. I offer you a simple syllogism.

Major Premise: All wrongdoing is sin (1 John 3:4)
Minor Premise: Homosexual behavior is wrongdoing (1 Tim. 1:10-11)
Conclusion: Homosexual behavior is a sin.

Yet, you indirectly claim that the minor premise is false, thus the conclusion is false. However, you cannot make any such claim based on the Bible because the Bible gives absolutely no support for homosexual behavior. Instead you seek to rationalize sinful behavior on the grounds that it is engaged in because of love. Tell me how true and pure love can be found in behavior that is a direct violation of God's law. Is it possible to love someone and yet do them wrong? Yes! If there is no change, then how can it be love?

Find a true, loving companion regardless of "gender" or "physical expression" to support you and that will bring you closer to God? In other words, what you are saying is that as long as you find someone who is loving and true to you that will be a support to you, that this will bring you both closer to God regardless of who it is or the type of physical expression. Your conclusion does not logically or biblically follow your assertion. Just because I find someone who loves me does not mean the relationship will bring us closer to God.

Do we come closer to God while embracing sin? No! We are to flee it. You condone what God has condemned and thus void his power to change lives.

The wreckless and irresponsible use of the Bible by homosexuals and their advocates should give any Bible believing Christian pause [so you are excused, Elaine].

Take, for example, the prohibition against wearing cloth made of linen and wool.

De 22:11 "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool <06785> and linen <06593> together. This passage is found among others which forbid the mixing of seeds in planting, animals in plowing, and tassels on garments.

Verse 13 moves into the issue of a woman's virginity, which takes on more gravity that the previous passages.

The only mention of abomination in these few verses regards confusion of the sexes in fashion. Verse 5 proscribes men wearing women's clothes. The Bible does not say that mixing wool and linen in a garment is an abomination.

On the other hand, the prohibition against a man lying with a man is in the midst of numerous proscribed sexual activities such as incest, bestiality, adultery, and so forth. There is a proscription against approaching a woman during her menses. Considering the company the passage keeps, it sounds like good counsel These things, all sexual in nature, most of which are eschewed by average people are abominations.

Anyone think having sexual intercourse with an animal is standard? How about sleeping with your mother or sister or various other in laws? That is the kind of company men lying with each other finds itself in.

The attempt to trivialize sodomy as the moral equivalent of beard trimming or mixing wool and linen requires savaging Scripture in a way that should be repugnant to those who consider it the word of God.

Jamie:

You are referring to Lev. 19:19b: "Do you not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." I assume you don't follow this; am I correct? In verse 29 it says, "Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute...." Would you agree that people should not prostitute their daughters? If so, on what basis do you disregard Lev. 19:19b and adhere to Lev. 19:29?

"I am appalled that our sexual orientation should be the determiner of our identity."

Truthfully, no one here had any part in determing his or her sexual orientation. Did you choose to be straight or gay while in utero? Did your parents choose your sex? Did you?

One's sex identifies that infant before birth when today the majority of parents know beforehand the sex of their child. They begin, unconsciously, thinking, doing, choosing names, colors, clothes, and even address that infant in their first words to it. Studies have shown that parents speak differently to a boy than a girl. It is impossible not for humans to be identified by their sex or orientation. It began long before birth, and none of us had anything whatsoever to do with it.

If you disagree, please answer the question: when did you decide to become gay? Or when did you decide to become straight? If it was not a conscious choice for the majority who are straight, how can you postulate that it is only gays who made such a momentous decision by thinking of the problems and advantges, or largely disadvantages, particularly in a Christian environment and yet still choose to be gay? That is preposterous.

Why are "other people's 'sins'" felt to be so abhorent, while ours are of less significance? The majority of straights posting here are so ready to condemn "other people's sins" of which they are not tempted. Yet, a physical and companship desire for straights has a proper goal, blessed and accepted by the church: marriage. For those who are gay, only a life of celibacy is considered sinless. If the shoe were on the other foot would you willingly concede to a celibate life--forever? If so, that should be their personal choice, but never demanded by the Bible. If so, where?

"You are referring to Lev. 19:19b: "Do you not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." I assume you don't follow this; am I correct? In verse 29 it says, "Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute...." Would you agree that people should not prostitute their daughters? If so, on what basis do you disregard Lev. 19:19b and adhere to Lev. 19:29?"

MY basis is that I don't consider any of it to be binding law, and so I do what makes sense based on my experience, and some degree of logic (sometimes). Logically, it makes no sense to be prohibited from wearing clothes made from to different materials. So I wear them. I don't adhere to Lev.19:29 at all, and yet I still would never prostitute my daughters. The bible has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with my reasons for not prostituting my daughters. I wouldn't do that because I love them and it would hurt them to be pushed into such a trade. That's not a sin because the bible says so, it's a sin because it causes real suffering to real people. Wearing cloth of two different types does not cause suffering to others, and so I do that.

To that end, making love to my partner also doesn't hurt others, so I guess I disregard Lev 18:22 for the same reason I disregard Lev 19:19.

I know there are some who believe the bible texts on homosexuality are only in the context of idolatry. I've read enough on it to know that the issues isn't as clearcut as it seems when reading translations of words that can have many nuances. And I've heard the arguments that the bible does not address homosexuality as an orientation, and I think there is a valid point to these arguments. However, I also believe the bible writers were writing with the same prejudice against homosexuality that many posters to this thread have. If they DID understand homosexuality as an orientation, I believe they would have kept their prejudices intact, and those prejudices would have been reflected in the things they wrote. However, I don't share their prejudice (though I did for a long long time).

If people are known by their fruits (ha! a pun!), then the fruits of denying and suppressing one's homosexuality are depression, addiction, suicidal thoughts, and a slow eating away of one's personhood...at least in my case. For me, the fruits of finally accepting myself as I truly am are grace, integrity, and the burgeoning of a faith I don't quite understand yet.

I think I got a little off-topic regarding the question that was posed. Oops!

Elaine:

I'm not suggesting that people who in engage in homosexual behavior chose their orientation, though we'd all agree that we all make a choice whether or not to act on our orientation. It was not my intention to communicate that at all in the sentence you quoted. Homosexuality by orientation comes from modern psychology. It may have been unknown to people in the ancient world. What they did know about were homosexual acts, and it is precisely that which the Bible forbids.

I don't think anyone is saying that homosexual behavior is more "abhorrent" than any other sin; however, we are talking about homosexuality in this thread. God's law is not partial: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10). We could talk about the sexual immorality, which is sin as well, among heterosexuals, but that isn't the topic of this thread.

Physical relationships between a man and woman in the context of marriage should be accepted by the church because God created marriage to be between a man and woman. Heterosexual marriages are not accepted because the church blessed anything; it's because God blessed it.

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19:4-6

Yes, those who are tempted with homosexual behavior, should lead a celibate life both physically and mentally as should those who are tempted with sexual behavior with the opposite sex. For the heterosexual with unnatural desires for so many women, there is hope. For the homosexual with unnatural desires for the same sex, there is hope. They do not have to lead a life of celibacy because of their propensity toward sexual sin. I know of heterosexuals and homosexuals that have gotten the victory over their sins through Christ and are leading brand new lives in Christ. They are no longer subject to their previous carnal desires. God has the power to change our desires. Don't you believe that?

1 Blessed is he
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
2 Blessed is the man
whose sin the LORD does not count against him
and in whose spirit is no deceit.

3 When I kept silent,
my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.

4 For day and night
your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was sapped
as in the heat of summer.
Selah

5 Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, "I will confess
my transgressions to the LORD "—
and you forgave
the guilt of my sin.
Selah

6 Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you
while you may be found;
surely when the mighty waters rise,
they will not reach him.

-Psalm 32:1-6

Carrol,

In the hypothetical, I tried to say that to marry and pretend to be something that I was not would have been a big mistake. I agree with you on that.

Jamie,

Thank you for understanding my difficulty. That is much appreciated. But, I think that when morality becomes simply yours or mine, then it is a slippery slope. You asking me to accept that my morality is right for me, while yours is right for you, leads to a strong dissonance. This can also lead to a path of hypocrisy, that I prefer not to take. At the same time, there is room for correction and growth in my understanding.

Elaine,

I acknowledge what you are saying to me as well. I don't deny any of that, and I try to take it into consideration.

Elaine, You ask about the time one decides to be gay. I can answer for another who decided to become gay when he went to the Drake hotel in Chicago. He called the Playboy club seeking information about a gay bar. His call was transferred to a man with a mustache, a bartender, who came to his hotel room and sodomized him.

We all make decisions. There was a song called Strange Brew which told people to "Do what's inside of You." Bad advice, although most of us follow it.

I thank God I'm not gay like other men.

For Christians, the overall commandment is to love God and love our fellow human beings. Everything must be measured by that standard.

There are plenty of verses in the Bible that we can look at, given our 21st century understanding, and realize that the actions or advice directly violate that commandment. Slavery, genocide, submission of women (though not all will agree with me on that one) are all practices that are supported biblically but we don't agree with now. Why? Because we see them in light of the greatest commandment and recognize that our understanding of what is loving has grown.

It is in direct violation of the NT that I refuse to submit to my husband. We are equal partners and he is the love of my life. Following the advice to submit to him would ruin our marriage. Some would argue that I am sinning by not taking my rightful role as presented quite clearly in the Bible. Sorry but I would argue that I would be violating the greatest commandment by submitting. It would give my husband a falsely inflated view of himself and give me a falsely deflated view. And to me, that is a worse sin because it violates the greatest commandment instead of violating a few verses.

Our understanding of the role and value of women has changed greatly since NT times and I can feel comfortable saying, "Sorry Paul but you were off on your views there." We can understand that following Paul's view can be even more harmful.

And so it can be with homosexuality. One must ask if some are violating the greatest commandment by insisting that homosexuals live a celibate life with no hope of ever falling in love and finding a life partner. This is really asking a lot and causes great distress and loneliness. They are insisting that others be unhappy and the church had better have a very good reason for doing so because otherwise it is certainly violating the greatest commandment. We are causing even more harm. And just as our understanding of slavery and the role of women has changed, so too, is the understanding of homosexuality.

We can see that certain practices by both homosexuals and heterosexuals are harmful and also violate the greatest commandment. But many are slowly coming to see that two people falling in love and being life partners is a positive thing and denying that based on a couple of verses also violates the greatest commandment.

(These threads are always a lot of fun!
They get long very quickly.)

You have to remember that Adventists are not the crusading type. We are very docile and prefer not to confront.

SDAs with same-sex attraction take the same tack (in the developing world).
For a host of reasons it is not wise to make it generally known that you have same-sex attractions in general--much less in a church setting.
You will almost certainly be told to "pray hard".

The general idea straights have here is:
"Why can't they be like the rest of us? I am! If I can, everyone else can do it."

I have given up on them in a sense because I am not quite sure they'll ever understand. I don't mean that in an exasperated way. I think that is probably reasonably true moving forward.

("Marriage" issues are laughable concerns from this vantage.)

This is also, by the way, why large swathes of people here dislike being pilloried into accepting "gay" as a political identity.

Straight people don't get those images from nowhere.

Carroll Grady said:
"I think you've hit the nail on the head, Jonathan! One would think - and hope - that those who have been on the receiving end of prejudice would be more sympathetic to others in that same situation. But when an oppressed group finally finds acceptance, it is more likely to join the oppressers than the oppressed. Who would jeopardize their new-found status by championing a minority? I see that especially in the Black community, as regards homosexuals (witness Prop 8 supporters!). I hear a lot of conversation about this among the gays/lesbians I know - voicing their determination not to repeat this pattern."

This is back-to-front.
Homosexuality has always been frowned upon by conservative societies. This statement implies that:

1. Blacks are now fully accepted.
2. Thus they have "begun" to "oppress" gays.

One would argue that number 1 is up for debate and point out that number two was always the case.

Secondly this ignores one of the most basic truths about the gay community: It. Is. Segregated.
Whites are on top (blonds especially) followed by Latinos and then Blacks. Asians are at the very bottom.
Latinos and Blacks are fetishized and otherwise ignored while Asians are almost erased.

What is more often the case is that minorities look for someone else to oppress in order to feel better about their station. In the case of Blacks, however, this is more a case of religious observance mixed with traditionalism. Black hold no views on gays that are strange to society. They hold to the majority view.

Here is my final post to all the ones who think of themselvs as superior to gay people just because you are heterosexual.

Pray hard that one of your kids will not ever come out to you as a gay person. If that ever happens, I fear for that kid, and this based on your stubborness represented here. But if you are a true loving person as you claim to be, God may give you the wisdom to finally understand this issue in a more clear and truthful way, as He gave it to Carrol. It's always easier to speak to others when you have not experienced the issue inside your own family.

Why can't Adventist go back to arguing about topics that we could get our mind around - such as whether women could wear pants or whether women could wear jewelry or whether women could be elders or whether women could be ordained ministers?

Ed,

This matter is a matter of conscience to me.

To paraphrase Martin Luther

My conscience is bound by the Word of God. If anyone can show me where I am wrong from Scripture I will change my position. But in the absence of such evidence, I cannot and I will not recant. So help me God!

Hansen, I'm not usually one to cut and paste bible texts. But when you said "I thank God I'm not gay like other men" it stirred a memory from somewhere...a memory of a prayer that was mentioned in the bible. I'll just quote it below and you can draw your own conclusions:

"The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

To any readers of this post I apologise if in this post I am repeating anything that has been said earlier but I am just not able to wade through the bile masquerading to be reasoned, reasonable thought. I find my temper rising and my Christian experience evaporating. My prayer is God forgive the bigots and give me patients. Unfortunately for now I am struggling with this and so have chosen to skip to the bottom without reading further.

I am a heterosexual male and have no understanding of homosexual desires but over the years have been confronted by the pain of people who have those desires. I have heard there pleading with God to remove those desires; to no avail.

I have read some of the posts that say the desires, or the tendency, is not the problem but that acting on that desire is the sin. My problem with that idea is; when does it become sin? As humans we have a very deep need for both love and physical contact. If a homosexual couple fall deeply in love but remain celibate is that acceptable? What if they abstain from sex but only hold hands? Is it alright if they kiss and cuddle but avoid sex? At what point does the desire become sin?

I think that too many easy answers are given by those who don't have the capacity to even understand the questions!

The practice of homosexuality is wrong for one reason only... it goes against the plan that God made for how human beings relate to each other. As a homosexual, I believe that for many if not most this orientation is not a choice. But because I believe in Jesus and accept that the world he planned and created has been messed up by sin, I believe that any lifestyle that contradicts his original plan is a lifestyle I cannot live. Sure, to be a homosexual and not practice it is difficult. Most people have a much easier time dealing with other sexual sin. But the difficulty does not give me a free pass to ignore the word of God. Sin is not fair. But it's still sin and should be resisted by Christians.
Posted by: Daniel (not verified) | 17 May 2009 at 4:13
-----------------------------------------

This is it for me, Daniel.
This is my situation and it is how I believe as well.

I also find it disheartening that those who call for dialogue are apt to know the least about the "other side" in a strangely ironic manner.

For example, when Jamie mentioned that he lived in Canada I was blown away. How could he claim that gay marriage has "nothing to do" with the church when he lives in a country where it is illegal to quote/preach from certain parts of the Bible in public?

Traditionalists rightly smell a rat. "Acceptance" means abandonment of the traditional position on the matter and nothing else; and people who hold to this need to be honest and say it outright. There is nothing "wrong" about this opinion. But when people talk about the "gay agenda" this is what they are talking about (even if they don't know it!).

Then too, on the topic of ignorance on the part of those who call for dialogue; it is shocking how simplistic and dated their position on the options available to same-sex attracted Christians are. I have seen this pop up before on this website and it is staggering.
They are still stuck fighting a phantom that is convenient because it is so simplistic--so easy to caricature.
For example, Carroll Grady implies that the church holds that the only option is celibacy. It is difficult to decide whether or not she really believes this.

But the real reason I think the traditional position must be eradicated from the public (then private) square is because as long as it exists it is a blot on the conscience of those who disagree with it.
To acknowledge that there are people who do experience "change" would undermine the idea that a homosexual orientation is a "normal variation" and that is what it is all about!
And so there are three stock responses:

1. They won't be able to do it for long (hence the glee at Ted Haggard etc.)

2. Maybe they were bisexual.

3. It won't work for me (arrived at mind you, with no knowledge of what "it" is).

Nobody who comes into contact with Jesus can avoid "change". The idea, though, that orientation change is important is a fallacy that people on both sides like to cling to.
But "change" is not the issue--that is left up to God to decide the nature of.
The real issue is surrender and obedience.

People who really want to be honest about the issue of the church/Christianity and sexual orientation would have already heard of and read people like Peter Ould:

http://peter-ould.net

And Warren Throckmorton: http://drthrockmorton.org

When you can articulate the "ex-gay" or "post-gay" position properly then the word "dialogue" will mean something. I think that the reason the world is becoming so much more rancorous is that someone has done extreme violence to our main tool of communication--language.

(Also, why are people mucking around in Leviticus? Leviticus is almost peripheral to the matter Biblically speaking. Traditionalists make this detour perennially. If only they would read as well.)

I hope Jamie will speak for himself on this issue but as a Canadian, I just have to correct the following statement by Trinidad:
"For example, when Jamie mentioned that he lived in Canada I was blown away. How could he claim that gay marriage has "nothing to do" with the church when he lives in a country where it is illegal to quote/preach from certain parts of the Bible in public?"

The following is the selected passage from Bill C50 passed in Canada that protects religious speech on this issue--please note section 3(b):

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

Hate crime legislation is there to protect vulnerable and often minority groups in society. It is sad that so called Christian and religious groups are ones that often are guilty of these infractions--but at least in Canada, their right to peaceably express their view based on the Bible or Koran is still protected.

Beth
I wish more Christians would have your views and I would definitely agree with your post. The world would be a much better place if more Christians had your perspective. I believe that is what we are called to do as Christians in a dying world--live a life that others take notice of--not because we are chastising them about their evil ways but because they can tell we are Christians by our love shown toward each other.

Donovan, you are correct, it is NOT illegal for churches to preach against homosexuality here. The idea that it is would be based on the fear-mongering that churches did while opposing gay marriage--the same fear-mongering that is going on in the States right now where opponents of gay marriage claim to be opposing it based on the belief that it will inhibit their freedom to teach against it...which is entirely false.

Now, if they are accepting public money and discriminating against gays, that's another matter altogether, and while they claim their freedom is trampled on, it is not. They are perfectly free to stop accepting public funds and continue to discriminate against gays.

Jamie and/or Donovan, who is Stephen Boisson?
Could you explain his case to me in light of what you just said about Canadian law?

Last fall, an Alberta human- rights panel decided that a letter by Stephen Boisson published in the Red Deer Advocate violated provincial law because it was "likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt."

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=749b...

He was fined and ordered never to talk about it again in any medium.

I have read some of the posts that say the desires, or the tendency, is not the problem but that acting on that desire is the sin. My problem with that idea is; when does it become sin? As humans we have a very deep need for both love and physical contact. If a homosexual couple fall deeply in love but remain celibate is that acceptable? What if they abstain from sex but only hold hands? Is it alright if they kiss and cuddle but avoid sex? At what point does the desire become sin?

I think that too many easy answers are given by those who don't have the capacity to even understand the questions!

Posted by: Courtenay (not verified) | 18 May 2009 at 10:47

Good questions.
If one considers the love of a man and wife in their later years, (read post sex) do they love each other less?
I dont think so. Why is it that male female intimate love fades over time?
Basically its the hormones. Sure many couples last longer in the physical aspects but it still can be attributed to hormone levels.
So when is it sin? If one was to go by a reading of the word the salient passage would be where is talks of laying with another man (or woman). Other places it talks of a holy kiss in the affirmative.
On a purely intellectual level, if I was so afflicted, I would request some of the chemical they give to sexual offenders to ease their sexual desires. This would seem to have the benefit of making your relationship into more one of the ones we would discribe as later in life relationship.
Castration would be another option, physical or chemical.
The average person has no idea how many heterosexual and homosexual men are already using this treatment in the control or treatment of prostate cancer.
No one considers the treatment inhumane or torturous when used for cancer. Why would it be any worse for helping to control certain desires?
What do you think? I know for a fact many men have tried everything they could think of to help free themselves on this issue. Would it be worth trying?

Michael
Interesting concept--sanctification by drugs or surgery. Not sure that is what Christ has in mind for us though.

As far as above comments by others: if we are avoiding sin by not actually completing the physical act then how does that work with the idea of sin as elaborated in the Sermon on the Mount--"You have heard that they were told, "Do not commit adultery." But what I tell you is this: If a man looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Just wondering.

I am very thankful that we have a merciful God that determines our fates and not a committee of the "self-righteous".

Michael, You might want to consult JH Kellogg regarding apparatus he believed to be useful in managing lust
The above link is to a device similar to one Kellogg might have used.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/objects/display.aspx?id=49...

"...My problem with that idea is; when does it become sin? As humans we have a very deep need for both love and physical contact. If a homosexual couple fall deeply in love but remain celibate is that acceptable? What if they abstain from sex but only hold hands? Is it alright if they kiss and cuddle but avoid sex? At what point does the desire become sin?
I think that too many easy answers are given by those who don't have the capacity to even understand the questions!
Posted by: Courtenay (not verified) | 18 May 2009 at 10:47
---------------------------------------------------------

Let's see if we can modify this:

"My problem with that idea is; when does it become sin? As humans we have a very deep need for both love and physical contact. If an adulterous couple fall deeply in love but remain celibate is that acceptable? What if they abstain from sex but only hold hands? Is it alright if they kiss and cuddle but avoid sex? At what point does the desire become sin?..."

These questions are irrelevant to the matter at hand really. It's the sort of thing that is indicative by nature as it exposes a sort of misunderstanding of what sin is all about.

If "sin" is just a bunch of rules that we must follow then we will quickly become lawyers like the Pharisees:

"It is for the temple!"

"Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?"

Why, how close can we get to the border without actually stepping over it? That is the same thing as sin, because the desire is cherished above all and one has no understanding of the gravity or the seriousness of the matter at hand. Nobody can get to heaven with such an attitude (i.e. "What can I get away with? If I push my wife, did I really hit her?")

Sin is a state of the heart. A state of rebellion. It is not about legal nitpicking. Many people would have done many good things for evil ends and end up you-know-where.

http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/10/01/are-815-in-any-sense-graceful/

A person with a heart to run from sin would not think those questions are substantive.

"On a purely intellectual level, if I was so afflicted, I would request some of the chemical they give to sexual offenders to ease their sexual desires. This would seem to have the benefit of making your relationship into more one of the ones we would discribe as later in life relationship.
Castration would be another option, physical or chemical.
The average person has no idea how many heterosexual and homosexual men are already using this treatment in the control or treatment of prostate cancer.
No one considers the treatment inhumane or torturous when used for cancer. Why would it be any worse for helping to control certain desires?
What do you think? I know for a fact many men have tried everything they could think of to help free themselves on this issue. Would it be worth trying?
Posted by: Michael | 18 May 2009 at 5:50"
----------------------------------------

Please be serious!
No wonder gays and lesbians have no use for people who suggest these things.

I tend to agree with Donovan here:

"Michael
Interesting concept--sanctification by drugs or surgery. Not sure that is what Christ has in mind for us though."

Michael,

You asked about when does something become sin. I think it was Luther who said something like, "You can’t stop the birds from flying over your head, but only let them fly. Don’t let them nest in your hair."

As for your suggestion. There were a few times the thought occured to me that I would be better off castrated than fall to the tempation of pornography. I would do this to myself before suggesting it to others. Did you ever watch a movie, and not get stimulated? Lust is lust, we all have it.

Donavon,

"I am very thankful that we have a merciful God that determines our fates and not a committee of the "self-righteous"." Amen to that.

Jamie,

Please forgive me for my self-righteous comments. The way I drew attention to "my" issue, was selfish, and I am sorry. I like to belive that none of this would stop us being friends either.

I wouldn't classify it as sanctification.
Think of it as a physical response to help nullify a given problem.
If an alcoholic lived right over a bar, then perhaps some hypnotherapy to buttress a resolve would be the same thing.

Are you saying, chemicals to reduce hormone levels wouldn't affect the amount of thinking about sex?

I read a direct effect on sexual thoughts and drive, in-fact it is that very function that is shown to be of benefit to those using that treatment in the sex offender programs.
Like Na'aman, some wont do a simple thing like wash in a dirty river, even if it would help them. Are you suggesting one shouldn't even try?
Perhaps that is the difference. I would choose to try something, anything and others, how do you say, want their cake and eat it too?

Chris, you didn't come across as self-righteous here at all. Many here DO, but it is clear that they lack understanding of this dilemma. Many who disagree with my point of view, though, do NOT come across as self-righteous, but as people, like me, trying to find their way the best way they can...people, like me, who think they are right, but acknowledge that they could be wrong.

I don't think a healthy person, with a healthy sense of who they are would EVER opt for castration, chemical or otherwise. I think that is really only an option for those who have been taught through years and years of conditioning to hate who they are..then it might offer them some relief, but it won't stop them from hating themselves.

That's just my opinion.

People choose it all the time and it has nothing to do with what they are.
My father was basically chemically castrated in his fight with prostate cancer. He was a bit more emotional but not a different person.
My grandfather was given a small dose but not like the amount my father took because he got it much younger.
Who you are is not who you want to have sex with.
Years after WWII Japanese soldiers were hiding on remote islands. Did they suddenly want to have sex with males because they changed who they were?
As long as one perceives their self identity is primarily expressed in their sexual orientation they will be dysfunctional.
This is true whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual.
Heterosexuals who define themselves in terms of their prowess with women and keep counts are equally dysfunctional.

Stephen Boission was enjoined by the courts to desist in voicing his opinions on homosexuality PUBLICLY. He is still free to state his ideas privately AND to do so within the confines of his church. Even though churches are open to the public, they are nonetheless private spaces.

"Like Na'aman, some wont do a simple thing like wash in a dirty river, even if it would help them. Are you suggesting one shouldn't even try?
Perhaps that is the difference. I would choose to try something, anything and others, how do you say, want their cake and eat it too?
Posted by: Michael | 19 May 2009 at 12:03"
----------------------------------------------------

Michael, if you believe that "washing in a dirty river" healed Naaman then you may not even be a Christian at all?

Other than that, I am glad the Gospel releases us from "trying".

"Stephen Boission was enjoined by the courts to desist in voicing his opinions on homosexuality PUBLICLY. He is still free to state his ideas privately AND to do so within the confines of his church. Even though churches are open to the public, they are nonetheless private spaces.
Posted by: carole (not verified) | 19 May 2009 at 3:58"
---------------------------------------------

carole you could not be serious.

This is what we call violence to language. I am still hoping Jamie or Donovan could explain this in light of their statements.

Thank you Jonathan for your courageous piece. As a gay student at PUC I know that there are many, including myself, who appreciate your honesty and struggle.
I have been following this thread and notice a trend in the posts that outline text after text of Biblical mandates clearly showing that homosexuality (practice or state) is a sin. Very rarely (although I do acknowledge some posts) is there a mention of any attempt to understand or use Biblical passages which ask us to love others as we love ourselves along with the obvious texts on the subject of homosexuality.
As much as people want to say that they "love the sinner but hate the sin," more often than not, in the instance of homosexuality, that abhorrence of that particular sin overrides any love for humanity. This results in a exclusion or demeaning behavior towards homosexuals, something quite ironic when the argument that homosexuality corrupts morals is considered.
A young Adventist may be deeply involved in their church, love God with all their heart, give of their energy and time to the church community, and be an exemplary Christian while struggling with homosexuality. What is the probability that acceptance and love towards said person will continue when he or she admits to homosexual feelings? Not very high. I am not trying to say that works is what makes a person church- or God-worthy, far from that. But we cannot ignore the stigma that comes with being a homosexual Adventist, regardless of being a "practicing one" or not.
I have mentioned before that people who "thoughtfully" point us in the direction of texts which show homosexuality (practice and/or state) as a sin, and do so many times with pejorative words, do not stop to think that it is real people, with struggles just like them, who are the recipients of these words. How many times are these texts accompanied with passages giving peace? And to those who point out that sin should be addressed and never ignored, how many times have you gathered texts which address your gossip, pride and selfishness and asked God to help you? A prideful elder or gossiping Sabbath school teacher is rarely handed a list of proof texts and asked to reform before being able to continue in their position.
I am not making these comparisons to say that homosexuality is something that can be reformed from; but for those in the church who make the claim that it is a sin (in practice and/or state), I will paraphrase and ask that you please remember to take the beam out of your eye before seeing the beam in mine.
I thank God for the Adventist sisters and brothers I have found which have lovingly shared their opinions on both sides of the matter with me. The struggles I have and the decision I am personally in the process of making, pertaining to permanence in the church, is benefiting greatly from these God and humanity loving individuals. These people have not simply approached me with "evidence" of my damnation, but also with evidence of the power of Jesus Christ over my and every other sinner's life (and I must clarify that I also have people who have shared biblical guidance for God's acceptance of me AND my homosexuality, while stating that we still all fall short and need God's grace... thank God for you too).
I welcome your opinion, just like you welcome my respect. May we continue to discuss this matter with the grace and love of our Savior in our hearts.

"What is the probability that acceptance and love towards said person will continue when he or she admits to homosexual feelings? Not very high. I am not trying to say that works is what makes a person church- or God-worthy, far from that. But we cannot ignore the stigma that comes with being a homosexual Adventist, regardless of being a "practicing one" or not."
----------------------------------------------

That is our cross to bear. I have given up on that aspect, because you simply can't make people like you.
This is what Kinship should have focused on rather than strained and obvious re-interpretations of plain texts that won't fly in a traditional church with tight doctrinal reins.

As to why people keep bringing up the same texts all the time there are two reasons. One is that some people want nothing to do with homosexuals whatsoever and see texts as a way to keep them at arms length.
The reason specific to Spectrum discussions is that these texts are routinely re-interpreted right here to mean the opposite of what they say in plain English (and Greek and Hebrew apparently).

Not even Bishop John Shelby Spong believes in these re-interpretations because they are clearly results-driven and strained at best.

I don't usually address them because we keep going around in circles all the time over them and because I think the idea is more about repeating something over and over in order to convince oneself about its truthfulness as well as to get it out into the public domain so that others might adopt it.
I remember this new position on old texts used to be heavily qualified ("might have", "could have referred to", "possibly") but now all qualifiers have been dropped and we are simply informed for instance that Leviticus refers to pagan pederastic temple practices. (This appears nowhere in the text or history. These pagan rites are neither described nor named.)

This appears to be quite a bold-faced coup to me but when people protest proponents are not shy about using emotional appeals to beat back their opponents ("Why can't we love and accept people for who they are? Who are we to judge their sincerity?") Such manipulative tactics are not Christian but furthermore I cannot understand how they expect to leave Europe and North America with that approach!

If you come to Trinidad and insist that David and Jonathan were "lovers" it would be greeted with laughter and subsequently be called satanic.

But then I'd likely be told by people who would otherwise pine about America's respect for countries and cultures abroad; and people who would otherwise be concerned about ethnocentrism and American arrogance that we are backwards and undeveloped nations who'd better be grateful for American tithe money.

Trinidad, I will try to respond as best I can to your questions about Stephen Boisson. I know little about the case, so keep that in mind.

First of all, the letter he wrote that got him in so much trouble is here: http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/

Reading through the letter, I find it full of outright lies, and lies meant to scare people into believing that gay people are maliciously trying to recruit children into their ranks and turn heterosexual children into homosexuals. I'd say that is hate-mongering and lying at it's worst. What is dangerous is that he believes his own lies, and makes himself a martyr for them. It reminds me of a quote I once heard: I'll paraphrase..."Good men can do good things, bad men can do bad things, but it takes religion for good men to do bad things."

However, the Human Rights Commission in Canada has it's own credibility problems. It's an entity that has gotten out of hand in that it operates outside the actual law, and there is very little people brought before it can do about it. It is an institution in Canada that was started sincerely to help those whose rights have been trampled, but has generated into an institution that seems to make arbitrary decisions on stupid minutae. It needs re-vamped in a big way.

Was Mr. Boisson wrong to write the letter? I think so, given that it's purpose is to incite fear of gays. Does it incite hate? Who knows...I suspect it incites hate in those who already hate gay people. Should he have been forbidden to spread fear and hate in a public forum? I'm not sure. These are questions that I, too, wrestle with. I am afraid that if we deny him free speech, even if it is hateful, then what is next? Whose free speech will be taken away later? And how does his lies and manipulations of the facts differ from the many newspaper writers with their own biases in prejudice?

In short, I do not know where to draw the line on this one, and I am uncomfortable with the Human Rights Commission's decision in this case.

I also want to add that the Stephen Boisson case has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether it is okay to be gay, whether gay people should have equal rights under the law, or whether the church should or shouldn't accept gay people. It is a separate issue altogether.

"Good men can do good things, bad men can do bad things, but it takes religion for good men to do bad things."

Think of all the evil in this world that has been done in the name of religion. And all the Bibles that have been used to hit people over the head. It is just such use of religion and the Bible that has produced an ever increasing group of agnostics and atheistics.

Ignorance of history contemporary with the Bible is constantly displayed. Attempting to clothe it in modern dress does not change the fact that people lived under very different rules when the Bible was both written and much earlier when the stories originated. Slavery, polygamy, child sacrifice, temple prostitutes, and later Roman pederasty was not only common but thought to be a higher form of love that the married elite regularly pursued.

Was polygamy EVER spoken against? Is it not possible that incest was practiced at one time? That David and Jonathan were not lovers? Whether intimate or sexually should make no difference unless one believes that love is only expressed sexually. If so, then all heterosexual celibate folks are dishonoring God by: inability to be fruitful and multiply, or love of another same sex is only a "sin" when there is physical intimacy. Which is it? We do know that the Bible says that David's love for Jonathan was even more than love for a woman; and with David's many wives was he solely heterosexual?

Should we use an ancient book with rules that are foreign to our modern world and yet still try to adapt SOME, but not all of them to our world today. The use of two different materials in our clothing is almost universal today. Are we all creating an abomination by so doing? Why not? Are they no longer appropriate?
If so, why are some of the other rules given by God still appropriate today? Who made such decisions?

Elaine as regards the OT "rituals" being demanded of the gentiles we do have a NT guide...
"Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."Acts 15:27-29.

regards,
pat

It appears that the APA has changed it's stance that there is "considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality" (2). This statement was first printed in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" in 1998. This has been omitted in the current brochure and now reads:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors" (1).

1. http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
2. http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

In the second link listed above, the consensus was that sexual orientation was not a conscious choice.

If one is unable to choose either his sex or orientation, why is there such a stigma placed upon people who cannot possibly change either?

Elaine, It may be that polygamy was not such a bad idea, after the fall, which is why it was tolerated in OT times. Although some of the patriarchs were not polygamists, David certainly was and so was Solomon. Yet David is not at all condemned for his conduct. On the contrary, he is taken as an inspired writer of Scripture who enjoyed the special presence of God in his life. It is recorded that the only time he fell from completeness with God was in the matter of Uriah.

Considering the ruin marriage has been made today and the resulting assault on young children, which, in many if not all ways is much more injurious than an abortion, perhaps polygamy is not such a bad idea.

The ideal of a man and a wife has not worked well. Can't say that polygamy would either; however, like witching for a well, why not give it a try, when you're dry?

If gay sodomy is ok, why not a few wives?

"My Son, Beloved Stranger" by Kate McLaughlin (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1995) was a real eye opener for me on the subject of homosexuality.

The back of the book reads, "How would you react if someone you knew disclosed that he or she was homosexual? Or perhaps you already know someone in your church, at work, or even in your family, who is gay. My Son, Beloved Stranger shares the real-life drama of a family rocked to its foundation as it confronts homosexuality. As Kate wrestled with the dark possibilities of her son's lifestyle, she found a way to accept and love him as a person. As understanding replaced anger, and unconditional love overruled the urge to reject, Kate and Danny took courage in God's promise, "I will never leave you, nor forsake you."

It's a must read for those who have not walked in the shoes of the homosexual.

Shirley

Elaine:

There shouldn't be a stigma placed on anyone. However, I'd have to disagree with your assumption that people are unable to change. With the APA backing down on its stance of genetics playing a significant role in sexual orientation, there is, what I think, reasonable room for change to occur. Not mention we have evidence of people of have actually changed.

Shane's article touched my heart because I too am a gay Adventist.

I disagree with Shane on one point. Most gay Adventists are not hiding in the closet anymore. They are walking away from an impossible, judgmental religious community!

Many of you have pointed the finger of judgment in your responses to Shane's article. Many of you speak of something you only *think* you understand and want to ignore the knowledge of those who have dedicated years to studying this issue. And I'll dare say those who speak the most negatively very likely do not have or know of a gay person in their close family.

My answer in return is this. How have you ministered to "the least of these" as Jesus commanded? Why are you so judgmental when Jesus commanded "judge not"? Are you not sinning?

You interpret the Bible inconsistently as has been pointed out. Are you too hard hearted to acknowledge that?

Just one answer specifically. Being gay is about far more than sex! Pardon me, but many of you are showing your ignorance as you judge harshly.

Every year that goes by I find it harder to remain an Adventist and wonder why I still am. I live in fear of other Adventists who seek me out and try to drive me out. As a highly respected Adventist college president said, "I have never known a group of people who wanted an organization so bad when the organization made it clear they did not want them" [referring to gay Adventists].

The only answer I have is my faith. Jesus was rejected and acquainted with grief. So are many gay Adventists. And Jesus is our hope. I know He understands. He has made it clear that He has always loved me and preserved my Christian faith. Since coming out God has blessed and lead me in amazing ways! I have no doubt that He has lead me all the way and that His tender mercies are my guide.

God has worked miracles in my life and that of my partner that have been amazing! I will not recount them here because we are afraid of many of you and others like you.

Please, people. Let God be the judge! Have enough humility to acknowledge that perhaps there is much you don't understand. Pray that you will know how to be Christlike to Adventists who find that they are gay.

My special thanks to Shane, Alexander, Jared, Elaine and others like you. My special love and thanks to Carrol who has ministered to my partner and me for more than 12 years and become like family to us. There is a special crown waiting in heaven for Carrol who we believe is truly one of God's saints! And there will be a long line of gay people in heaven who will come to Carrol and thank her for comforting them on their difficult earthly journey.

I'm not going to use my real name here because I'm afraid!

I think self avowed gay Adam should have won "American Idol."
I also like Elton John.

Both are great artist...give credit where credit is due!

pat

Dear Mr. John Young,

I appreciate so much your heart felt cry. I wonder, like the college president, why you want Adventism? What does your faith have to do with it? You certainly don't need Adventism to be a Christian. In some ways, it may actually hinder your spiritual development.

Be a Christian. Win a soul for Jesus. Share your faith with others. Give Bible studies, study the Bible yourself. Do whatever the Spirit leads you to do.

You do not need Adventism. As far as you are concerned, it is a toxic organization.

Mr John Young,

I am a GAY Adventist in the most traditional meaning of the term, meaning that I am happy.

I am also a dedicated heterosexual though for 3 years I lived a celibate life here in Korea while my wife was still living in Australia. On one ocassion I didn't see her for about 18 months. Talk about jangling hormones even for my portly middle-aged self. To make matters worse I lived on the edge of a 'Red Light' district in a large Asian city and had to traverse through there every night after work for one year.

Yes, I don't know what it is to be homosexual. I have no answer about homosexuality and the nature/ nurture controversy. I anticipate enjoying heaven with many celibate homosexuals and some that have changed in their sexuality.

I honour those happy individuals that remain celibate. Jesus can give you victory over the most extreme temptation that will constantly assail from within and from without.

I ask only 3 things of 'gay adventists.'

1) Please allow the church to reclaim the term 'gay Adventist' as a reference to happy Christians.

2) Please believe that through the power of God you can indeed live a celibate life.

3) Please believe that the church at large and the bulk of it's church membership see this issue as a matter of conscience. With apologies to Martin Luther, (and I paraphrase) -

"My conscience is bound by the Word of God. If you can prove to me through the Scriptures that homosexual practice is sanctioned by the Word of God, I will believe. Otherwise, I cannot and I will not recant."

(Unfortunately, while I acknowledge that biblical scholarship on this issue is divided I have personally seen enough evidence to believe that the Bible does indeed speak again monogamous homosexual practice).

Hansen, you say I do not *need* Adventism? Do you have children? If you disagree with them do you tell them that they don't need to be Hansens?

Adventism is a family. That is not a concept unique to me. I'm a sixth generation Adventist. I count among my ancestors one of the first pioneer Adventist ministers in the Northwest. My family is related through marriage to many other prominent Adventist families including the Folkenbergs, Hardinges, and Vendens. My grandparents were prominent Adventist administrators. My parents were Adventist missionaries. I worked in Adventist higher education for 21 years after spending nearly 18 years in Adventist schools.

Do you really think it is easy to be rejected by your family?

Mr. John Young,

If you are a born again Christian who lives each day by faith in the Son of God, divesting yourself of Adventism should not pose too great a problem. If you are merely a cultural Adventist who wants your social set to embrace homosexuality, then you are going to have a great deal of difficulty.

I once visited the home of a gay man who had a small place in the Hollywood Hills overlooking the Sunset Strip area. One wall of his place was glass, looking down on the city below. Most of the room, a studio, was taken up by a large bed. On the wall at the head of the bed was a large reproduction of an old painting of St. Sebastian, gazing wistfully to heaven, his body pierced through by several arrows.

If you like the thought of being pierced through by numerous arrows, that's your own affair.

John:

Is there another Shane you are referencing? As far as I know I'm the only Shane blogging on this thread, but I didn't write any article. By the way I'm a sixth generation Adventist as well. I figure my kids will be a perfect shoe in for heaven since they'll be seventh generation--ha ha, my attempt at humor.

Peter,

Whether or not I am celibate is not your business or anyone else's. God knows. I have not acknowledged that otherwise. I am a private person. I will not ask any of you about your sexual life or lack thereof. And I believe that is how people should respect each other. Too many Adventists have a purient interest in whether or not other Adventists are sexually active. I live with a partner. Our large home has four bedrooms plus a sofa bed in the library. Which bed I sleep in, whether anyone else sleeps there, and whether I am sexually active is not the business of any church member or official!

No one owns the term "gay Adventist". Gay Adventists won the legal right to use the term "Adventist" more than twenty years ago when the denomination wasted thousands and thousands of dollars going to court about that. They lost. Besides that, *I* am a happy Christian!

God said it was "not good for man to be alone". I know that Paul acknowledges that celibacy is a gift and a gift rarely given.

Conscience yes. Adventism seems to have moved from a church on a journey in its early years to a church with only answers. Many members are more interested in judging and "conscience" than they are about compassion. And what did Jesus say about those? Read Matthew 25 and you'll learn who will be saved.

Apologies, Shane. Jonathan wrote the article. Please excuse me.

Mr J Young,

A very poor response indeed.

Bravo, John!

It should be no one's business how we live our very private lives. The very idea of questioning anything about how
we live in our homes reeks of the Gestapo and worse.
For those who claim to be Christians to do so is doubly worse.

If declaring one's private life is required for any members of the SDA church, who has seen that, or is to be the 29th Fundamental?

John!

Excellent post! I second Elaine's "Bravo"!

Ah Elaine

There is the rub. The issue is not private lives but public endorsement of an active open homosexual lifestyle. Rather than "acceptance" they are demanding affirmation. It is quite obvious that the Church is not about to grant or sanctify such open behavior. We are all sinners, but we seldom flaunt our sin--The Church still insists that an active gay lifestyle is sin. Thus, the impass. Being churched is not the same as being saved or savable. Why should a gay person insist on trying to make people uncomfortable with their open lifestyle?

Salvation is in Christ alone, not in membership in any institutional setting. I say to any gay person, if you enjoy the SDA worhsip service, by all means attend and participate. Keep your sex life at home, the rest of the congregation do. If you sit in my pew, I will sing with you, pray with you, listen intently with you and shake hands with you. I will encourage you to return and wish you God's speed on your weekly rounds of work and play. I will not inquiry about you private life and I expect that you will refrain for inquirying about mine. Acceptance yes, approval a long way off. Tom

Jonathan,

It seems there's nothing like a "gay article" in Adventism to really get the hornets buzzing. There's really no dilemma, though, I have found. Just follow the path of the pioneers, accept Present Truth and Come Out of Babylon, with the emphasis on "come out." History has already shown the falseness of many basic Adventist beliefs, so it should come as no surprise that this is just another of them. And the more obvious it becomes, the more angrily the hornets buzz. There's nothing that gets the dander up faster than to tell an unwelcome truth.

Mr J Young,

It was Cain who first suggested that it was not his brother's keeper and therefore he had no business inquirying into his private affairs.

Isn't it ironic, Tom, that a thread on homosexuality could bring us together? Your above post is that of a true Southern gentleman.

Well, I stayed away for a while, but after reading the latest comments, Ihave to answer a few of them.

Peter Marks: Really?! Three whole years! And not only that; as a happily married man you were tempted by living near a red-light district! What about a gay man who loves another gay man, but you would condemn him to a lifetime of celibacy. Not exactly an across-the-board comparison, is it?

Hansen, you are absolutely heartless. Apparently a family doesn't mean much to you, if you can cavalierly suggest that John's attachment to his church family is merely cultural.

Tom, one question: Do you sit with your wife at church? If a gay couple were to sit in your pew, would you consider that bringing their sex life into the church, or are you making assumptions about their private life? I guess that was two questions.

Sorry about the sarcasm, but sometimes I get tempted to respond in kind.

I have just spent the last hour reading this thread.

I am gay. A third-generation Seventh-day Adventist who became a former Seventh-day Adventist.

I married into a heterosexual relationship, and was blessed with two wonderful children . . . who, after I came out, consider their father a sinner and going straight to hell. I was divorced a decade ago.

The closet is one hell of a place. Triple locks on the door. Homophobic religion, and being an active duty officer in the homophobic military, and then an employee of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

I found SDA Kinship (and the blog Kinnet) truly by accident in 2004 as I was intensely searching the internet for what the Bible truly said about homosexuality. SDA Kinship was a link on another Christian gay website.

It never ever crossed my mind to Google "homosexuality" and "Seventh-day Adventist" because I truly thought those words would never be found in the same sentence. And I had been a faculty member at PUC for 5 years prior to that!

The books by John Shelby Spong were refuges of sanity and safety. The Unitarian Universalist Church was a haven of acceptance and affirmation.

But it was this past January, when my gay friend in Belgrade, Serbia and I started to read the Bible, again, for the first time, using the Harper Collins Study Bible (New Revised Standard Version with excellent footnotes) and the Queer Bible Commentary (Edited by Deryn Guest, Robert E Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohache; SCM Press, London, 2006 [ISBN 0-334-04021-3]. In this reading, this "first-time" experience, it was "first-time" because we were reading from the critical-approach rather than the canonical-approach. I found the Queer Bible Commentary by accident. Because of this experience, I will never be able to read the Bible again in the way that used to read it within that literal, canonical paradigm.

In the chapter on Genesis, the Queer Bible Commentary gives a perspective of sexuality in Genesis:

It reflects an ancient Near East/Mesopotamian world where gender and sexuality are constructed as a hierarchical continuum based on penetration.
Men are the ones who penetrate and they stand at the top of the hierarchy. Below them are the women and below women are eunuchs, female virgins, hermaphrodites. At the bottom are the monstrous -- penetrated men and penetrating women.
... within this hierarchy male-female reproductive sexuality was privileged. Family (but not the nuclear family) was crucial to the ancient world, and reproductive sexuality was understood in agricultural terms of seed and soil - the male sows the seed and the female is the field in which the seed is transformed and from which it is then brought forth.
... while a man might accumulate many fields (agriculture and wives), a field can only have one owner. Women are bound to one man to raise up children for him. A man is not bound to one woman and is free to sow his seed within or without marriage. Nevertheless, he must recognize the proprietorial rights of other men over their women. Adultery is always a crime against the husband, not the wife. The Queer Bible Commentary. Editors: Deryn Guest, Robert E Goss, Mona West, Thomas Bohache, SCM Press, London, 2006 [ISBN 0-334-04021-3]

Those patriarchal stories in Genesis have totally new "takes" when understood in that context.

The story of Sodom is not a story of homosexuality. It is a story of the humiliation in the most demeaning way of the dominate penetrators against a stranger within their gates with no inherent civil rights. A similar, and in some ways, even worse story is in Judges 19, the raping and murder of the Levite's concubine to humiliate him. And prior to that, an equally horrifying story of the rape/murder of King Eglan by God's judge, Ehud.

This commentary will be explicitly offensive to the conservative Christian . . . for it reveals a cultural paradigm that is an anathema to the sanitized "My Bible Story" mindset of the Adventism in which I grew up.

But for the serious seeker of the story behind the story, this commentary provides one epiphany after another.

For me, it was the understanding of sacral war. The "Divine-Warrior." The "ban" or spoils that belonged to the Divine-Warrior . . . the reason for the total annihilation, the genocide of conquered peoples. The story behind those horrid stories of Joshua and Judges. And what sexuality had to do with most of that.

And the "traditional marriage," of which fundamental Christianity so sanctimoniously espouses, is a marriage arrangement that is abhorrent to 21st century progressive sensibilities.

Same-sex relationships are the story behind so many of the stories in those historical Hebrew narratives.

"Patriarchs and Prophets" and "Prophets and Kings" (Ellen G. White) was not based on contemporary scholarship. And to say they were a divinely-inspired dictation by God himself is to hobble one's understanding.

It was not easy to walk away from one's church and religion. My family was jarred horribly when I came out. My mother, bless her heart, is gradually understanding. She is TRYING HER BEST to understand. My children . . . and grandchildren . . . with them ... I must re-enter the closet of deniability of my very personhood. I will not do that anymore. I cannot do that anymore.

The wonderful story of Ruth is a story of constructing alternative family . . . of living a new life within an old paradigm of family structure. Of same-sex love. Of same-sex relationship. Of same-sex family. Of ways to still procreate. For the story plainly says that the child of Ruth and Boaz was Naomi's son. And is an exemplar of the family structures that many gay and lesbian folks establish, with or without the legal protections of civil marriage.

Someday, my grandchildren will understand. They live in Massachusetts . . . they have classmates from diverse families . . . but they are told their grandfather is going to hell.

And so some of you ask . . . "Why in hell would I be stupid enough to choose this! To bring this on myself?"

As if it was some silly, irritating choice that I made one morning. Let me see, will it be Cheerios or Oatmeal today? And just for the hell of it, I'm gona be gay!

But there were times when I cried passionately, cursed vehemently, prayed my heart out.

And now I know that being gay is a gift. A gift that is given to only a few of us.

And that it means leaving old, established relationships, as painful and hurtful as that can be.

And forming new family. New relationships. New connections with the spiritual.

And although I no longer consider myself a Christian, I experience a connectedness with something that transcends that.

And the mis-understanding by fundamental Christians, steeped in the literal, canonical reading of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, brings on a sense of frustration and sadness for me. And yes, as I was reading many of the posts above, the gut feelings of righteous indignation.

I sense that I can no longer even carry on a conversation with fundamental Christians. Our paradigms have become so divergent.

I still have never Googled "Seventh-day Adventist" and "homosexuality."

Somehow I sense that the hits that would surface would just be a litany of reasons why those words are incompatible.

Like some of the "gay" stories in the Bible, the protagonist leaves the traditional home . . . for a new life. [The story of the flaming queen Joseph with his coat of many colors, his leaving the rural country side, is liberation in the big-city, is but one example.]

Circumstances were such that I too, had to leave my home, and in a sense my family . . . and the religion of my birth.

I now read the Bible in a new way, a "Queer" way, that opens one new and affirming inspiration of things spiritual.

And provides support for me with the alternative family structures that GLBT folks find ourselves in.

Again, a warning to fundamental, canonical-readers of Scripture . . . The Queer Bible Commentary will infuriate you. It has the potential to destroy a faith that is based on literal inerrancy. But it can also awaken you and enrich you in ways you might not even imagine.

It is not only gay people that emerge from closets.

Sometimes fundamental Christians can emerge from that confinement as well.

Kenneth James
kdjamesrd@msn.com
http://therefectorymanager.blogspot.com/

Carol

Betty and I lived next door to a lezbian couple for over 18 years. We had them in our home, and we in theirs. I have helped them with their plumbing, their yard, the pool, fence, They were not church people, but we would have owrshiped with them. So I don't get either your question or your sarcasm.

I merely stated that both the SDA church and the gay community are making impossible demands on the other. I am very willing to let God be the judge.

Our local pastor was "straight" but that did not prevent him for "coming on" to the wife of the head deacon. We accepted his confession and his resignation, we all agreed that he would be more comfortable in attending a difference church of the same denomination. I believe in calling sin by its right name and sinners by their first. Tom

Carrol,

Let's assume that I do have a son who is serving a protracted prison sentence. Of course, like every other inmate, he believes he got a raw deal.

As you know, some men, in prison, take a "wife" for themselves, from among the other inmates. They do this for various reasons, among which are prestige, the ability to exercise power over another, and in some cases, for financial gain.

I would counsel my son to treat his prison wife with respect and to not rent him out to other inmates for financial gain. In addition to the health issues, there impresses me as something especially evil about pimping out a weaker, more helpless inmate, for the debauchery of others.

There have been lawsuits filed against the prison authorities for allowing inmates to indulge in what amounted to a sex slave business. In one particular case, if I recall correctly, the rentee was infected with HIV, so of course, his life was spoiled.

The writings of the Daoist, Chuang Tzu, discuss in greater detail than the Bible, the various layers of evil that exist in the world, finding righteousness in the midst of evil. For instance, a criminal who allows himself to be captured, while his comrades escape, is spoken of with some degree of approbation.

Of course, gay couples who live in monogamous, "constructive," life affirming relationships are to be prefered to those who run down to the bathhouse for numerous anonymous trysts.

If I understand your position regarding homosexual orientation, it corresponds, for instance, with that of an individual born blind or deaf. The Bible tells us to not curse the deaf or cause the blind to stumble. Your position is that the proscription of sexual expression for homosexuals is tantamount to cursing the deaf, is that correct?

Hansen, OK. You seem intent on convincing me not to be an Adventist. I own my power, though. Not you. This is my decision alone.

Yes, I was raised to consider Adventism a family. I am not going to apologize for that.

But I'll affirm on this blog that family is not the primary reason I am an Adventist. Doctrinally I cannot be anything but Adventist, either. The Sabbath is a treasure to me. The confidence we have in Jesus second coming, "the blessed hope", is part of my core. I tithe Biblically because I believe it is good for me as well as doing good for others.

Hansen, why isn't your conscience causing you to argue that those who divorce must be executed? And why isn't your conscience calling you to condemn women who have brought shame on themselves by cutting their hair short? Do you realize what a potluck Bible believer you are? Could you really tell us why you are so vehement about the topic of homosexuality but ignore other things in the Bible. That's just hypocritical.

What would you say if you some day stand before the Lord and He asks you why you were so intent on driving people you considered unworthy away from the church? What if He tells you that we were some of "the least of these"? What if He asks you why you try to discourage people like me? What if that happened and He told you that there was not a place for you in His kingdom because you had ignored Matthew 25 while enforcing Leviticus 19?

After a lot of thought during this Sabbath day just ending, I have more thoughts I want to share. Some of you have responded to John Heidl’s article calling out for understanding with condemnation and rather harsh words. Some, like Hansen, feel your conscience calls you to do this. And you say that the Bible is clear in support of your views.

You claim that you are Bible-believing Christians, and are committed to the whole Bible. Here is a response to you.

One: We believe everything the Bible says, therefore…
Two: We practice whatever the Bible says.
Three: Hogwash!

I read the Bible, too, and I have noticed that whatever some of you claim is not in “fact” what you are doing. We all pick and choose, truth be told. No one truly does everything the Bible says.

It is easy to say that you think homosexuality is sin, but how do you explain why you believe in Leviticus 20:13a but not in 20:13b – the first prohibits homosexuality and the second insists on capital punishment for it. Or perhaps you really are so merciless that you believe in both. What would you say if I asked why you think the instruction from *nature* in Romans 1 about homosexuality is permanent and applicable today, but the one in 1 Corinthians 11 is evidently disposable? Romans 1:26: “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” But do you think Pau’s instructions about nature in 1 Corinthians 11:14 are permanent: “Does not the very *nature* of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” Why would you embrace the appeal to nature in Romans 1 while women have short hair and your sons have hair pulled back into a ponytail?

There is nothing clearer than this statement by Jesus about possessions: “In the same way, those of you who do not give up *everything* you have cannot be my disciples” (Luke 14:22). Two chapters earlier Jesus said, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (12:33). These verses are very straightforward. However we read these statements of Jesus we don’t do take them literally. How do you decide such things? How do you know what to do and what not to do? Why and how do you fixate on texts you think apply to homosexuals and state that they are plain, while you ignore so much else that is also plain?

You see, I believe many gay Adventists see the hypocrisy in their Bible-believing accusers. And, in pain, we ask why. Why do you choose to condemn us but not others? Why are you so inconsistent in applying the Bible but so consistent in condemning us and seeking to drive us from the church? Perhaps that is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 7:3-5: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

John Young, thank you for your posts. I've said all I need to in earlier posts, but your posts are well written and well thought. Will they change minds? Probably not. But they will definitely encourge those of us who need such encouragement and are very valuable in that regard.

Thanks.
Jamie.

John you have some great points and each will have to answer for himself.
I just have one question. Am I to understand that if the church was to not be hypocritical and do all the things you suggest, that in that case you would feel amenable to the judgement that homosexuality is to be discouraged and the act a sin?

I can understand one feeling set apart as though all other sins were OK except homosexuality, but that in itself is not a proactive reason that it is OK.

I'm just trying to understand if you think the "hypocrisy" you perceive is indeed a counter to if Homosexuality is wrong, or if the hypocrisy is a separate issue.
Thanks

John Young

I've noticed the inability of people such as yourself to discern the difference between something such as a haircut and sodomy. You are not the only one. Others have thought sodomy the moral equivalent of trimming one's beard, or of eating a shrimp cocktail.

To my mind there is an obvious distinction. Apparently not to yours. Often people see things differently.

As for church membership, I don't believe that being an SDA=salvation. Suggesting that I am driving you away from the cross by suggesting that you avoid Adventism indicates a greater spiritual need in your life than homosexual affirmation.

Even the best of heterosexual marriages, without God, are not always fulfilling. Even with God, there are rocky patches, or so I've been told.

If you have read some of my other posts,I consider that the condemnation of homosexuality in Romans and throughout the NT is more damaging to your cause in certain respects, than Leviticus. Homosexuality is described as uncleanness in Romans. Uncleanness is condemned multiple times in the NT. There is no debate about word meanings or context. Uncleanness is a fruit of the flesh.

Gay apologists argue that Romans is referring to a certain type of homosexuality. They want to distinguish between "those gays" and "us gays."

Sorry, there is no distinction in Scripture. Adam and Eve were blessed in Eden. That is what Scripture reveals. To suggest that your gay relationship is somehow sanctified while others aren't is unconvincing.

I think Adventism can be a toxic organization for numerous types of people. If you insist on banging your head against that wall, bang away.

"I've noticed the inability of people such as yourself to discern the difference between something such as a haircut and sodomy."

Wow, I wonder if anyone can get more condescending. Maybe you are just pretending not to get the point, but in case you truly don't then let me spell it out for you.

The point isn't that gay sex is equivalent to a haircut or to eating shrimp (I'm skipping the word 'sodomy' since it is such inaccurate terminology, and suggests that all gay sex, including that which is 'making love' is equivalent to gang rape). The point is that the bible forbids a lot of things we think are ridiculous things to forbid and 'a man lying with a man' is right there in the middle of all of that. People pick and choose the things they want to hold on to and the things they leave behind, and to pretend otherwise really is the same as lying.

For us stupid gays (and don't pretend you meant anything but that in your opening line) we see the hypocrisy in the way you pick and choose, the way you decide that divorce is now acceptable even if not ideal, for example. Why not treat gay people like divorced people. Jesus Himself said that a remarried spouse was committing adultery, so as long as a remarried couple participates in church life, including holding offices, and doing 'up-front' duties, then they are FLAUNTING their adulterous lifestyle. Seems to me the bible is pretty plain about that. It should be fine for them to come and quietly sit in church, preferably not together, and definitely not with shoulders touching or an arm resting on the back of the pew behind their partner. Of course, the remarried couple doesn't see themselves as living a sinful lifestyle, just as a gay couple in love doesn't see themselves in that way. But the bible that the church claims to follow is pretty clear that remarried people are living in adultery. If you can't see how condemning one and not the other makes the church hypocritical, then the veiled insult of your first statement reflects right back atcha.

I should mention, when I say "the way you...", the 'you' is referring to the church, not to the poster.

Jaime,
Do you purposely slant your recounting of Jesus council concerning marriage to suit your views on homosexuality?

Just in case you have forgotten, It is OK to be remarried if your spouse has been adulterous. No other reason.

Are you the arbiter of who got divorced and why? Do you go around to everyone you know who is getting remarried and demand to know if their spouse was unfaithful?

I am asking a serious question because I dont know if you are seriously misinformed or just twisted enough to use any justification you can find to support your views even when you relate your rational incorrectly.

"The issue is not private lives but public endorsement of an active open homosexual lifestyle."

What is considered "endorsement"? Does a heterosexual couple entering a church automatically scream "married"? Has anyone
here asked to be endorsed by a church? If two males or two females enter the church and sit together are they asking for church endorsement? Should anyone asked whether they are friends are married? Who should be designated to ask? The baptizing minister? Does he refuse all those who have: been divorced, committed adultery? (Adultery at one time meant an ongoing condition, not temporary; IOW, if a married person had an affair, divorced then married that new person is that considered one-time
adultery or permanent.) Can anyone here testify that such people have been refused membership? How about refusing to trim their beard properly? Do you await the priest's inspection for skin diseases before meeting at church? Choosing some as valid and others inappropriate indicate illogical reasoning.

If one prefers to live by the Levitical rules, become an Orthodox Jew. The Levitical laws have no place in Christianity.

Are you saying that all the remarried couples are just victims of adulterous spouses? Or even most? You are right, we don't always know. And many times we do. And when we do, I've never seen it make much difference. They might lay low for a year or so, and then it's all back to normal.

You could say the same thing about a gay couple. Do you know what they do in the bedroom? Maybe they don't have sex at all. Yes, that's unlikely, but the point is, you don't know unless you ask.

And the church STILL hasn't determined, or made clear wear that line is drawn. Is it only 'insertive' sex? Or does kissing and holding hands count too?

I think the point of the original article is that the church needs to extend grace to all of us. And just like most of us choose to let God be the judge of divorced people, or gossips for that matter, that maybe we can let God be the judge of gays as well.

The gay community has gained the "right" to be openly seen and heard, to be free from discrimination in the work place. They have gained the right to property and marriage, to vote, and to participate in the armed forces. They now want the Church to extend not only the "right" to worship, but the full endorsement of their lifestyle by and through membership.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church among many others, see that demand beyond the commission given the Church. The Pauline letters alone seem clear on that point.

The gay population has its own exclusive communities and see no problem with their exculsivity yet bark at any sign of disapproval of their life-style by any other institutional or identifiable community orgainization.

Certainly the Church accepts any and all as sinners in the need of salvation. However, it does not and should not condone
open sin or defiance of creedal propostional truths. Secret sin has been and always will remain between the sinner and His God. The SDA Church does not have a confessional. It believes in the priesthood of all believers.

The Church is not vindictive but neither is it in the busness of endorsement of open unnatural sexual behavior.

So there is no dilemma. There is an impass pressed by a militant minority with an itch for acceptance and endorsement. So why not try to develop a Log Cabin Seveneth-day Adventist Church, copyright laws permiting. Tom.

Tom, you might be on to something there. For the record, I don't think the SDA church should be forced into accepting anyone. Period. I merely point out the hipocrysy of how they dole out or withhold that acceptance. Some would also point out the damage that the anti-gay stance does to their gay members, many of whom were members long before they knew what gay was.

The militant minority you speak of is even a minority in the gay community. There is not some sort of 'gay-wide' push for churches to be forced to accept us. Most of us left of our own accord. We know where we are not wanted, and most of us left. There are those who cling to the church, though, like a battered child to his abusive mother.

As far as 'unnatural sexual behaviour'...well, it' not unnatural to me. Like so many others, I tried my best to be straight, and that wound up hurting a lot of people. It turns out that it doesn't matter what the church thinks, I'm still gay, even if so many wish I wasn't.

For the record, I didn't leave the church because of their stance on gay people, I left because I studied and came to the conclusion that I can no longer believe what I was taught to believe before I could think. But I still feel for those who believe, but know that the SDA church has no place for them.

Sheesh...I can't even spell "hypocrisy" these days!

How does the church enact a stance on homosexuals choosing to worship with them? Bar the door with questions?

I have known a number of gays and have never seen a church that questioned or disbarred anyone from attending. Any church that chose to do so, I would also consider not welcoming and would no longer attend.

Tom, if you know of instances where a gay couple has attempted to
"flaunt" their living arrangements by a public announcement at a church worship service, please inform us of that and how it was handled.

I'm a little unsure by what you mean by "condoning open sin." You have previously mentioned your next door lesbian neighbors. Did you feel that they were either flaunting or asking for your approval of their living arrangements? Had they wished to attend your church would you not have welcomed them? What if they had wished to become members, what then?

Elaine

I was speaking of the community of interest. The head organist at our Church (Reid Memorial) was a closet gay. He died of AIDS. His church based memorial was well attended. He just didn't push his gay agenda nor did he parade his gay friends. He was accepted because he was a sinner just like the rest of us, and he had a talent and skill that lifted us up to higher ground.

His story is much different from the militant gays that operated a hair dresser salon and adjoining liquor store--now all dead. My neighbors were not obstrusive. We were good friends, although their "open house" was poorly attended--Betty and I were there the full evening. As a senior officer of the Medical College of Georgia, known homosexuals received the same in grade pay raises and same promotions based on academic and clinical preformance as any other faculty member.

My earlier entry was an attempt to explain the position of the SDA Church--which is their business, not mine. Tom

Tom I, also, was just trying to understand what you believe the church's attitude should be toward gays. Do you know of any gays who have tried to flaunt their sexualtity within a church? Sure,
we all know of "gay parades" and those who have flaunted their lifestyles, just as heterosexuals may have flaunted their promiscuity, but that is not what I was wanting to know. It was:
what should be the church's attitude to gays who wish to worship, sit together, do not in any way flaunt themselves (do heterosexuals ever flaunt their sexual orientation?), why would any church wish to exclude them based on the knowledge of some who are aware of their orientation? If they have talents, such as leadership, or musical, should they be excluded from using them?

It has been assumed, by other writers that homosexuals are so busy flaunting their living arrangements that they haven't time to make a living.

If heterosexuals were not given the opportunity to legally marry, would promiscuity be less or increased? Should we quesion that the inability to form gay monogamous legal unions perhaps contributed to the spread of AIDS? We do know that promiscuity is not limited to one's sexual orientation and both spread STDs.

Elaine

You ask questions, for which I have no institutional answer.
I meant to try explain why the SDA Church does not tumble to the issue of a dilemma. They see none, period! The Church always has had the mind set of my way or the highway. I agree they have that right. So I personally took the highway for reasons of my own. My question is why insist on trying to get accepted where rejection is on auto-pilot?

I lay my case before God alone, yet I fellowship with ever whom acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Yes I even have several friends whose career is tending bar. One of whom is a senior in theology at a local college. I have another friend who guards Sunday more rigidly than anyone who posts here including Herb his Sabbath.

Assurance is ones standing before the throne of Grace, not in which book your membership is listed. Just put a Dr's title in front of your name and see the kind of handshakes you get from the Conference Office! I have no answers for the homosexual issue, except Church Membership is not one of them. Tom

http://powerofpride.wordpress.com/

Not sure if the above site qualifies as "flaunting." You decide.

"The point is that the bible forbids a lot of things we think are ridiculous things to forbid and 'a man lying with a man' is right there in the middle of all of that. People pick and choose the things they want to hold on to and the things they leave behind, and to pretend otherwise really is the same as lying." Jaimie

"If one prefers to live by the Levitical rules, become an Orthodox Jew. The Levitical laws have no place in Christianity." Elaine

Take a look below (Lev. 20) at what the prohibition of man with man is in the middle of. Really? None of the thgings mentioned should be proscribed by the church?

10 ¶ ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 ‘If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
12 ‘If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

13 ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

14 ‘If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.
15 ‘If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.
16 ‘If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
17 ‘If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.
18 ‘If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Maybe instead of forbids, a better word would have been commands. Read the rest of Leviticus. How about the verse directly before what you put up here...Leviticus 20:9"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."

Seriously? DEATH? I just don't see the church actually carrying this one out. Ever. Someone is picking in choosing around this one. I see you conveniently didn't copy and paste this one above.

The chapter just before this one is where planting two kinds of seed in the same field or wearing two types of cloth is forbidden. In the same chapter is where cutting hair at the sides of one's head is forbidden.

Get to Leviticus 25 and you'll find the rules for which slaves you can buy (basically, as long as they are from the nations around you, and not your own, you are perfectly free to own them).

The point of all this isn't about homosexuality at all. It is that the one thing consistent across every Christian denomination is that they select the parts of the bible that they agree with and follow it, and ignore the parts they don't agree with. When it comes to homosexuality, they expect us to follow these few verses when they ignore a plethora of other verses that don't suit them. Sorry, it just doesn't fly.

Jamie, There's nothing that anyone can say that is going to change your feelings and activities.

I simply provided aome context to illustrate that what you said is a lie. The prohibition against gay sex is not in the midst of things that are today considered ridiculius to avoid. The prohibition in Leviticus against men having sex with another man is not in the middle of prohibitions regarding beard trimming and hair cutting. It's in the middle of a series of forbidden sexual activities which are generally condemned as wrong in modern society. Thing such as adultery, beastiality, incest.

Your response may be to justify homosexuality on the basis of adultery among heterosexuals. Do I really need to address the absurdity of that? Most of us ae not looking for the lowest style of life to live.

Is adultery in the church an apologetic for homosexuality? In the minds of some. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that homosexuality is comparable to heterosexual adultery on the morality scale.

And there is nothing anyone can say that will change your mind either, Hansen. You seem very rigid to me. But people like Carrol, Elaine, Jamie, myself and others don't necessarily change our views because we think we will change the church, change Tom, or change you!

Tom, I agree that the official church isn't going to "tumble" for anything. You're absolutely right! Hansen has recommended that I not beat my head against a brick wall. Believe me, I'm not.

The goal of many of us is to change one heart a a time. That is how successful change occurs. I don't expect that SDA denomination to ever change on this subject! Not ever! Let me make that clear. But I am well aware that there are already a growing number of pastors,churches, and members that *have* changed.

Tom and Hansen, you may not change. The denomination won't. But others are changing. And over that you have no control.

Do you know of the story of a man who walked along the beach one day and saw hundreds of starfish washed onshore after a storm? He considered that he could not save them all, so why try. Then he decided to save those he could save and threw as many starfish back into the surf as possible. That is how positive change occurs. We're not beating our heads against a brick wall. We're not trying to throw all the starfish back into the surf.

But we can always brighten the corners where we are! That is the reason for my comments here. I won't break down any walls, but I can remove some bricks and shine some light through the holes in the wall. ;-)

Hansen, my response isn't to justify homosexuality at all. I don't think it needs justification. What needs justification is Leviticus (for one). Your splitting hairs about my phrase 'the middle of' and narrowing it down to a few verses on either side of that text and then calling me a liar. I'm thinking more of the book of Leviticus, or the entire pentateuch for that matter. There is a lot of stuff in there that Christians simply don't follow, and their reasons for not following are as empty and hollow as the shallowest reasons for not following the gay clobber texts.

Adultery in the church has nothing to do with homosexuality, and you are claiming to agree with something that I never said or meant (and I'm pretty sure you know that). My point isn't even whether or not homosexuality is a sin. My point is simply that the church, who thinks of it as a sin, treats it differently than other things they think of as sins. Furthermore, like gays 'ignore' or 'reinterpret' the clobber texts, the church ignores and reinterprets all sorts of texts with rules that no one thinks are applicable any more.

I suppose, though, that I don't need to point out that the church is hypocritical...I suppose most institutions whose main purpose has become self-preservation or self-propogation are (as are most of us individuals at one time or another, if we are honest with ourselves).

John

Your intent to change attitudes one person/mind at a time is admirable. Less than 50 people started the SDA Church. Certainly there are more than 50 with your goal in mind. God isn't going to take any human organization to heaven. It will be up close and personal. I don't believe in Calvin's TULIP but I have found a church home in Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. I also have many personal friends who are active members of the SDA church here and world wide. Thus I remain puzzled--it seems the active gay community is demanding church endorsement rather than simple fellowship. I have absolutely no intention of changing your orientation--I would like to better understand the apparent mission of the gay community--it seems much more aggressive than you depict.
Tom

Tom,

There is no single gay community, so I'm not sure which you refer to as aggressive. Your comment immediately made me think of civil rights, though. Had people of color remained passive where would they be today? Less than 50 years ago Adventist churches were voting whether to allow a person of color become a member. I understand that happened at Sligo.

I believe Adventists speaking out on this topic have been more assertive than aggressive. There is an important difference in the meaning of those two words. Assertive seems more accurate to me.

Why do I care? Misinformed Adventist parents remain abusive in some cases. Misguided Adventist teachers and pastors bring injurious shame on people. Young Adventists realize they are gay and sometimes take their lives because of the rejection and shame they feel. Others just lose any sense of faith in God.

Matthew 25 if a pillar in my own personal Christian experience. I care about these things because I believe Matthew 25 teaches me to. Furthermore, one of the values of my family that was passed on to me is to help those in need and those who are marginalized. My mother modeled that. And at nearly 91 she is still doing that.

I don't need Adventist membership. But I still believe more like an Adventist than anything else. So I choose to remain a member of the church that offers me full acceptance. And I believe I am called to speak out assertively on behalf of others who do not have the privileges I have.

Jamie:

1. If Leviticus 29:9 gives the injunction of death if someone curses their father and mother.
AND
2. If no church follows this injunction.
AND
3. Some churches follow the injunction against homosexuality.
THEN
4. Some churches are picking and choosing what injunctions suite their beliefs.

Rather then accusing some churches of cherry picking what Levitical laws to abide by, perhaps we should be asking if a church/individual has good reason for not following some laws and following others.

We are told from Col. 2:14-16 that the handwritten ordinances that were a shadow of things to come, such as all the ceremonies surrounding foods, drinks, holy days, new moons, and sabbath days were nailed to the cross--Christ had fulfilled these things when he died.

It would be incorrect to conclude though that all the instruction given by Moses ceased at the cross and are no longer valid for us today. For example, the injunctions against unclean meats were not ceremonial. This distinction was made before the flood (Genesis 7:3). This injunction is further supported by modern health studies. Also, Christians continue to follow the guidelines that God gave Moses about sexual morality. Another thing, Christians are no longer under a theocracy, we're under a different system of government, thus it would stand to reason that God does not expect us to carry out retribution for sin.

Also, there is a continued injunction against homosexuality (sexual immorality of all kinds) in the New Testament. Finally, it is contrary to the design of marriage; any type of sexual immorality outside of this union is adultery.

Conclusion. It is reasonable for us to follow some injunctions and not others as directed by the scriptures, so I'd have to disagree with your conclusion that churches are merely cherry picking what to follow to suite their beliefs. That's not to say that some don't do that, but have not left the door open for the possibility that there is a reason why some are to be kept and others not.

Here's a question I think we should ask ourselves:

Out of all the injunctions against sexual immorality, why is it that homosexuality is picked on?

I haven't seen any articles arguing for the acceptance of pre-marital sex--The Adventist Pre-Marital Sex Dilemma.

Any thoughts?

There is no pre-marital sex dilema because there is no ick factor to pre or post marital heterosexual sex in the minds of most people, including many Adventists. I know of scores of SDA's who have and are practicing pre-marital sex without any discussion whatsoever. They attend church with everyone else. What happens between people in the privacy of their intimate lives should be none of my business.

With one caveat: they are being responsible with their sexuality. They protect themselves against STD's and unintended pregnancy. They are faithful to each other and they take responsibility for their actions.

Under these conditions it should not matter if you are gay, straight bisexual or transgendered. Its all about how a person, including myself, take responsibility for sexuality.

Shane, NOW we are getting some place. If you are saying that there are reasons outside the bible to follow SOME of the things in the bible, then I agree with you completely. I say "cherry picking" because so many people say they believe or follow some practice or rule BECAUSE it's in the bible, when really they follow it...or not...because it makes sense to them. The reason most christians think it is not okay for parents to have their children killed for cursing them is because they think it is ludicrous to kill someone as a consequence for 'cursing'. They don't think this because the bible says so...in fact the bible says just the opposite. They think of it because they are mostly sensible people and realize that there is no logical reason behind such a rule. I would suggest that's the same reason people wear cloth made of two materials and feel no guilt whatsoever.

For me, the same thing applies to homosexuality. Outside of religious belief and biblical injunctions there is no reason to believe it is wrong. It is not harmful to two consenting adults. I know some Christians believe it is inherently harmful, but I've never heard a good argument to support that (though I've heard plenty of bad ones). You say it is contrary to the design of marriage, etc., but again that is only if you subscribe to a religious belief that says it is...and many say this belief is there because "the bible says so", yet the bible says a lot of things that these same people don't follow.

I think the bible says a lot of wise things. But they aren't wise BECAUSE the bible says them...they are wise independent of their biblical origins.

I guess what I am saying in response to your post is that I agree that churches have good reason for not following some laws and following others. But I disagree that they have a good reason to follow injunctions against homosexuality. And because so many churches claim to follow their beliefs BECAUSE they are in the bible, and then skip a bunch because there is no good reason to follow them, to me that is 'cherry picking'....it's not random, like cherries, they are just picking the ones they think are the best.

Thank you for a well thought out post, Shane.

Jamie.

Carlitas:

1. If I am responsible with my sexuality
AND
2. If I take protective measures against STD's and unintended pregnancies
AND
3. If I'm faithful to the person I'm having sex with at the moment
THEN
4. It doesn't matter if I have sex outside of marriage.

That line of reasoning has no foundation in the Bible. What do you make of 1 Corinthians 6:18: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

Also, there are studies that indicate that sexual activity before marriage statistically increases the likelihood of divorce. Numerous issues come from illicit sex that are harmful. You cannot be responsible with sin Carlita. It is irresponsible to practice illicit sex and a sin. There are a plethora of negatives that come from engaging in sex outside of marriage; number one being it's a sin.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8). God's way is not only ideal, it's the way it should be done. He's made his will in this area very clear. We have no room to rationalize.

Jamie:

I appreciate your honesty in regard to your view of the Bible. There is no use discussing some things if not all the parties involved share the same view of the Bible.

I think there is good reason to think that the gay lifestyle is very harmful. I've posted my reasons before, but I'll post them again below.

According to the CDC, men who have sex with men (MSM) make "up more than two thirds
(68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005...." (1)

"For complex reasons, HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For
example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the
number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which
results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the
reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of
cases in male adults and adolescents." (ibid)

The estimated number of cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed among adults and adolescents in 50
states and the District of Columbia by category shows that 487,695 cases were transmitted
through male-to-mail sexual contact. Compare that with the male "high-risk heterosexual
contact" of 63,927 (2). Being promiscuous as a heterosexual is harmful and dangerous, but it's compounded when with same-sex sexual activity.

"In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 20061 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections
occurred in gay and bisexual men. Black/African American men and women were also
strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times as high as
the incidence rate among whites." (ibid)

In a Canadian study called "Measuring Violence Against Women" (3) it was found "that spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively.tactics is associated with the commission of assaults in a substantial percentage of cases."

The "New York Times", in an article called "Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships", said the "issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently...

For years, gay people have tried to keep quiet about the problem, said Dave Shannon, coordinator of the violence recovery program at Fenway Community Health, a gay and lesbian clinic in Boston.

Mr. Shannon said: ''People feel, 'Why should we air our dirty laundry? People feel so negatively about us already, the last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us.' '' (4)

The "Journal of the Family Research Institute" showed that "married men who are not
separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater."

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we
estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach
their 65th birthday." (6)

I could go on about how the practices of homosexuals subject them to higher rates of
transmission of quite a few diseases. The fact is sodomy is a public health risk. So, yes Jamie, it is reasonable to conclude that homosexual behavior is harmful without the Bible. God was not random when he forbade homosexual behavior or any other type of sexual immorality. There was a reason, we weren't designed for it, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

1.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
2. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure
3. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/us/silence-ending-about-abuse-in-gay-r...
5. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/
6. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=26&firstpage=657&journalcode=intjepid

Shane, this will sound more harsh than I mean it to, and I REALLY don't mean it to sound that way. But all of those arguments above are the ones I consider the bad arguments I've heard. What they REALLY show is the danger of domestic abuse, promiscuity and unprotected sex, not homosexuality itself.

There is a sad thing going on in the gay community recently, and that is that more young men are deciding against protecting themselves when they have sex, and naturally, that is sending the HIV infection rate back up after it had been declining steadily for years. That is sad. But the fact remains that you CANNOT contract HIV by having unprotected sex with someone who is not HIV positive. It's impossible. To say that it is homosexuality causing the harm is simply false. It is unprotected sex with infected partners that cause the harm. Add to this that all gay men do not engage in anal sex, and so the misnamed 'sodomy' doesn't affect those gay men at all.

I'm not going to argue that gay men are not more at risk in North America (these statistics don't apply to Africa, where HIV is largely a straight person's disease). But it is not homosexuality itself that puts them at risk.

Jamie:

The frequency of AIDS/HIV in homosexual men is increased because of the type of sex they are engaging in and their promiscuity (which is significantly higher than even heterosexual men as an average). While promiscuity in heterosexuals does increase the chance of AIDS/HIV, as you can see the numbers in the U.S. are significantly lower. As to the epidemic in Africa, there is evidence to indicate "that AIDS in Africa is more likely to be caused by starvation than by HIV" (1). According to a New York Times article they're not even sure if Africans are any more promiscuous than Americans (2). They do conclude that over 80% of the cases were transmitted through heterosexual sex. In the case of men it is quite evident at the biological level that certain types of sex acts were not originally intended and that can be quite harmful.

Jamie, if it's not homosexual practices that is putting them at risk, then what do you think it is, because I think the data strongly indicates that it does?

1. http://www.rebirth.co.za/hiv_does_not_cause_aids3.htm
2. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/19/world/aids-in-africa-experts-study-rol...

"Jamie, if it's not homosexual practices that is putting them at risk, then what do you think it is, because I think the data strongly indicates that it does?"

I think it is promiscuity and unprotected sex that puts them at risk. The fact remains that if two people with no STD's are having sex with each other, then they cannot catch STD's from each other. A monogamous gay couple, for instance, where both people are STD free, CANNOT pass STD's on to their partner. It is impossible, and therefore the practice itself does not cause STD's and is not inherently harmful.

Just one case history.

At a medical center hospital with a major HIV/AIDS unit, a male with HIV/AIDS was released from in-patient care. At check out he told the clerk. "I am going out and infect as many men as I can have unprotected sex with. I want to get even with the S.O.B. that gave me this "S"tuff! Then I'm coming back here to die!" And they call it Love!. Tom

A minor correction to a statement above about the diet of post Eden.

After the flood, God told Noah:

"Every living and crawling thing shall provide food for you, no less than the foliage of plants. I give you everything, with this exceptiohn: you must not eeat flesh with life, that is to say blood in it."

Has anyone noticed that seldom, if ever, does the subject of lesbianism arise in discussing homosexuality? More than 90% of the time the HIV factor arises which has never been connected with lesbian sex.

Is it because women are more prone to faithful monogamy? That there is no threat of STDs? That they are more discreet? Or, is male homosexuality more feared because of male homophobia?

We women have no fear, repulsion or feel threatened by either male or female homosexuality while men seem to be much more disturbed over male homosexuality. Why is that?

Elaine,

You may want to check the following 3 items I lifted from the internet:

1) Women who report having sex with women: British national probability data on prevalence, sexual behaviors, and health outcomes.
Mercer CH, Bailey JV, Johnson AM, Erens B, Wellings K, Fenton KA, Copas AJ.
Centre for Sexual Health and HIV Research at University College London, London, England. cmercer@gum.ucl.ac.uk
Am J Public Health. 2007 Jun;97(6):1126-33. Epub 2007 Apr 26
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126

2) Homosexual experience, desire and identity among young adults.Pedersen W, Kristiansen HW.
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo
J Homosex. 2008;54(1-2):68-102.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771114?ordinalpos=20&itool=EntrezSy...

3) Straightening out the queer? Same-sex experience and attraction among young people in Norway.[Article in English, French, Spanish]
Hegna K, Larsen CJ.
NOVA - Norwegian Social Research, Oslo, Norway
Cult Health Sex. 2007 Jan-Feb;9(1):15-30.

Tom, I have an even better case history, if we are doing one-offs. For not disclosing his HIV+ status, a straight man in Hamilton, ON, was recently convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault...all on women.

I hope we don't use either your case study or mine to generalize about heterosexuals or homosexuals. Not only would it be unfair, it would be an inaccurate portrayal of most people that belong to both of those groups.

Jamie

Great observation. Tom

In this day and age, why is it deemed appropriate to refer to anyone’s sexual orientation when their name appears in the news? We don’t say, “Roger So-and-so, an openly heterosexual male,” or, “Amy Blank, a narcissist,” do we? Lets drop references to sexual orientation altogether, even when the article is on a related subject.

For consideration for a "word to the wise"...

IV drug use and anal sex are the easiest and most common way for the disease to spread once contracted. True?

Pat, as far as I know, you are correct.

Jamie,

That was simply meant to be a precaution.

Shared needles and tissues easily inflamed or bleeding share a commonality...that is, they make the perfect situation for the transmission of the HIV virus.

regards,
pat

Even most of those who are against homosexuality, or against the rest of the stuff in those verses still cherry pick. If they didn't, there would be a lot more proscribed killing going on.

The proscriptions against various sexual activities are simply a breakdown of the Commandment which proscribes adultery.

The Bible is the most frequently used book to support one's wishes, and Christians have abused it for years in pummeling others.

There is not one individual here who unconditionally obeys all the instructions in the Bible. It shouldn't be necessary to cite those because no one adheres to the Bible's rules on leprosy; or tests for infidelity; or rules against women during her monthly menses or following childbirth. Why not? It's plainly in the Bible.

Common sense is not very common. Why should anyone living in the 21st century decide that a book written for a preliterate, totally unscientific culture have the last word on such matters? Until that individual can honestly declare he or she abides by every word of instruction and rules given in the Bible, it is sheer hypocrisy to claim which ones are timeless and those which are long outdated; or at least have the good sense to admit that you, too, "pick and choose" by youre innate reasoning ability.

For those who prefer to use the Bible for their physical and medical advice, put your actions where you faith is: never consult modern physicians but go to your nearest shaman or faith healer for treatment. Don't choose it for your minor child, however, or you may run afoul of the law.

Just a couple of (minor/tangential?) comments on what appears above...

--re unclean foods. Did I read above that the unclean foods were _not_ part of the ceremonial law? (I can't find the reference now...I think it was from Shane.) Weren't all the clean/unclean laws part of the ceremonial law? They may have had practical health and social functions too, but God and his prophet didn't eludicate on those very much--they're simply clean or unclean according to the cultus, no? I think we would generally agree that these foods are not the most healthful. So when Jesus pronounced them "clean" (Mark 7:19), surely he wasn't pronouncing them healthful. The implication is that He Himself considered these part of the ceremonial law. Sorry if I misread.

--re AIDS. Could all agree that, gay or straight, male or female, AIDS would probably not be an epidemic if people were monogamous and practiced sexual fidelity?

-- re Adultery. Technically, OT adultery was about a married or pledged woman having sex, no? It seems to be a crime of property. It was not a blanket term for all sex between unmarried people.

I don't mean to be a jerk about the above. I just think that when we clarify terms it might help prevent so much talking past each other.

Looking forward to the Judge settling all disputes. :-) (Isaiah 2:4) Grace to all.

-- Tim

Elaine:

The Bible's misuse by anyone is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Anything can be abused, that doesn't change its inherent value.

Of course no once follows all the injunctions of the Bible. But there is good evidence from the Bible to suggest that it is quite reasonable to believe with surity that the ceremonial laws and all things that were a shadow of things to come were temporary and done away with at the cross.

To read the levitical law and assert that just because it's there it should be followed, would merely show that you have only read the text superficially. God's word gives a very clear directive of laws that are still binding. I'd have to agree with Hansen that list of sexual prohibitions are merely an extension of the 7th commandment.

Elaine, what is your position in regards to the Bible? What is the rule by which you guide your life?

Elaine:

Here are some questions for you in regard to the Bible:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the written Word of God?

2. Do you believe it was transmitted by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit?

3. Do you believe God has committed to us, in the Bible, the knowledge necessary for salvation?

4. Do you believe the Bible is the infallible revelation of God’s will?

5. Do you believe the Sciptures are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history?

I think if we all had a good understanding of how we treat the Bible it would aid us much in understanding where each of us is coming from. I'd love to hear from others who blog here what their thoughts are on these questions.

Tim:

In regard to the designation of clean and unclean animals not being ceremonial.

Genesis 7:2

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Before the ceremonial laws were instituted God had already designated what animals were clean or unclean. It's reasonable to believe that these values of clean and unclean also have a practical value to our health. As you already pointed out.

"I think if we all had a good understanding of how we treat the Bible it would aid us much in understanding where each of us is coming from. I'd love to hear from others who blog here what their thoughts are on these questions."

I think the bible is a historical record of what the people writing it thought of God. I don't believe it is an infallible Revelation of God's will or the written word of God. If it was, I think God, being God, could have done a much better job of making it clear enough so that the church isn't split into almost 40,000 different denominations.

However, I respect that others believe differently on this issue.

Jamie:

Thank you for sharing. Would you agree though that no matter how clear God was there would still be division amongst churches?

I don't agree with that--not 40,000 denominations worth of divisions!

Jamie:

How would you determine how clear God is? Given your take on the Bible.

After the flood there was a distinct instruction on food given Noah:

"Every living and crawling thing shall provide food for you, no less than the foliage of plants. I give you everything, with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it" (Genl 9:3-4).

The Jews held that only the covenant at Sinai was made with them, and that all the rest of humanity (Gentiles) were to abide by the Noahide law.

Elaine:

Yes, I read Genesis 9:3-4. However, this wouldn't negate the fact that the clean and unclean meats weren't apart of the ceremonial law.

"Elaine:

Here are some questions for you in regard to the Bible:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the written Word of God?

2. Do you believe it was transmitted by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit?

3. Do you believe God has committed to us, in the Bible, the knowledge necessary for salvation?

4. Do you believe the Bible is the infallible revelation of God’s will?

5. Do you believe the Sciptures are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history?

1. No. It is man's description of God as he perceived her.

2. No. Not unless every writer that was copied and the compilers were equally inspired to choose the books. BTW, there were a number of books in the original Hebrew Bible (Septuagint, the one used by Jesus and the apostles) that were not included in the translations used today until a century or more later, so what about those? Were they originally inspired, and later excluded?

3. Man described "salvation" differently. In the Hebrew Bible there was no life after death, their only hope was to have many children and their children would inherit than land. Salvation is a NT idea, and the NT writers devised and described it.

4. The Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant, and is man's poor attempt to explain his understanding which is always subject to error. Man is neither divine nor infallible.

5. No. To repeat: The Bible is only a human book, an anthology of many writers and their description of God varies so widely that a coherent picture is impossible to delineate. "God's will" is portrayed very differently in the Torah: kill all the enemies, destroy even infants and animals. That was his "will" as described then. It does not correlate with Jesus as described in the NT, so how could it possibly be deemed trustworthy? There are hundreds of contradictions and errors which demonstrate that it is book written by humans. There are probably thousands of books written about God. How can any be selected as the only true source?

The Bible is a history of man and his relation with the god he worshiped. Most of the Hebrews were henotheists: they worshiped other gods as well as Jehovah, else why all the reprimands against idolatry throughout the OT?

There is not even a clear description of Jesus and the reason for his death to be found in the NT. Various writers give their own
reason. Did he have to die for God to be able to forgive our sins?
Is God incapable of forgiveness without extracting the death of his son? Or, was that later added to the stories after the resurrection?

Elaine:

Thank you for your frank explanation of your beliefs in this regard.

Do you believe God exists? If so, how do we know him or anything about him, or is that not relevant?

"2. No. Not unless every writer that was copied and the compilers were equally inspired to choose the books. BTW, there were a number of books in the original Hebrew Bible (Septuagint, the one used by Jesus and the apostles) that were not included in the translations used today until a century or more later, so what about those? Were they originally inspired, and later excluded?"

Elaine, Why do you refer to the original Hebrew Bible as the Septuagint?

" homosexuals subject them to higher rates of
transmission of quite a few diseases. The fact is sodomy is a public health risk."

And how is this suppose to apply to lesbians? After reading the links given by Joselito, there still is nothing about the STDs
contracted by lesbians, and sodomy would not be a practice, would it?

There is no definition in Bible of "cermonial" laws; it is a man-made definition given for explaining the relevance or irrelevance in Christianity. Separating the Law was never done by the Jews.

Hansen, you asked why I refer to the Hebrew Bible as the Septuagint?

For the simple reason that the majority of Jews in the last few centuries B.C. spoke Greek, and the Jews commissioned a group of 70 (so the story goes) of elders to translate the Hebrew into the Greek to accomodate the much larger Greek-speaking Jews at that time. It was the Scriptures that was used by the NT writers, as the quotations show. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin approximately 300-400 C.E., because as the power of Rome increased, Latin became the more common vernacular. Even in Judea, Aramaic was the common tongue a version of Hebrew. The scribes and priests were among the few who had access to the Hebrew scrolls.

Three languanges were used for the original texts of the Bible: The OT was written in Hebrew, except for the Books of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees, which were first written in Greek. There are also a number of passages in Aramaic.

All of the NT books were written in Greek, except the Gospel of Matthew, which was originally in Aramiac.

The prohibition of male sexuality (the Bible is almost entirely silent on female homosexuality) was in part due to the "spilling of semen," considered by the Jews a sacred fluid, vital for the spreading of the Jewish people.

Two of the most often-quoted proscriptions against homosexual behavior appear in Leviticus, which served as a handbook for the ancient priests of Israel. First:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination"(Lev. 18:22).

This unambiguous sentence is surrounded by hundreds of equally clear don'ts,including: Don't eat pork, Don't touch an item touched by a menstruating women, and Don't sit in a chair that a menstruating woman sat in.

If all these injunctions regarding menstruating women were followed to the letter, every husband and child who believed in a literal reading of the Bible would have to move out of the house for seven days each month.

The many others that follow would find otherwise decent men and women of modern times put to death if the Bible were taken literally.

The Holiness Code of Scripture, which includes the bans on homosexuality, also strictly prohibits:

Eating raw meat;
Planting two different kinds of seeds in the same bed;
Wearing clothes made of two differnt kinds of yarn;
Body tattoos.

Anyhone claiming to read the Bible literally must of necessity be applying a "pick-and-choose" mind set.

Just as the U.S. COnstitution, written some two hundred years ago, has had to be continually interpreted to address issues and situations the Founding Fathers could not foresee, so, too, everyone has to INTERPRET Scrfipture to some degree. No one, despite his or her intent, could possibly be a true literalist.

Interestingly to Christians, there is no mention of homosexual sex in the four Gospels. Not a word from Christ's lips. Jesus' moral teaching are not concerned with the subject.

For Paul, he is considered by many to have had misogynist's leanings: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman....I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I [chaste] but if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. He must have believed Ecclesiastes: "Woman is the origin of all sin and it is through her that we all die." For Paul and St. Augustine, two of the most powerful figures in early Christianity, the body was a beast to be tamed.

Elaine,

Where did you study Aramaic? Have you ever seen or do any examples of an Aramaic Matthew exist? What elements of the Greek in Matthew lead you to conclude that it was originally written in Hebrew?

Correction: Last sentence should read "What elements of the Greek in Matthew lead you to conclude that it was originally written in Aramaic?"

Hansen,

One does not need to read either Hebrew or Greek to read Bible scholars (in English) who read both of those languages. Just like all of us, we must rely on experts for our medical, scientific knowledge, and linguistic skills. It is not difficult for Bible scholars to determine between early manuscripts and later ones to recognize changes to another language.

When I seek expert advice, I have agreed to abide by their information and recommendation, in addition to studying and reading of my own.

Surely, because most of us cannot read the original Hebrew or Gree, does no limit us to reading the Bible in our own language.

Elaine

You are correct, of course, however, if William Miller could have read Hebrew or Greek look at all the trouble we would have been spared. If he had even know Hebrew history and the Greek influence on Jewish youth in Jerusalem we would have been spared. If the little flock had only understood the original of Rev. 19:10 we would have been spared the "Spirit of Prophecy" line.

We all use the Thomas Jefferson loose leaf approach to Scripture---most just won't admit it. Every unique doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism is built upon a faulty exigesis. Even Paul explaining the foul evil ways of Rome made it clear that the self-roghteousness of the Church was as bad or worse.

Why must the Church spend its time defending itself rather than proclaiming the Finished Work of Jesus Christ? We all need it for sure! Tom

My point, Elaine, is that you really don't know if what you are saying is true or not. How do you decide which scholars to believe? You believe the ones that suit your tastes, isn't that correct. Since you are unable to confirm or deny the truth of their assertions, all you have to go on when "discerning" truth is your own prejudices.

What kind of a basis is that for discovering an objective reality? Certainly not a scientific or scholarly one.

I'm not a scholar or scientist myself. Admittedly, I tend to favor those "scholars" who take a view of Scripture which favors its inspiration and spirituality. I believe the Bible to be the word of God; consequently, I look for evidence which attests to its divine origin.

In your case, since you believe the Bible to be a book of fables concocted around a campfire by people developing their own mythology, one can only expect you to identify as truth that which suits your own infidelity.

You really ought to have somekind of disclosure statement on your posts, identifying yourself as an unbeliever, so people will realize the type of "scholarly recitations" they can expect from you.

Hansen, you do Elaine a great disservice by deciding her motives for her, when you can't possible know them.

Through study, I have come to the same conclusions as Elaine. However, I started as someone who believed the bible was the inerrant and infallible word of God, and was told that it could hold up to scrutiny. So I went searching, and found that it did not, not as infallible or inerrant at any rate. So I was one, like you, looking for the evidence that the bible had divine origin, and came to the conclusion that it is a book written by men about their own (limited) understanding of God.

You say you are not a scholar or scientist yourself. You don't need to be one to know that if Matthew was originally written in aramaic, that in no way reflects on whether or not it was divinely inspired. And scholars who DO believe that the Bible has divine origins often use manuscript ages in their arguments, so there are ways of dating these things (although there is a LOT of disagreement surrounding that with some scholars arguing that some manuscripts aren't nearly as old as we'd hope them to be).

And how is this suppose to apply to lesbians? After reading the links given by Joselito, there still is nothing about the STDs...
Posted by: Elaine | 27 May 2009 at 8:33

"... 4.9% of the women [n=6399 women, aged 16 to 44 years] reported same-sex partner(s) ever; 2.8% reported sex with women in the past 5 years (n=178); 85.0% of these women also reported male partner(s) in this time. Compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men, women who reported sex with women and men reported significantly greater male partner numbers, unsafe sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, and intravenous drug use and had an increased likelihood of induced abortion and sexually transmitted infection diagnoses."

- Women who report having sex with women: British national probability data on prevalence, sexual behaviors, and health outcomes.
Am J Public Health. 2007 Jun;97(6):1126-33. Epub 2007 Apr 26
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126

From that study:

"Conclusions. For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men. A nonjudgmental review of female patients’ sexual history should help practitioners discuss risks that women may face."

Not the words "may be." No statement about statistics and liars will be added to that conclusion. Simply because each individual must decide her situation and demeanor. That an estimated 50% of marriages end in divorce does not determine whether any one couple will, or will not marry. People choose either monogamy or promiscuity daily.

A study that shows relationships of subgroups (women having sex with women) to particular behaviors or outcomes does not necessarily show a causal relationship. If fact I found a study that shows a causal relationship between drug and alcohol use to multiple sexual partners.
The relationship between alcohol use and multiple sexual partners meets three criteria for suggesting causation on the basis of epidemiologic data: a strong association, evidence of a dose-response relationship and biological plausibility.16 We believe that these data are consistent with several explanations for the effect of alcohol. Further research is needed into the mechanisms by which alcohol influences the initiation of new sexual partnerships.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3027198.html

I am a woman who has sex with another particular woman and who does not abuse alcohol, drugs, have multiple sex partners or STD's. The reason is that I respect my partner, our sexual intimacy and I make healthy responsible choices.

That is the crux of the issue. Is the church encouraging healthy responsible decision making in the area of sexual intimacy? I say it is not because it relies in a selective interpretation of mixed scripture that is often taken out of context. I am living the most responsible life possible with my partner and my church says it is a sin. Maybe this will change. I remember when going to a movie theatre was a sin, wearing a wedding band was a sin, listening to rock and roll music was a sin. Where have all these sins gone? Are those who died under these sins and did not repent them going to hell?

Carlitas
"Where have all these sins gone? Are those who died under these sins and did not repent them going to hell?"

Interesting question--but then perhaps those "sins" were not really sins in God's eyes, just a bunch of humans trying to figure things out on their own based on the current culture at the time. I am sure there are many more "sins" that fit into that category including current views of sexuality. The critical thing is to be open and allow Christ through the Holy Spirit to work within us "both to will and to do, that which is good" and then rely on a merciful God who knows us better than we know ourselves to judge us in the end.

He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Jamie, I agree that the language in which Matthew was originally writen is not an important issue. I also agree that the Bible was a book written by men. It is is limited by their own understanding of God.

The limited understanding which it reflects in no way changes its inspired nature or the veracity of that which it does set forth.

I believe in the resurrection of Christ, His incarnation, sinless life, and substitutionary death. Do you? Does Elaine?

If not, why spend time with those who do? To do the work of Satan in destroying the faith of those who do believe? I'd be interested in hearing what Elaine's motives are. My post above does not address her motives, simply rehearses what she has already admitted. She believes the Bible was contrived by men around a campfire who were searching for affirmation for their people.

If I were gay, which, unlike other men, I'm not [Praise be to Jesus], I would do what many other well adjusted gays do: live my life without reference to those who disapprove of my lifestyle.

One gay man I knew had lived on a houseboat near Amsterdam with his lover. He was jovial, even in the last stage of AIDS, which had also killed his friend. I seriously doubt that he cared what anyone thought about his lifestyle. I gave him a copy of Steps to Christ which he read and sincerely thanked me for.

In your case, if you really do not believe in Jesus or his Word and you are gay, what do you expect to get from Christians?

The most we can offer is justification by faith which requires confession of sin and repentance. Just as one must believe that Jesus died and rose again, so must the homosexual accept, by faith, the sinfulness of homoeroticism, regardless of his/her feelings about it. You must believe it is sinful because the word of God says it's sinful, just as the heterosexual fornicator must accept that fornication is a sin

We call this condemnation by faith. Believe that you are condemned because the Bible says so. Then progress can be made in Christian growth.

What happens after our death does not depend on our beliefs. Whatever will be, will be. We either spend all our time consumed with worry and doubt, or else we enjoy the life we have here, living as if it were all we had. Has anyone here spoken with someone who died and communicated about where they were? None of us knows for certain what tomorrow may bring. Live, love, laugh and enjoy life and live by the Golden Rule and Micah 6:8.

"I believe in the resurrection of Christ, His incarnation, sinless life, and substitutionary death. Do you? Does Elaine?"

I don't know. If I could see proof then I would believe, just as if I could see proof that everything written in the bible is the infallible word of God, then I would believe.

And there's the rub. I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I don't believe the interpretation of the biblical passages on homosexuality present a clear case regarding homosexual orientation. However, even if I take it at face value...that homosexuals are detestable to God (or in other words, God hates me), it still doesn't make me believe that it's true. I'll admit it--just because the bible says it is so, doesn't make me believe it. It doesn't make you believe it either, unless you are advocating for those who break the sabbath to be put to death (three places in exodus command it, and in Numbers a man who gathers wood on the Sabbath is stoned to death). Maybe a more pointed question is this, Hansen--do you believe I should be put to death? If you truly believe what the bible says, then you MUST believe I should be killed, for I have admittedly had sex with a man. And who should do the killing? You? Church leaders? Government? Who?

Hansen said: " My post above does not address her motives, simply rehearses what she has already admitted."

Perhaps you and I are talking about different motives. In your post above you said: "How do you decide which scholars to believe? You believe the ones that suit your tastes, isn't that correct" You seemed to be saying that Elaines motives for studying were to confirm beliefs she already had. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. My point is, you don't know what her motives were. I told you my motives for this, though, to show you that sometimes study doesn't just lead you to what you already believe. Sometimes it makes you realize that what you believed was wrong, and in my case, my study made me believe that the bible has no more authority tha the Koran or other ancient holy texts. That's not to say there isn't wisdom in it, though.

"If not, why spend time with those who do? To do the work of Satan in destroying the faith of those who do believe?"

Absolutely not (though you may think that is why I am here). I have seen the damage churches have done because of their stance on homosexuality? How many gay men have married unsuspecting straight women as they tried to stay in line with church teachings. I know at least one intimately: Me. And the pain it caused me and my ex-wife has been horrible. This is a direct result of the churches refusal to accept gay people, and my cowardice in being afraid to admit that I am gay for fear of losing everything I held dear. The original post here was really getting to the point that the church needs to accept people as they are and let God do the judging. But that is hard to do when bible believing christians think gays should be put to death.

Why do I hang out with Christians? Well, for starters, many of them are my friends. Also, I am a seeker, and maybe God will somehow reveal himself to me through Christianity. Or maybe he won't, I don't know. I guess that is up to Him.

Jamie, Let's try to get some facts straight. While you blame the church for the misery you brought upon your wife, it's really not the fault of the church. You decided to marry her. No one in the church forced you. Granted, there is a social pressue to marry. Heterosexuals experience the same thing. Many heterosexual marriages shouldn't have taken place, either. The high divorce rate demonstrates that.

As for Elaine, her case illustrates that of many others. People who do not know what the original languages say shouldn't take positions regarding them, based on the work of other scholars.

Amazing Facts publishes a little booklet by Sharon Crews in which she sets forth what appear to be the arguments the arguments of others favoring the excellency of the Greek text underlying the KJV. Many of her arguments can be read in writings of F.H.A Scrivener, a contemporary of Wescott and Hort, who opposed their revision of the Greek NT.

The "KJV only" view was popularized among Adventists by Benjamin Wilkinson in his book, the "Authorized Version Vindicated." If Ms. Crews is not a Greek scholar, how can she convincingly argue for a position she is unable to understand for herself?

I use the NASB. It was not based on the Greek underlying the KJV. Although I appreciate the KJV, the translation of the Bible into more contemporary language has been a great help to multitudes. What I'm interested in is the redemptive message of Scripture, its spirituality as a vessel through which the HS is communicated. Is changing the version of the Bible you read going to turn you into a heterosexual? I doubt it. It may help you more clearly understand the message of the Bible, which is important.

The same problem exists in various disciplines. The Creation controversy, for instance. Scientists on both sides of the fence have their own reasons for believing as they do. Lay people, based on our prejudices, side with those who support the position we favor.

I believe in Creation because I believe the Bible. While I can't explain the various scientific reasons for or against Creation, I do know that the doctrine of Creation is an integral part of the entire Bible, not just Genesis. To do away with the Creation account is to do away with Scripture.

My favorite commentary is Cranfield's "Shorter Commentary on Romans." As he goes through the passages in Romans, he clearly sets forth various possible interpretations of a passage. He then says which one he favors and why. There is not a lot of dogmatism in that approach. It is a carefully reasoned and enlightened attempt to understand the Bible, recognizing the legitimacy of various interpretations.

It's important that we remain honest in our walk with God. Cranfield exhibits that honesty by acknowledging the legitimacy of views with which he differs.

Adventism, with its perfectionistic emphasis, is a toxic organization, in that respect. We can not be honest about our weakness because it would delegitimize the false perfectionism to which people cling.

Some churches demand accountability from their members. Adventism perpetuates hypocricy.

"Jamie, Let's try to get some facts straight. While you blame the church for the misery you brought upon your wife, it's really not the fault of the church. You decided to marry her. No one in the church forced you."

Notice that I did not blame ONLY the church. I think the church played a part, and I think I am right to place part of the blame there. But not all of it as, if you go back and read my post, I made qauite clear. I took blame myself too, and ultimately, I am responsible for listening to the church and not being honest, even with myself (I convinced myself it was 'just a stage'...and again that convincing was partly my own fault, and partly bad advice written in various church publications over the years).

"What I'm interested in is the redemptive message of Scripture, its spirituality as a vessel through which the HS is communicated. Is changing the version of the Bible you read going to turn you into a heterosexual? I doubt it. It may help you more clearly understand the message of the Bible, which is important."

I haven't read the KJV for years. Since I was a teenager I prefered the NKJV, which kept much of the poetic beauty, without being a little too shakespearean. Lately, I've been reading the New Living Translation that my ex-wife gave me. I quite like it as well, although the particular bible I have has a 'commentary' on the bottom half of each page telling me how and what to think...I could do without the commentary, since it is only one intepretation and gives no credence to other points of view.

Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree on many topics. I like what you say about the scripture being a vessel through which the Holy Spirit communicates (if that's what you mean by HS!). While I don't believe the bible is an infallible, inerrant word of God, I don't see why the HS (if it exists, but that's a whole other kettle o' fish) can't communicate through it. I just don't think it's the only way, or even the primary way it needs to communicate. In Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" book, he talks about how the Apostle Paul took and claimed 'truth' wherever he could find it...sometimes it was from older scripture, sometimes it was from a Cretian prophet (not Christian), and other times it was from pagan poets. If he saw truth in what they said, he claimed it.

I wonder if the Holy Spirit works the same way when to show us truth. I see no truth in the statement that I deserve to be killed because I am gay. At the same time, I see great truth in the phrase 'faith without works is dead'. I may see it differently than many Christians do (or maybe not), but I certainly see truth there. And sometimes I just hope for truth, as I do when reading Jesus' tale of the prodigal son, or read of his tenderness for those the religious establishment simply could not accept because of their own understanding of what the think God thinks.

John Young,
Shane's article touched my heart because I too am a gay Adventist.
I disagree with Shane on one point. Most gay Adventists are not hiding in the closet anymore. They are walking away from an impossible, judgmental religious community!

Shane this is not true by any stretch. You have to remember that most SDAs do not live in secular western societies. This about the Inter American Division etc.
The vast majority are still hiding in the closet, and this will always be so.

Many of you have pointed the finger of judgment in your responses to Shane's article. Many of you speak of something you only *think* you understand and want to ignore the knowledge of those who have dedicated years to studying this issue. And I'll dare say those who speak the most negatively very likely do not have or know of a gay person in their close family.

This used to be a safe bet but not on Spectrum.

My answer in return is this. How have you ministered to "the least of these" as Jesus commanded? Why are you so judgmental when Jesus commanded "judge not"? Are you not sinning?

I am often flustered at this though, what is this "judging' that people always talk about? How is it defined?

Every year that goes by I find it harder to remain an Adventist and wonder why I still am.

I guess this also depends on your expectations. What do Adventists hold that most other Christians do not on this issue?

I live in fear of other Adventists who seek me out and try to drive me out.

This is what surprised me. This has never been my experience in even the most conservative settings. Who is conducting this search?

As a highly respected Adventist college president said, "I have never known a group of people who wanted an organization so bad when the organization made it clear they did not want them" [referring to gay Adventists].

Do you have a quote on this? I'd sure like to read on it.
However, another problem is the subsuming of "gay" into a singular political agenda. I am very uneasy and uncomfortable with that tendency in the West.
"Gays" want all sorts of things.

The only answer I have is my faith. Jesus was rejected and acquainted with grief. So are many gay Adventists. And Jesus is our hope. I know He understands. He has made it clear that He has always loved me and preserved my Christian faith. Since coming out God has blessed and lead me in amazing ways! I have no doubt that He has lead me all the way and that His tender mercies are my guide.
God has worked miracles in my life and that of my partner that have been amazing! I will not recount them here because we are afraid of many of you and others like you.

Who is going to do you what? I do not understand. Could you be more specific about your fears?

Please, people. Let God be the judge! Have enough humility to acknowledge that perhaps there is much you don't understand. Pray that you will know how to be Christlike to Adventists who find that they are gay.

Well we need this across the board no doubt.

I have not read all the comments here but I sure do appreciate the discussions. I would hardly sleep last night thinking about all the gay people who are living in Kenya for example. I don't want to dwell on the rights and the wrongs of being what one is but I know it is there and many are that way. We are having lot's of people being infected with HIV/AIDs who are suffering and those who socially just wanna share with someone and that is not possible in our churches. There are also those who are going through hell because of their sexual orientation with no one to share with. I wish the discussions can be more so people can find some few people they can confide in and live happy, healthy lives.
Rena Otieno

Great article Jonathan. You would think Christians would be the group that is the MOST accepting of the LGBT community. It seems many younger Adventists are quite accepting but the church seems to be driven from the top down.

I get the feeling this debate will be over when the next generation rotates through.

As a "young person" who left the church I will tell you that sexuality and the rigidness you bestow upon people is neither graceful, loving, or free of judgment. Paul said a lot of things that contradict Jesus so saying that we shouldn't allow everyone in the church as Jesus suggests because Paul would dissaprove makes me question how educated you truly are on teh subject matter. The adventist church refuses to acknolwedge its faults and misconceptions and it is full of an older generation that also refuse to move with the times and see grace in things that were not the issues of their days. Where movie theatres and jewelry made people turn a cheek before, sexuality and body art are a couple "plagueing" the church today. Homosexuality is a natural and instinctual thing for the men and women who have it and based ona lot of the ignorant hurtful posts on here, why would anyone choose that anyway? Your church is dissipating fast.

God said, He condemns homosexuality. I understand that homosexuals believe they are born the way they are - I respect their feelings on the matter and would never intentionally mistreat a person who is homosexual. And, I believe it is quite probable that (most) homosexuals do possess more of the same-sex gene to which are they drawn, in contrast to us "normal" heteroesxuals. However, I would conclude that since God is, well... GOD, He will bring all of our sins into judgment - including those of homosexuals. Unless either of us (homosexuals and the rest of us sinners) repent, turn from our sin, and seek redemption, we are simply lost. God Bless. Paul

Just wondering if any heterosexuals have ever had to repent and confess for being heterosexual, or for being a heterosexual monogamist? It is always revealing to hear heterosexuals who recognize that they are born that way, but find it quite impossible to believe that homosexuals were not also born that way.
If it is not sinful for a heterosexual to marry and enjoy the love and companionship why is it then, terribly sinful for a homosexual to enjoy the same companionship? Why should physical intimacies be blessed in a heterosexual relationship and cursed in a similar homosexual one? Could it be denying the god who made us and which we had no choice in our orientation was wrong? Or that we are created in the image of God but are cursed in our denying who we are?

Was God wrong in creating those who are homosexual? Is he wrong when Downs Syndrome babies are created, or deformed ones? Does He only create perfect heterosexuals and all others are evil?

I thank you for speaking truth. I myself have been struggling with my conversion that I made eight years ago to adventism. I was married to good gracious man. I found myself years later divorced. Now I have been divorced as long as I was married. Finding myself returning to the same lifestyle but this time to either an asexual gay lifestyle or committed gay lifestyle. I just need to spend more time with God to sort out the gay lifestyle and what it looks like for me. What I am finding is when I was out and gay I was ok with myself then I got married to a gracious man and I became closeted and not gay. I am divorced and relunctent to be me. I am guessing ...I'd be perfectly happy if God would send me another gracious man to married and then again I would also be joyful over joyed I should say he send me a gracious woman. I just now figuring that out all over again as an Seventh-Day Adventist who is legalistic. What an internal struggle. My true devotion is my personal relationship to God no book can come between me and him and my prayer/devotion time. I mean I truly understand how Jesus felt when he was proscuted by his own and yes....I know when and if I come out to my new adventist friends what I might face...not the love of Jesus and God but maybe a ......That is why people do not flock to Christianity due to the unloving Christians all around us. Remember that when converting others ....are you loving and accepting? M.Phillips

Homosexuality/Gay/Lesbian has nothing to do with genetical disorder or physiological disorder. Not at all.

It's all about phycosocial, the lifestyle, surroundings, and its tendencies.

Yes, every Lesbian/gay/homosexual people should have the history of why they finally end up in becoming like that. The news behind the moves shall be great to be revealed in the one-on-one basis if you wish to create ministry for them since there is no evidence during the time of pregnancies, while already became newborn babies and then during toddlers ages.... We will never have any kind of proof that those certain babies must be gay/lesbian/homosex--just like that.

God creates men and women. Any defects genetically/physiologically in the ears, eyes, kidneys, bones deformations, neuros, blood systems etcs? Maybe.

How about gay/lesbians/homosexuality? For the matter of facts, non Christian medical doctors/scientists and communities are the most faithful to say that lesbian/homosexual/gay is not assigned at birth. Sadly, Christian experts keep insisting that those certain individuals born just like that. Why need to be changed?

Well, you don't need to became an expert to realize that no matter how many defects/deformities of any newborn carries...yet all new human being should be either male or female as God designed.

Anyway, in third world countries which thousands of different kind of diseases/deformities/genetical disorders can be easily found, however people with gay/lesbians/homosex people are far less than in the modern countries such as in N.America or W.Europe. Why?

Back to ministry to gay/homosex/lesbian people, it's absolutely not fair at all if this kind of ministry (if any)is in ignorance to invite some former lesbian/homosexual individuals that used to be gays/lesbian/homosex orientation...and by the grace of God...they are now free.

Tell me if you can convince yourself that none of gay/lesbian/homosexual people in the world is impossible to be changed and to be healed. (in other words, loving the "holy dogma" that said: ONCE GAY/HOMOSEX/LESBIAN ALWAYS GAY/HOMOSEXUAL/LESBIAN). Are you one of the Adventist believers who love this dogma?

Last, but not least, what the Bible says about homosexuality (if you still believe "thus saith the Lord") ???