Jared, Excellent questions, and certainly worth some debate:

1. If two men lived together who were known to be homosexual in orientation (or "with strong emotional bonds… more than friendship"), everyone would assume they were physically intimate, even though they may not be. This suggests the real issue is not with gays, but with the judgment & prejudice of the church community.

2. The question presupposes that homosexuality is sin, which in my humble opinion is a view resulting from an improper interpretation of scripture. The problems of denial and suicide are real, but don't demonstrate anything at all about the innate sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual practice. Rather, these problems result from the overwhelming intolerance of the heterosexual majority in the church.

3. The two options provided by the church are unfair and impractical, and demonstrate a phenomenal lack of any grasp of the issues on the part of the decision makers. If I were gay, I wouldn't be an Adventist - period.

Robert you have hit the nail on the head.
Why be a christian if you are Gay?
Why be a Adventist if you are Gay?

Because the same question could be asked about about Heterosexuals.

I learnt along time ago that my salvation does not depend on the Adventist church and its dogma.

As for the conference I think it was a fast.
It gave no real hope to those who want answers and gave fear to those who subscribe to this fear mongering.

If it was serious it would have said that Homosexuality is no more a sin than those who are Heterosexual.
Gods Grace is sufficient for me.

2. The question presupposes that homosexuality is sin, which in my humble opinion is a view resulting from an improper interpretation of scripture.

Robert

I am interested in your "interpretation". For example, the reinterpretation of Leviticus 18:22 in order to remove the conclusion that a male having sex with another male is NOT a sin seems like it would be convoluted without making the next verse compatible with the conclusion that sex with animals is not sin either.

22`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].

23`And with any beast thou dost not give thy copulation, for uncleanness with it; and a woman doth not stand before a beast to lie down with it; confusion it [is].

keafan,
Of course Scripture condemns homosexuality. The Torah calls for the death penalty for homosexual acts. But do you really want to use the Torah as your moral guide? Defend the death penalty for collecting firewood on the Sabbath day? Signing off on slavery and the subjugation of women? There is no fundamental difference between the Torah and Sharia law. It would have been hard distinguishing between the ancient Hebrews and today's Taliban.

Jared:

Excellent questions. I would like to see the conference organizers seek out those whom they know will have contrary positions (even if that means I won't get the mic as much). Many of the questions have come from premises that agreed with the presenters, and, frankly, I find that a little boring. Keep putting up your hand!

I'm posting precis of the presentations at my blog, apokalupto.

Happy Sabbath.

David Hamstra

Question #1 was answered in quite a substantive way. The answer just happened to come before the individual posed the query.

Question #2 needs to be explored.

Question #3 was also answered in, at least from my perspective, a substantive manner. I wonder if you feel the question wasn't addressed because the responses from the panel failed to line up with your perspective?

Keep the reports coming, Jared!

God bless!

Of course Scripture condemns homosexuality.

Aage

Robert disagrees. He stated that The question presupposes that homosexuality is sin, which in my humble opinion is a view resulting from an improper interpretation of scripture.

I was asking him how he arrived at his interpretation, not whether christians should follow that particular Mosaic Law. It seemed to me that a reinterpretation of verse 22 would also lead him to a reinterpretation of verse 23 to mean that sex with a goat wasn't a sin either.

Sean,

I didn't get the sense that the panelists who were asked those questions had anything substantive to say in response. In terms of question number three regarding the two "solutions" for GLBT Adventists, the respondents' reiteration that, yes, there are two options, and they are biblical, didn't strike me as necessarily very substantive. More a reiteration of the question's premise from my perspective. That is not tied to any particular ideology, just a matter of giving (or not giving) robust responses to some thoughtful inquiries.

Anyone know what was driving this meeting?

Jim,

According to Roy Gane in unscripted comments yesterday, a Seventh-day Adventist-made website called Adventists Against Prop 8.

Nicholas Miller and Roy Gane discussed creating the conference as a response, Gane said.

If I had a problem with alcohol, would you have a conference to study and reinterpret the scriptures and see if God really meant that abuse of alcohol was really bad? Or should the Adventist Church just let me in and condone my actions?

If I had a problem with drugs, would you have a conference to study and reinterpret the scriptures and see if God really meant that abusing my body with drugs was really bad? Or should the Adventist Church just let me in and condone my drug use?

If I had a problem with adultery, would you have a conference to study and reinterpret the scriptures and see if God really meant that abusing myself and others by committing adultery was really bad? Or should the Adventist Church just let me in and condone my adultery?

I could make a dozen or more "If I had a problem" statements. The scriptures say what they say. It is a very slippery slope for us to say that we know better than God and we need to reinterpret His Word. It is not our job to reinterpret God's Word, but to bring our lives into line with His will for our lives. He only says all of these things to us FOR OUR HAPPINESS. He is our creator and He knows what will make us happy. HOMOSEXUALITY WILL NOT MAKE ANYONE HAPPY. IT IS AGAINST ALL OF NATURE, OUR NATURE, AND THE CREATOR.

I have nothing but praise for the SDA Church because it calls all men and women to bring their brokenness to him and the church and HEAL. No where in the scripture do I read that we are to stagnate in our brokenness. God calls us to move away from alcohol, drugs, adultery, overeating, and yes, even homosexuality. Alcoholics, and drug addicts, and adulterers, and gluttons, and lazy people, and gossipers, and liars, and homosexuals will all spend the rest of their lives healing from these sins. Because the alcoholic struggles with alcohol and has to stay away from the triggers, does that make the work and healing wrong? THAT IS THE NATURE AND EVILNESS OF SIN. It damages us for life and takes a life of healing. Does the occasional temptation to drink make all of the work the alcoholic has done in AA useless? Does the occasional indulgence in a banana split negate the former obese persons loss of 80 pounds? Homosexuals are damaged people just like the rest of the world. They have deep personal work to do, just like all sinners. Their personal sin seems OK to them, just like all sinners think that their personal sin is OK. Alcoholics felt really good after a drink. Drug addicts felt really good after smoking that joint or injecting that drug. Adulterers felt really good after that orgasm. But we all know that there is a price to pay for those sins. At first, overcoming homosexuality seems impossible. It was the same way for those who quit alcohol, tobacco, drugs, food indulgence, etc. The truth is that we can overcome sin and lead healthy, happy, lives, even homosexuality. God promised that. We don't need to reinterpret the scriptures to know that!

Keafan, I should perhaps have used the word "application" rather than "interpretation" of scripture in my earlier post - in your Leviticus references, the literal meaning of the text is clear enough (unlike certain NT references, where the literal meaning is subject to interpretation).

However I don't believe the instructions given in Leviticus are applicable today - these instructions were given to the Jews as part of their total "Old Covenant" law package. If you're going to apply those rules today, are you also going to refrain from wearing clothes that have two kinds of fabric interwoven, or better yet, bulldoze down your house if it develops a mould problem?

Newman, your post emphatically stated "IT IS AGAINST ALL OF NATURE..." - could you elaborate a little and explain why you believe this to be true? Also, on what basis do you compare homosexuality with alcohol and drug abuse - is it just because to you they are all sinful? I can't see a relevant connection between homosexuality and abuses that are self-evidently harmful.

Robert,

Homosexuality is against nature in a number of ways. Human sexuality is for procreation. Yes there is pleasure involved too, but homosexual sex cannot produce children. The creation of man and woman was meant by God to match needs and strengths that are complimentary. Two men cannot truly meet each other's needs and two women cannot meet each other's needs either. A man and a woman as married life partners and as parents provides the best environment to raise children. Two men cannot show a little girl how to be a woman and two women cannot show a little boy how to be a man. God intended children to have a female mother and a male father. This has been understood for thousands of years, only recently has society become so confused on this issue. There are studies that show that homosexual men have higher incidence of mental illness, suicide and suicidal thoughts, sexual diseases, and promiscuity. The reason why I related these behaviors together is that most if not all of us know that alcohol and drugs and adultery are bad. We see the evidence of these behaviors. What is not so evident is that homosexuality has a very dark side just like other sins. Homosexual behavior is harmful. I agree that we must differentiate between same-sex attraction (SSA, which I believe is not a sin, but something to be dealt with), and homosexual behavior (a sin that must not be practiced). When we begin to understand the true origins of SSA and how to deal with it, then progress can be made. It is a problem that the SSA affected individual needs help with, from God, family, and from the church. Right now, the church is failing at helping those affected with SSA. The church is a masterful at judgment, but does very poor at loving and helping same-sex attracted individuals with their problem. The church is equally bad at helping those with alcohol, drug, and any other problems. Thanks!

Robert, by the way, I am not the one that says that homosexuality is sinful, the Bible does that. I only accept that truth.

"It gave no real hope to those who want answers and gave fear to those who subscribe to this fear mongering."

Newman has carefully pointed out that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. Whether the church is the organization which can actually determine the cause and cure of what he calls SSA is problematic. I'm not certain this is the function of the church itself.

The hope that many apparently refer to is, apparently, the hope that the SDA church will find a way to accept into its membership those who are continuing in sin, whether homosexual sin or other overt sins. That cannot happen and the church would be unfaithful to its mission to do so. Christ came to save from sin not to save us so that we can consciously continue to live in sin.

Soo Your Friend,
You believe you are not a sinner and we are.
How convent for you that Grace was just given to you.
I am not interested in the SDA Church accepting me as A Gay PERSON.

What I am interested in is how the SDA Church has double standards in everything it does and says.
Like the fact that most or at lest 25% of the Pastors in the church have gay members in their Families.

How are those members treated??

A conference that was just to get back at the other side. How poor is that.

You people make a joke of it like water running of your backs.

Well It Is Written that the Lord will repay.
Just how much.

Newman, thank you for elaborating on your earlier comments.

“..homosexual sex cannot produce children” - it could be argued on this basis that sterile or elderly heterosexual couples shouldn’t engage in sex .

“Two men cannot truly meet each other's needs and two women cannot meet each other's needs either” – the statement would clearly be true for heterosexuals, but people with same sex attraction have different needs than heterosexuals. In any event, each party to the relationship will have needs met which would be unmet if they were single.

“A man and a woman as married life partners and as parents provides the best environment to raise children” – personally I agree, though this probably represents a value judgment on my part. However many children are raised in circumstances that are less than ideal. And a gay/lesbian couple is probably less likely to have children than a heterosexual couple, due to the need for some external/medical assistance.

“There are studies that show that homosexual men have higher incidence of mental illness, suicide and suicidal thoughts, sexual diseases, and promiscuity” – is the higher incidence of mental illness and suicide/suicidal thoughts because of homosexuality per se, or because of the way in which these individuals find themselves rejected by society and the church? As regards sexual disease & promiscuity (I don’t condone promiscuity for either gays or heterosexuals), being homosexual doesn’t mean one has to be promiscuous – frequently this is a symptom of the rejection earlier referred to.

“I am not the one that says that homosexuality is sinful, the Bible does that” – certainly there are Bible texts that forbid homosexual practice. However some of these prohibitions are part of the Mosaic law which was given to the Jews as part of the “Old Covenant”, and therefore don’t necessarily apply today (unless you also believe you should bulldoze a house that develops a mould problem?) Some of the New Testament references to homosexuality are less clear as regards context and interpretation.

Let me be clear – I’m not suggesting the church should condone members persisting in a life of sin; rather I’m suggesting that a same-sex couple living in a committed relationship, isn’t in fact living in sin. I accept this is a matter of Biblical interpretation and application, and that my view is a minority view. If you’re interested in exploring the contrary position, I recommend reading “Living in Sin?”, by John Shelby Spong.

God's love for the world includes you and also extends to those who have hurt you the worst and also to those you most disagree with.
Don't resist God's love for you and others. Embrace it. Rejoice in it. Revel in it. Let it work a miracle in you so your good works glorify your Father in heaven. —Matthew 5:16

Robert, I can see from your conversation that you have thought about your opinions. You do not appear to be a knee-jerk responder to my statements. I understand that I am a man in an unfriendly place by making my opinions known here on Spectrum. I know this is a "progressive" site that leans far to the left. I am not sure where you stand and I have no judgement for you personally. I am a man who has struggled with SSA in my life. I am in a much better place now and praise God for the grace that he has shown me. I have done very deep personal emotional work to get to where I am now. I have found my masculinity and I like it very much. I am married and have children. I love my family. My SSA is healthy now. I am attracted to make strong male to male friendships with other men. I am learning to enjoy the things men do, like watch sports, play sports, do outdoor activities, etc. I am thankful for the people in the church that have helped me work on my emotional wounds that caused my SSA. I am really thankful to People Can Change and their Journey into Manhood weekend, the Mankind Project, and my former therapist for helping me to see men as I should, safe, equal, and welcoming. I don't see them as sexual objects like I used to. I am a Newman.

Noel, I see that you are an angry person. I invite you to give that anger to God and begin your healing. Anger destroys. God's grace heals. There are safe people in the church that can help you. There are bad people in the church too, ignore them.

New man,
It depends on what you call healed?

Anger is only how you think, I feel.

The Grace is given with no conditions put on it.
Mankind puts the conditions on it and so I believe a different path to you.
Those who dare telling people that their on the wrong path waste time. May you fined your path and not someone else's path.
My salvation is a private matter between My God and myself.

Problem is mankind has never stopped telling you how to live your life and so judges you.

I am very pleased that it is coming to an end and we will see in all glory his coming.
For all, mankind.
Because we are all one, the human race with our differences.
Amen.

Oh by the way I do not believe God is male or female.
When I use the "his" that is a term given by mankind.
Noel

Newman, Thank you doesn't even come close to saying it - I'm in awe of your testimony and praise God that you're willing to tell your story.

I too am married with children. I don't relate to your experience with SSA because this is something I haven't struggled with, myself. But I have had a difficult emotional journey at times in my life - as a young man I was very insecure, which caused various personal and social problems. I married for the first time before I'd acknowledged those issues and received God's healing, and my first marriage eventually failed because of the baggage I'd brought into the relationship and the resulting harm I did to my first wife in the early part of that marriage. I'm now remarried, and have a rich and fulfilling life - I have an amazing wife as well as two children and three step-children, all of whom are wonderful Christian young people.

My interest in this discussion is partly academic and partly because I know a few wonderful Christians who are gay, and who have struggled with rejection by the church. I certainly wouldn't presume to judge the integrity of your journey or where you're at now, however suspect that the reasons for SSA are probably many and complex. I believe that in many cases, SSA is something a person experiences from birth, rather than resulting from emotional wounds.

Bottom line is, I believe each person needs to live their life with integrity and take the journey the Lord sets before them. For some, as in your case, that journey may result in a radical change to SSA. However I believe one person's journey can never prescribe another, and that none of us has the right to judge how someone else deals with SSA.

As for Spectrum, I think it represents the entire spread of Adventist thought. I haven't found it to be unfriendly - frequently a post will challenge the way I think (which I think engenders growth) and overall I find it spiritually enriching.

Robert

From an SDA perspective, Leviticus 11 is used as a basis for determination of clean/unclean meats, but Leviticus 18's laws on sexual relations are out under Paul's interpretation of a New Covenant? I realize that the absurdities of unclean women, or clothing made of more than 1 type of material, are not given a second thought today. In a typical New Covenant theory, laws that are reiterated are carried over to be in effect today. If they are not in the NT, they are toast (save the 10 C's). Since you are quite happy to wear mixed-cloth clothing under the New Covenant are you cool with people who might practice beastiality? Under your rules its A-OK. Generally, christian rules are whatever the denomination says they are. Polygamy is fine in the NT except for church leaders but its claimed by modern christianity to be sin. Now that developed societies are turning secular, the tolerance for different points of view, and lifestyles associated with being secular, are overrunning the ancient prejudices of organized religion. Some states still have sodomy laws and laws against cohabitation. The sects/denominations which are progressive are far along in their formulation of new proof texts for their new "truth" of inclusiveness. For some reason Catholic priests seem to enjoy the confessions of sexual "sins" and are very intense in the rules of the bedroom. The SDA church is getting hit with a greatly weakened authority figure (Ellen), the acceptance of the fact of evolution in the higher levels of the education system, and the squeaky wheel gays born into the church (I doubt a gay person would JOIN the church).

The church leadership seems to be stuck in a reactionary, defensive position, for the last 30 years (maybe longer, but at least since I have been an adult). Now they want to hold conferences on homosexuality, being "Green", how far the literal line can be pushed in science relating to origin of life and evolution of species, relevance of Ellen, authority of the SOP, female ordination with minister credentials, etc. Once the conferences are over there is not much concrete difference except afterward they can point to a specific time & event and state that "That X subject was handled on Y date during the X Conference". The conference gets stacked with those in favor of the status quo, so the outcome is known in advance (see the science conferences in Denver).

You and I can both find proof-texts for just about any position along the spectrum of possible decisions that can be made on the Gay Rights issue.

Use Leviticus and they should be killed (or at least disfellowshipped).

Use Paul and they should not be baptized and if baptized, then disfellowshipped.

Use Jesus and they are welcome.

Personally, I would choose the teachings of Jesus but, with the backing of the writings of the SOP, the decisions will most likely be based on a combination of Leviticus & Paul with a few obligatory sayings of Jesus to soften the attack from California.

An interesting event to behold.

Another problem with the written questions for the last panel is that several that suggested the questioner had a different viewpoint were held back until time ran out.

Keafan, some interesting points! However just to clarify, I don't believe that just because something can't be prohibited on biblical grounds, that it's necessarily OK.

I am trying to get used to the new format with Twitter.

It seems a question from the floor: Blakely I believe:

The question was put something like this: "If I were to pray to be changed to heterosexual, would I begin chasing women right away? Other than the obvious, "I gottcha quality" the question implies that the questioner defines homosexuality as "chasing men!" and normative heterossxuality as "chasing women!"

I think he gave away much more than he got in asking the question. Tom

Isn't that what every young red blooded male does.
I know they do in my Adventist church.
Well they talk about it like it is!!
One can only go by what one hears.

The Adventist church has more women than men.
So the odds are greater for the Guys.

But when you work it out most are over the age of 50.
That includes men.

Noel

If you follow the give and take. First Blakely uses the word heck and they quickly apologizing as forgetting where he is--he is working the crowd, quite successfully and they he hits his zinger. The two way implication of the chase as normative and the underlying implication that God loves to play tricks. In effect, trivilizing the conference, its subject, and the panel. I agree--that such a conference is a foolish effort with a stand-off the best possible outcome.

I have no solution. I applaud those who make attempts at resolution--Those struggling with the problem, generally have developed a wit ala Oscar Wilde--it is an escape from the reality of the issue. I have only had to deal with the issue in the workplace professionally. By and large the individuals know the parameters of the workplace. I have had to deal with several problems dealing with patients and under aged contacts. It is not a pleasant task. Tom

I just noticed the Spectrum Ad for the prize winning male/male kiss. Is this the kind of promotion this Journal of Adventit Forums wants to accept--does that not indicate some level of endorsement?

I bet Huslter et al would be glad for the "exposure" also. /They might even be willing to endow a chair or a bed!

Tom

Tom: some of the ads run here are auto-generated via Google Ads. They get placed here by Google algorithms evaluating words in the article and placing ads that - based on the algorithm's heuristics - seem to fit the content of the article. And on fairly rare occasion that process results in the inappropriate and embarrassing result you have complained about. Usually this has been when we have material relating to homosexuality, then sometimes the Google Ad is promoting material that Spectrum would not ever promote. We try to block these ads when we detect them - which is an imperfect process. One might ask why don't we stop using Google ads? There is a pragmatic trade-off. This site is very expensive - and free to our readers (although we always hope for donations). Google Ads provide a small but helpful revenue stream. And this downside rarely occurs. - website editor

Tom,
I would agree with you.
But that person may well be on the attack because of the treatment he has received long ago.

Stalemate and that is a shame.

Some good could have come out of it, but they choose to pull the church line. How sad.
But I am sure God has a hand in all of this and will show light on the subject in years to come.
The Adventist church bowers to main stream, kicking and shouting and has changed over the years
The Bible does say man is slow to learn.

Yes there is good and bad in all.
As a nurse in an OR I see many things.
In more than 20years in one place My eyes have been opened.
Noel

SDA church is getting hit with a greatly weakened authority figure (Ellen), the acceptance of the fact of evolution in the higher levels of the education system, and the squeaky wheel gays born into the church (I doubt a gay person would JOIN the church).

Keafan,
I know plenty of Gay people who have joined the SDA Church.
Pastors have baptized them as well and known.
So yes it has double stands.

Not everywhere is like the US and its stand.
One time the church run down the RC organization and now it embraces it.
Like going to the movies, it is also embraced.

Like in Australia we do not believe in taking up arms.
But you sure do in the good old USA.

So with time a dare say things will change.

Tom

Thank you for noticing that inappropriate ad. I'm certain the "Spectrum" team disapproves and will take it down.

I'm guessing that this is the explanation. Web Site owners sign up with advertising groups like the one Google offers that pay them money every time someone clikcs on the ad.

So far, so good. The problem is that the advertising group has computer programs that scan the web site and chooses ads that correspond to its content. So, if we were discussing the pros and cons of alcoholic beverages, we would probably get ads for wine, beer, whiskey or vodka, etc.

It is possible for a web site owner to block ads from certain sources. But usually one does not know which sources to block until an inappropriate ad shows up.

When we discuss the second coming of Jesus, all sorts of wierd eschatological ads show up which the team probably then blocks.

Whether the income from these ads is enough to justify the bother of keeping on top of this is something I do not know.

Somebody added a paragraph of explanation to my observation of an inappropriate ad on Spectrum. I Think that should be clarified. David added an addition explanation later. Tom

David Larsen:

You say you are certain the Spectrum team disapproves of the gay kiss ad Tom objected to.

How can you be so certain? Going by the stuff they (and you) write here, I can't think of anything they (or you) believe in that makes a gay kiss objectionable. Is it really worse that that silly prophecy t-shirt that's advertised all the time?

Please enlighten us. What's wrong with the gay kiss?

At this point, John Shelby Spong's "Manifesto" seems to say what I want to say in a way that is better than I can articulate. You can find it here:

http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/34674.asp

Yeah, if they get rid of the gay kiss, then I think the "Guaranteed Love Spells" should go too.

settembrtini

The idea of promoting the idea of a "prize" kiss of any sort seemed out of place to me. I guess the kiss that took the prize was the one that Judas gave Jesus. Tom

Jamie,
Thanks.
Noel

The Twists & Turns

Everyone seems to head to a conference with a different agenda and in hopes of convincing attendees of their viewpoints.

Much advice and caution is given to us to be aware of those who would insert lies and untruths where there is truth. Studying the Bible and spending time with Christ will guide you to the answers. Most importantly is that God speaks to each indidvidual personally.

It is suggested that my "testimony" had some kind of entertainement value. Let me say that God personally opened doors and answered prayers for me to be able to share what He has made clear to "me" and done for "me". His workings with others may be different. I am not a professional publich speaker. I spoke from my heart and what God put in it.

To the comment earlier about "change" and which sex I would chase, comes down to this. Sin exacerbates itself no matter what gender you are attracted to. The generalization that heterosexuality is what's right, throws things off slightly. As I found, even at this conference, are some who still feel more comfortable with heterosexual sin, but that homosexual sin is just too disgusting. Let me say that any sexual sin saddens Christ and does not glorify Him, only self and selfish desires.

That is exactly why the opposite of homosexuality or heterosexuality is not the opposite sex. It is, and should be, holiness. Regardless of our gender and our sinful temptations, ALL of us should seek to be in alignment with God's plan for us and distance ourselves from sin and self satisfying desires whether or not they feel natural. "Natural" is only going to be relevant to the individual. Study, prayer and a keen awareness of God's desire and plan for me, is more important than convincing anyone of my opinion.

I do not see a promise that God is going to make me heterosexual. I do see many promises where God will give me the strength to make the right decisons when faced with Satan's temptations of flesh and false teachings.

Many hold desparately to only wanting permission for one same-sex partner and that will be the bargain they place before God. How is that different than just "One" apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Wayne Blakely
Same-Sex attracted Christian

So why can't we face it - the Bible might be wrong! I believe it is. Get over bibliolatraty and catch up on some high values and principles to live by. I'm tired and wounded in my soul from bigotry, hatred, judgment and other nasties being foisted on people from bibliotraty and biblical literalism.

Gabe, by what criteria have you determined that the Bible is wrong?

My name is not Gabe, but to answer Sean's question:

"by what criteria have you determined that the Bible is wrong?"

How much time do you have? There a zillion things written in the Bible that are patently wrong, wrong. No one today obeys even half of the numerous instructions given in its pages; no one believes that serpents and donkeys can talk; that a woman's infidelity can be "proved" by drinking dirty temple floor water, any more than being thrown in a river to drown.

What part of the Bible are you not reading? It's awfully hard to delete major portions, particularly in the Hebrew Bible (the source of many SDA doctrines), and even consider obeying those instructions, instructions BTW, given by God. Do you believe that God's orders to the Israelites are to be obeyed at all times? Which ones would you NOT obey?

The values I live my life from are one's I learned from Jesus (and others and life!). Not the constructed religious Jesus.

I evaluate the Bible from those principles and see that it is very human and that there are ways of people behaving and believing, and telling others to behave and believe that go against those Jesus-based and high quality values. So I choose not to dwell on them.

We all look at our sacred texts through our own set of values - it's not just about "God says it so I believe it and that settles it for me." That is overly simplistic and in denial of so much.

I'm not interested in using the Bible as a rule book and a belief-manual. That denies it's richness and turns it into very human formulas, with people who are in, people who are out, people who are right and people who are wrong. I dare you to explore the Bible for a year not focussing on rules and beliefs and see where your journey into humanity and divinity takes you!

It really hurts me when I see people not being respected and heard and being wounded from people who claim to be followers of Jesus. I don't believe he would identify as a Christian if he was around in the flesh today! He would weep and be pained and challenge all the religious systems as he did in his time. And many of us would be part of "crucifying" him in the way our cultures would do it.

Another thing that stirs me up - Why are people so focussed on others people's sexuality? The repression and the judgment and anger, and the love, openness and respect, that often arises says more about what is going on inside us than about those "others" that we are busy talking about.

"God" believes in freedom more than salvation! How about we extend that to others.