Thanks for posting this Jonathan. My husband and I listened to it last night. Besides the poor framing of the survey questions, the panel's discussion of the topics seemed to me an ideal example of how to have a respectful, Bible-centered, and meaningful dialog on important issues even when you disagree a bit about things like hermeneutics. I especially appreciated the exchange between Leo Ranzolin and Aubyn Fulton on homosexuality (middle to end of the conversation)--I agree with Aubyn that if conversations about this topic could have the loving, respectful tone that this one did, 95 percent of the damage done would be eliminated.

I'm encouraged that PUC is addressing such an important topic honestly and openly.

As a current junior at PUC, I wish I could say that the student reaction has been positive. While many students are thankful that we attend a college on which such issues can be discussed openly, most were disappointed at the lack of advertising, overall structure of the event, and the fact that the panel consisted of "the same old people." While many students appreciated their professors involvement, I have heard several discussing that it was not a truly "honest" discussion, as they felt many of their teachers holding back. When asked how to remedy this, one student replied: "you can't, once you attach people's names to something like this, you open the door to trouble."

Hopefully this is simply the pilot of many such conversations to come. I fully support the endeavor PUC is making to facilitate these kinds of proceedings. Though I was not directly involved with this particular board, I, along with many other students, am working to bring these kinds of conversations out of the dorms, beyond the classes, and into the community.

This was a very meaningful discussion, especially the dialog on homosexuality. I wouldn't have expected to find such a diversity of opinions on the topic. I appreciated the response that I believe was made by Dr. Fulton, that we seem to spend much more time discussing whether homosexuality is a sin than whether the way in which we treat homosexuals is a sin. It is important to read the Bible in context while also keeping in mind the over all message of loving one another.

If anyone has had trouble's downloading this audio, I have a more condensed version here at:

http://sandbox.dubium.org/111507.m4a

I just wanted to let Desiree and Kirsten know how much I enjoy getting to read their perspectives. I'm enjoying all of the collegiate blogs and getting to hear from this demographic (sadly, although I think of myself as "just out of college", I just got the invite for my 10-year reunion)! Keep up the good conversation.

I found the questions in the survey to be poorly written in general. For example, the question "do you think homosexuality is a sin" is overly broad and subject to various interpretations.

The panel was quite diverse and the answers were refreshingly honest. As a lesbian, I found the inevitable comparision between same sex relationships and alcoholism to be disturbing. But to give credit to some of the panelists, they did point out that GBLT people can, and should, be responsible with their sexuality.

I liked the suggestion that GLBT people should have access to marriage just like our heterosexual counterparts. Whoever the panelist was that suggested this "thank you!" I wish I could thank him in person.

I'm older than the "old people" on the panel, but I have a gay son who graduated from PUC 19 years ago, where he was badly harrassed in the dorm. Hopefully, that will make my comments relevant.

I appreciated both Dr. Fulton's and Dr. Mukerji's viewpoints. One aspect that I would like to have seen addressed more fully was "how should homosexuals then live?" Dr. Ransolin did say that he believed their only option, as Christians, is to live celibately.

I strongly disagree. Haven't Adventists always considered Catholicism's celibate priesthood an unnatural way of life? I cannot believe that God would demand that sacrifice of approximately 10% of the population (that He allowed to be born homosexual). So many other aspects of the discussion are involved in that opinion: the constantly growing evidence that same-sex attraction is hard-wired in the brain before birth and is not just a "tendency", my belief that the Bible does not address the issue of homosexual orientation at all, my friendship with many long-term gay and lesbian couples, etc. These Christian couples I know believe in abstinence until commitment and faithfulness afterward.

I also understand marriage as far more than the legal license to have sex. As Dr. Fulton, I think, noted, marriage and monogamy are difficult paths. We learn to understand God's love better. We learn to compromise, to put our partner's desires above ours, to be unselfish - so many lessons in a lifelong marriage. Gay and lesbian people need the opportunity to learn these lessons, too.

Thanks Carrol for your thoughtful comments!

Raymond Thompson

Caroll says:

"I cannot believe that God would demand that sacrifice of approximately 10% of the population (that He allowed to be born homosexual)."

I say:

Approximately which percentage of the population would it be "reasonable" for God to demand such a sacrifice of?
Since when do we get to vote by sheer numbers on which of God's tenets we will or will not obey, or which are an undue burden on "too much" of us?
And this is not even getting at the accuracy of that "10%" number you quote.

Where in the Bible do you find all these caveats to God's commandments?

You are making up a straw man to defeat. God require obedience to His commandments (John 14:15, Revelation 22:14)--not "celibacy". However we choose to live our lives, we must seek to obey Him, whether that means celibacy or not.
You are advocating a cheap grace that withers in the face of mere human problems.
Ease was never promised to anyone in this life. Certainly not by God.

John 16:33
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

God does not ask us to do anything He will not give us the grace to do--even in a sin-marred world.

Furthermore, clever obfuscations about "hard-wiring" notwithstanding, Matthew 5:30 makes it clear that "innate" traits are no excuse for disobedience.
"Hard-wiring" for Prader-Willi does not excuse gluttony.
"Hard-wiring" for a hot temper does not excuse cruelty and violence.
"Hard-wiring" for alcoholism (the dreaded one) does not excuse consumption of alcohol.

This is a respectful, non-rhetorical question to you:
How on earth can you biblically justify that as an excuse for homosexual behavior?
Where in the Bible can I look?

Is it necessary to refer to the Bible anymore? Does it matter what it says? What is its purpose?

On another point:

Carrol said--

Haven't Adventists always considered Catholicism's celibate priesthood an unnatural way of life?

My reply--

No. Adventists have considered Catholicism's (mandatory) celibate priesthood an un-biblical man-made commandment.
The Bible does not command anyone to be celibate (although it recommends that some people try it); and SDAs saw/see it for what it was historically: a Catholic Church tradition in a long vein of such theological inventions from that faith.

Carrol also said--

I also understand marriage as far more than the legal license to have sex. As Dr. Fulton, I think, noted, marriage and monogamy are difficult paths. We learn to understand God's love better. We learn to compromise, to put our partner's desires above ours, to be unselfish - so many lessons in a lifelong marriage. Gay and lesbian people need the opportunity to learn these lessons, too.

My reply--

So anyone without the opportunity to marry has forever missed any chance of learning how to be unselfish?
Gives credence to all those accusations made of singles that they were just selfish, irresponsible and immature people.
What kind of a narrow, limited God is that?
One that is limited in his ways of saving, teaching and transforming us into better people?

I am pretty sure you don't really believe what you typed there (or understand its implications).

Hello, Rob...

I respect the fact that you have a different understanding of this issue than I do, but in answer to your last statement, Yes, I do really believe what I said and I think I understand its implications, as well. Rather than turning this forum into a never-ending battlefield, I would like to refer you to my website, www.someone-to-talk-to.net, particularly the Bible Studies under "What the Bible Says," for answers to your comments.

My observation has been that those who object the most strenuously to statements such as I made, are often those who themselves struggle with homosexual orientation and perhaps, (my guess), resent those who have been able to make peace with themselves. Whether or not this is your situation, I don't know, but as Professor Ranzolin gently reminded us on the podcast, the Bible says only God is the one who can judge us because only He can read our hearts.

Rob Johnson, Jesus Christ came to save, not righteous people, but sinners. He came to save not to condemn.

If one had to chose a verb for what you seem to doing, it would lean more towards condemning rather than saving people.

It is a small wonder that so few gays, lesbians and trans-gender people come knocking at church doors seeking a loving community. Instead they go to local gay pride organizations, to their own gay churches, or if nothing else appears, to the local gay bar or restaurant down the street where they can perhaps enjoy life with someone who will smile at them, if only as they are serving them their drink or taking their order.

God help you in your efforts to uphold the standards of a church that is seriously deficient in love for the sinner.

Dear Carrol,
You said:

"My observation has been that those who object the most strenuously to statements such as I made, are often those who themselves struggle with homosexual orientation and perhaps, (my guess), resent those who have been able to make peace with themselves."

This is a common refrain among many gay activists and writers, but is seldom used in the official literature because when you think about it, it is a double-edged sword.

To call someone "secretly gay" in order to silence their criticism is to legitimize a particular attitude toward homosexuality among youths which of late has been lamented by political gays--i.e. the use of "gay" as an insult or implication of inferiority.
In other words you cannot claim to be offended by the common juvenile term "that's gay" to signify something that is less than ideal, and yet use the same tactic (although in a much more literal sense) to try to silence your critics.

That is not even getting to the point that all that would be irrelevant since the only thing that matters is what the word of God says.

Also to dear Bunbury Vidal,

I have noticed that there is a narrative under the gneral subset of "injustice collecting" whereby people adopt a position of victimization when they do not want to face a challenge to what they believe; complete with general accusational templates which are supposed to serve a catch-all purpose for any of these situations where they may feel challenged.

As such, you made an allegation that is quite unrelated to anything that has been discussed here.
You accused me of "condemning".

(What is that, and how is it related to anything I had to say here?)

Considering the dictionary meaning of the word "condemn" in the context you used, can you point to any specific examples in my post of this?

I specifically responded to a few theological points made by Carrol and asked her if she wouldn't mind referring me to her biblical reasoning behind them; namely (as I read/understood them):

1. That any of God's requirements amounted to "special burdens" to be overridden by vote here on earth; and that "difficulty" was any measure of obligation.

2. That "Adventists" have looked-down on celibacy in the Catholic Church (and by inference on celibacy as a whole); implying that "they" were being inconsistent to ask this of members who were unable to marry.

3. That God could only reveal himself to human beings fully (and teach them life's most valuable lessons) through marriage alone, and that anyone, who for any reason cannot marry, is thus (by implication) iredeemably cut off from a full understanding of God (a very Mormon-sounding doctrine).

Whether or not there is any "love in the church" (a vague topic that I was never sure how to quantify but seems to be a general, standing, uni-directional accusation backed-up by many an anecdote) is quite another issue altogether--which we can discuss if you wish.

What is "love" anyways?

That would be a position of victimhood.

Then, let's see. If 8% of human beings are hardwired for theft we should just make theft a legitimate activity for them. Right? The question should be as I see it -- Is the *practice* of homosexuality contrary to Scripture?

No matter how much one may wish to intellectualize it the practice is, according to Scripture, a sin.

Though we all have our opinions as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin, let's agree to stand back for a moment, and ask a different type of question:

Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, as Christians, and as sinners, how are we to treat those that are homosexual?

Let us stand back by all means if our objective is to reframe our approaches to human sexuality. First, We can stand back by moving away from scriptural prooftexting as well as arguing from silence (which is another form of eisegesis).

Second, Is it necessary to label all fellow humans, distinguishing one from another based on definitions we coined ourselves? Might it not be that our perception of sexual orientation is culturally conditioned? Aren't our attempts at differentiation - diagnosing a person's sexual identity - imperfect at best?

Briefly, let's get our scientific facts straight that we may reform our theories if necessary. Way back, there was a suggestion for Adventist psychologists/psychiatrists and biomedical specialists to share their findings and practice experiences. Let's hear them!

Kirsten said of the meeting, “I appreciated the response that I believe was made by Dr. Fulton, that we seem to spend much more time discussing whether homosexuality is a sin than whether the way in which we treat homosexuals is a sin."

The bible has much to say on the interaction of people whether they be in the world, open sinners in the church or any place else.

A hypothetical story I heard along time ago kind of speaks to the principal you and Dr. Fulton raise.

The Police are called to a normal suburban neighborhood. Upon entering the home they find the mother had killed her 2 sons. The Police are leading her out to the Police car past the front gate when the husband drives up. The Police relate to him their current understanding of what had happened. He goes up to his wife and says, what in the world are you doing! Are you out of your mind?!

Don’t you dare talk to me in that tone of voice! she says.

You might have to be married to appreciate how often this can happen! Anyway, many times when there are issues or controversy, the issue at some point always seems to change from the actual issue, to more about how people went about handling it.

Do you really believe the tone the husband addressed his wife with was a subject on par with why did you kill the boys? Was it something to be addressed at the same time or before the real issue?

I am not saying there is not a place or time to contemplate the “tone” as well. I am saying it is often a deflection technique. When you catch little 4 year old Johnny in the cookie jar red handed what does he say? He makes sure he’s not the only one looking bad. He says, Mary stole the cookies too!

I would hope that discussions on the subject of homosexuality could proceed with a minimum of the side issues little Johnny might raise.

As to the defect being hard wired. Down syndrome (extra chromosome 21), Turner Syndrome (45X0) and Klinefelter's syndrome are all hard wired, yet they are still known as defects not lifestyle choices.

Lots of research is ongoing on these medical problems. Failue to admit what it is can only do harm towards finding a cure.