What should be a sign of the times as to the moral degradation of the race is regarded as recommended reading material. Sorry guys, but you can't believe in Sola Scriptura (as we claim to as Adventists) and go along with this. Saying a dog is a cat doesn't make it a cat. And saying that you can be a Christian and live in sin doesn't make you a Christian, period.

Apparently some Christians don't live in sin on earth? Is glorification upon us?

Alex,

Admitting that one struggles with sin, and does sin, is a reality that all Christians must face. I agree that none of us could ever claim to be above the fray, so to speak. If we do, we have an even worse problem.

But, trying to redefine what sin is, to legitimize it, is a whole different story. That's what Raymond keeps hammering at in piece after piece. That's what so many are objecting to. Rightly or wrongly, they cannot see the Biblical legitimacy of his position.

I feel that you are not truly addressing the issue that Samuel is raising, dismissing his argument with the "we're all sinners" card. It would help if you would speak instead to his question of biblical legitimacy.

Thanks...

Frank

Oh, the omniscience of the Christians who do better than Jesus than defining sin. When did Jesus ever condemn homosexuality? No need of his "love your neighbor as yourself" when so many of those who call themselves Christians exclude their fellow neighbors as having no place within the Christian body.

Who is willing to define how "struggling with sin" is never "sin" when Jesus explained that lust in the heart was committing adultery--which by the way is in the Ten Commandments while homosexuality is never mentioned there or by Jesus. Overlooked?

Please explain how "saying that you can be a Christian and live in sin doesn't make you a Christian, period" which implies that no Christian sins. Otherwise, what does "living in sin" really mean when no one is sinless? Does someone who "lusts," loses his temper, bears false witness, NOT live in sin? Is he sinless? Has he reached a state of perfection, or glorification? These terms are so carelessly used they need definition, unless the writer can find one Christian who no longer sins.

"If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."
Is Tutu and/or his associates polytheistic? If the monotheistic God they currently worship disapproves of homosexuality do they have a spare that suits their sensibilities? I wonder since they say they wouldnt worship "THAT" God.
Defining God as possibly homophobic doesnt make him so, but a persons decision to worship him or not is quite relevant. Its kind of what the whole thing is about.

"Apparently some Christians don't live in sin on earth? Is glorification upon us?"

Sorry if I wasn't clear Alex and also Elaine...you raise a valid point. The simple answer to that is a question - that in and of itself can spark controversy in Adventism (or Christendom in general) Is there a difference between willful sin (presumption) and falling in the fight but still getting up? Paul talks a lot about this issue (Romans 7 anyone?)...the battle of wanting to do right and the flesh (carnal nature) not being totally subjugated, "I don't do the good I want to do. Instead, I do the evil that I don't want to do." Romans 7:19 I'm not claiming that Christians are sinless yet (now that's another issue too - is sinlessness possible before translation?!) however the question is, are you and I on the projectory of growth - through the power of an indwelling Christ? Or are we as Protestant Christians who believe in sola scriptura trying to excuse willful sin (sexual or otherwise) as dependent on popular culture's interpretation?
Now that doesn't make sense in my book...

"Please explain how "saying that you can be a Christian and live in sin doesn't make you a Christian, period" which implies that no Christian sins"

This encourages laziness which leads to indifference. What a sad time we live in, when mediocrity has become the highest standard of achievment on this planet. As for this statement from Mr. Tutu "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God." Has God become like unto man, that we can speak his name without a care or reverence of/about whom we speak? **walks of shaking head**

Whether it is my brother is gay and he left the church because he was not made comfortable,
Or how actions are separated from propensities, or the fact that being homosexual a genetic abnormality, but yet somehow not one worth fixing or even should be fixed, all these threads and posts consider one aspect.
Being made comfortable and accepted IN the activity and lifestyle. That is what is being advocated.
Carrol says a functioning heterosexual man is still a homosexual. And may be true. But he is taking actions to combat his feelings. The only other choice is to make excuses for them.

Let’s say Homosexuality is a genetic defect as Carrol and all the apologists say. Fine. Then why is it the only genetic defect that those who have it (in large) want NO cure? Why do they not advocate for a cure?
As to Gaylene’s list of forces affecting the propensity.
It is a good list. Well thought out.
I have also always thought of a list like that.
In my list the most honest homosexual (with their community and themselves) are the ones who have a sex reassignment surgery. My Uncle is one.
It is the only solution that inherently recognizes a defect was made prior to birth and seeks to fix it. They do not advocate for everyone else to change what they think is right or wrong or how things should be to accommodate their homosexuality.
I have a lot of respect for those who proactively try to address the genetic problems they were born with.

Being a great christian or preacher or welder or carpet layer is not a competent modifier of someones homosexuality.
Homosexuality is no respecter of persons so why would what job they have be a factor?

Oh Michael, let God be God and please stop judging people.

Our gay brothers and lesbian sisters do not need you (or anyone else) to tell them how to live the life that God has given them.

God embraces them in their homosexuality, who are you to not embrace them? And better yet, from what right does the church put words in God's mouth?

The leaders of the Adventist Church and those members who persecute homosexual people will have much to answer for when Christ returns to claim his beloved GLBT children as his own.

Grace and peace.

Raymond, with all due respect, in your comments above you are seriously begging the question. You write "stop judging people" but if the behavior is sin, then judgement to that effect is appropriate and Christian. The issue being contended centers on whether homosexuality *is* sin or not.

Then: "the life that God has given them" infers God has bestowed their homosexuality instead of it being derived from genetic aberation or the person's will. Likewise, when you say "God embraces them in their homosexuality" you assume a conclusion that is in fact the issue being examined. This is why I state that you are begging the question.

Now, your position is clear and I respect that. However, it contributes nothing to the discussion to make inferences based on your position when the position is controverted.

And, please note, my saying this should in no way infer *anything* about my personal views on this subject. That is quite beside the point I am trying to make.

Michael, is it possible your uncle was transsexual and not homosexual? I have never heard of surgeons agreeing to do sex reassignment surgery on GLBs - and don't know why they would seek one.

Transsexuals believe they are the opposite sex. A man who is transsexual believes he is actually a woman, wants to be a woman, and is attracted to men as a woman. Thus he may seek sex reassignment surgery to become the sex that he has always believed that he is.

Homosexuals know they are the same sex as what their genitals say but are attracted to the same sex. They have no desire to BE a different sex. Sex reassignment surgery would be devastating psychologically because they don't think they are the opposite sex.

Beth,
He had a desire for men and a voice in his head that always heard the effeminate version of his name when people used his given name. Thats what he told us.
I believe tecnically you are correct, transexual. Through this chain of events we were introduced to others who were supposably in the same state/condition as my uncle who were not seeking surgical solutions. They still wanted relationships with men , but some were content to only dress as women rather than have surgury, and others lived as men and wanted to be treated like women by men.
It was quite an experience and I still claim only a beginners undertanding of the nuances or diffrences between them especially when one factors in all the fetishes/variations they mentioned. It was my perception during this that it was not as clearly defined as GLBT. THere were personal preferences involved. I can understand that, since as a man one may prefer blonde thin women verses other types.
Still it always struck me as his decision being one of seeking a solution to what he percieved as being a mistake at/prior to birth. That always struck me. The other thing that struck me was his solution didnt hang on changing other peoples sense of things.

Raymond,
Its a weak discussion when you wave the white flag of surrender and go straight to the "Stop judging" line.
The other line, "God embraces them in their homosexuality..."
is so far off base that I am at a loss. IN their homosexuality? Really?
Clearly this issue is no where near settled and yet you think you can speak for God? Ask Korah how that one worked out for him.
This may be your perception or belief but your youthful zeal for progressiveness has left your reasoning in the dust.
Clearly you know the concept and the danger of what I am talking about because you say, "And better yet, from what right does the church put words in God's mouth?
Clearly the pot calling the kettle black there.
Your last statement is the best.
"The leaders of the Adventist Church and those members who persecute homosexual people will have much to answer for when Christ returns to claim his beloved GLBT children as his own."

You use loose and inflamitory words like "persecute". Do you mean like Christians were persecuted in Roman times? Like crucifixion or lions? Or during communism in the USSR?
Or does your sense of persecution run more towards not being invited to a 10 year olds birthday party because of the akward questions the child may ask?

I suspect it is closer to the latter.
However back to the subject. I suspect even you will admit that not all homosexuals rejoice in their condition. For all those who wish they did not have this condition, where is your advocacy for a cure? You say its not a choice. You say its a genetic condition. I believe you. But I dont hear you agitating for any medical answers. Do you have hope for any of the new work being done in gene therapy?
How about a real answer on this point?

Thanks Michael, that makes sense. And you aren't the only "beginner" when it comes to understanding the nuances of transsexuality :) Even mental health professionals don't know much about it and it really hasn't been studied nearly enough. For those of us whose gender identity is uncomplicated, it can be baffling.

Bishop Gene Robinson is one of the main participants in last year's documentary For The Bible Tells Me So, a powerful film about Christianity and homosexuality voted by BeliefNet to be one of the best religious films of 2007. It's also the Spectrum film club selection for this August, so please do try to watch it by then so we'll have a broad discussion. You can buy For The Bible Tells Me So from Amazon.

Michael,

If we, as Adventist Christians, believe that we serve a God of love, compassion, grace, and reason, then there are some concerns that I have with homosexuality and Adventist Christian community. There have been biblical scholars & theologians, Adventist and from other denominations, that have illustrated the ambiguity within Scriptures relating to human sexual orientation. Understanding that we have the testimony of tens of thousands of homosexuals, gay and lesbian Christian people, who have shared their struggle with their faith and sexuality, we must let their voices be heard on this matter before those of us who have not personal, individual experience with the realities of homosexual sexuality make value judgements.

Gays and lesbians have shared their humble pleas to Almighty God in prayer to “deliver this burden of sexuality from them” and yet we have the vast majority of homosexual men and women not having their prayers “answered.” Does this mean anything? Is God leading in not answering the prayer to “change one’s sexuality” because of the intolerance and misunderstanding of societies? These are important questions to consider.

It would seem that the vast majority of scientific evidence and research, unequivocally, has demonstrated that sexuality—both homosexuality and heterosexuality—are indelible features of our existence as human beings. The question of the biological connection with sexuality between those persons who are heterosexual and those who are homosexual is no longer in contention by sexuality researchers; rather the question now focuses on what degree sexuality is biological.

Because of the testimony of Gene Robinson, John J. McNeil, Bradley Schmeling, and Beth Stroud, among so many others, fair-minded individuals must have a hard time condemning men and women who discover their sexual reality to be that of attraction, emotionally and physically, to members of the same sex and also choose to answer God’s call to ministry in His Church.

You claim that I am speaking for God, yet I have not spoken for God, He has spoken Himself. He has given us ample scientific research that ought to teach us that our sexuality is part of our individuality. God has given us the testimony of thousands of gay and lesbian Christians who serve the ministry of Christ in complete devotion and with an awesome sense of responsibility. God has called His GLBT children to the Ministry of the Gospel. This “belief” has nothing to do with my progressivism or “youthful zeal,” but rather has everything to do with my humble desire to allow God to lead and not mankind. Forever may we glorify Almighty God and not the opinions of the conferences of men.

If God is truly a God of love, compassion, grace, and reason, then He should “change” those who ask deliverance from the reality of their sexuality, yet God has not sought to change their sexuality, instead He has called some to ministry, others to service in other vocations. He has called the GLBT community to, “love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.” He has also called heterosexuals to do the same.

It does not serve love to reject someone for something they did not choose. It does not serve love to place limitations on people in the church because of their sexuality. How does the church “love its neighbor” when condemning him or her for that in which there is to be found no condemnation either within Scripture or the counsels of the Lord through the Spirit?

I remain ever faithful to God’s counsel when I declare, “From what right does the church put words in God's mouth when He has not counseled the church with those words?” and with the statement, "The leaders of the Adventist Church and those members who persecute homosexual people will have much to answer for when Christ returns to claim His beloved GLBT children as His own."

Michael, you ask why I use the word “persecute.” You call it inflammatory.

I wonder what the family of Matthew Shepard would use to describe what happened to their son. I wonder if you consider being beaten and left to die on a fence is brutality, even “persecution.” I use persecution because that word is defined as “the active, systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group or individual.” I believe the actions of the Fred Phelps and his church is persecution. I use persecution because of all those gay men and lesbian women who are beaten and killed by “zealous Christians acting out God’s will, for the Bible does declare, “…their blood be upon them.” This is persecution and that is why I use the word persecution.

You question, “Or does your sense of persecution run more towards not being invited to a 10 year olds birthday party because of the awkward questions the child may ask?” Is pure malarkey, it is offensive to homosexual men and women, and it stems from an ignorance of the history of persecution of homosexuals by Christians. I would venture to state that there is no awkward questions that the child would ask, provided that child is taught about the reality of homosexuals—oh my! What a concept! What might happen to those poor impressionable minds?!? To borrow a Goldstein expression, “Please, let's get real!”

How about this one: Martha, dear, your uncles John and Vincent are married because they are attracted to males, they are homosexuals, mommy and daddy are heterosexuals because mommy is attracted to men and daddy is attracted to women, that is why we are married. You know that your friend Jerrie’s mommies are homosexuals also, they are called lesbians, women who are attracted to women. God is such a wonderful creator that He has made people with different sexualities, some homosexuals, some heterosexuals.

Wow, that was hard! How dreadfully awkward!

“I suspect even you will admit that not all homosexuals rejoice in their condition.” I would admit that because of the ignorance of many Christians and the intolerance that promotes homophobia that homosexuals are unable to rejoice in the gift and beauty of their sexuality.

“You say it’s not a choice. You say it’s a genetic condition.” I’m glad that you believe me, but it is not I that say this, it is:

“The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (the list of mental disorders referred to as the DSM) in 1973. It reaffirmed this position twenty-seven years later with this statement: “The APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to re-pathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.”

“The American Psychological Association passed a resolution in 1975 supporting the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, stating: “The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”

“The American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and other national mental health associations have also supported the research-based conclusion that homosexuality is not an illness or mental health problem.

“Medical associations worldwide have reached many of the same findings. The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1993. Japan’s psychiatric association did so in 1995, and the Chinese followed in 2001. In December, 2002, Thailand’s Mental Health Department
declared that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. To assert that homosexuality is not a mental disorder does not mean that all gay and lesbian people are free of emotional problems or mental illness. In fact, some studies suggest that while most gays and lesbians are well adjusted, some (especially those subjected to harassment and prejudice or living in cultures extremely intolerant of homosexuality) are at risk for higher levels of depression and anxiety (Meyer, 2003, Cochran & Mays, 2006). This is a logical and expected correlation. Depression and anxiety are common, understandable reactions to societal prejudice, religious condemnation, employment discrimination, and familial rejection. When it comes to the question of whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, scientific research is unanimous—it is not. Despite that research, however, many religious and political groups continue to selectively quote scientific literature to buttress arguments that homosexuality is a pathology. They often take scientific literature out of context or extrapolate information from studies that focus on other populations. Their goal is to use scientific studies to bolster arguments against giving gay and lesbian people political or civil rights.” (from http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthesciencesays.pdf)

“But I do not hear you agitating for any medical answers.” Michael, there are medical answers:

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE. IT IS A BIOLOGICAL FACT. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A PATHOLOGY!

You ask, “Do you have hope for any of the new work being done in gene therapy?” Such as genetically altering one's sexuality and “playing God?” I thought “conservatives” were against that? No, wait, I get it. Altering genes is alright when it involves making the genes of a prospective homosexual into a heterosexual. Wow! I am left in utter bewilderment at the arrogance of such a position.

Man trying to be God, again and again, it would seem that we have yet to learn from the mistake in Eden.

May God truly help us!

So, am I understanding your position to be;

Homosexuals pray for God to relieve them from their predicament.
God doesnt answer them.
That then means God wants them that way.
And even though homosexuality is a genetic abnormality, looking for a medical solution would be playing God.
Therefore, anyone who doesnt rejoice in the "gift" God has bestowed on them is homophobic.
Is that basically it without all the frosting you lay on?

Raymond

On the one hand, though there's no universal consensus about the definition of sexual orientation, there's general agreement that same-sex attraction is not a mental illness. I agree.

"Through history, various theories have been proposed regarding the source and development of sexual orientation. Many scientists believe that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors. In most cases, sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience... Based on research conducted in the 1960s, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals concluded that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder, or emotional problem."

- Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence

On the other hand, is exclusive same-sex attraction a biological fact? There's no clear answer. I think not.

"Sexual orientation is a difficult issue for evolutionary theorists. On the surface, if evolutionary forces are the key to human sexuality, exclusive homosexuality with no reproduction should not exist, and even bisexuality, with decreased heterosexual mating and reproduction, should not be favored. Natural selection would quickly weed out individuals and genes leading to these tendencies."

- Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality - The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 1998 by John D. DeLamater, Janet Shibley Hyde

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746720

Joselito, you might find this article offering an explanation on why homosexuality hasn't become extinct interesting.

http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/animal_human.html

Homosexual behavior is extremely common in the animal kingdom and may have some advantages. In birds that tend to make life-time bond pairs there are life-time homosexual pairings that raise offspring in various ways - and, at least for males, perhaps have a better survival rate in their chicks too.

Interesting stuff. On a different note, now that scientists are looking, they have also come to the kind of depressing conclusion that complete monogamy is very rare even among the life-time pairings. Genetic tests of offspring show that, while they are bonded for life, both sexes sneak off for trysts. Mind you, this is not an argument for how things should be, just how they are :) I still support that monogamy thing even if it is rare.

Thank you, Beth, for the link. Same-sex alliances and same-sex behavior in humans, and in non-human primates as well, may have reproductive advantages, we're told. This is especially true with non-exclusive, non-monogamous relationships. In addition, male same-sex bonding in particular tend to favor control of resources and enhance access to the other sex. (Curr Anthropol. 2000 Jun;41(3):385-413. The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior. Kirkpatrick RC, Plato , Lévi-Strauss C.; Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2005 Dec;26(6):771-4. The alliance theory of homosexual behavior and the perception of social status and reproductive opportunities. Muscarella F, Cevallos AM, Siler-Knogl A, Peterson LM.).

What is natural? What is according to nature and natural law?