"Adventists saved their “weight” and “freight” for significant issues, such as the current discussion of homosexuality and marriage. Knott also acknowledged the church’s conspicuous silence on civil rights during the 1960’s."

One of the reasons why the SDA church has always been so irrelevant to the outside world is that it has it has never thrown its modest weight behind any issue that mattered to society. Jesus was executed by the Romans as a perceived threat to their rule. Adventists will never have to fear such a fate. As long as the church is only concerned about maintaining internal control and membership growth it remains irrelevant to the world.

A Norwegian poet of the anti-religious left, Arnulf Overland, in his poem "Du ma ikke sove" ("You must not sleep")in 1936 inweighed against the Nazis with the following memorable line:

"Do not tolerate with such equanimity
the injustice that befalls somebody else."

("Du ma ikke tale sa inderlig vel
den urett som ikke rammer deg selv.")

In the Adventist world, if injustice is not done to the church, it doesn't exist.

A conference to re-affirm the membership and leaders homophobic state and to give credit to supposed "ex-gays" who still are attracted to same sex individuals, can hardly move us from the state of discrimination against adventist gays we've been in all these years. It takes courage to put to practice true christian love and to decide for equality for every human being.

"The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority."
--Ralph W. Sockman--

"Dr. Mark Yarhouse, a clinical psychologist, endowed chair and professor at the Regent University School of Psychology, laid out research and constructs in the debate on gay marriage and the church. Yarhouse addressed his comments to “we conservatives” of the church. "

Regent University? Really? Well, at least Adventism and the Christian Right (and the RCC) can all agree on something. I'm just trying to get my head around the irony of Adventism's leading lights teaming up with a key representative of "apostate Protestantism" to, um, do something. This isn't "hands across the gulf" or whatever, is it?

I wonder about Bill Knott's statement saying that "hating the sin, but loving the sinner" does not work. How can that be true if that was Jesus' approach? Ellen White says in Evangelism 369: "Oh, how much we all need the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Then we shall always work with the mind of Christ, with kindness, compassion, and sympathy, showing love for the sinner while hating sin with a perfect hatred." That seems pretty balanced and clear to me. Jesus' pure nature recoiled from sin, yet that did not keep Him from reaching out to lift men up from degradation. There may be people that use this phrase as an excuse for injustice, but it is certainly right to hate the sin itself with "perfect hatred" if we at the same time love the person themselves as a child of God struggling as we all do with sin.

It may sound simplistic, but I think all arguments would cease if we go back to what God set up at the beginning as our standard of righteousness and sin. Sin may have marred His plan, and He may at times have to deal with people in the culture they are in, even to the point of winking at times at sin (like the polygamy of men like David and Abraham), but that does not change what is right and wrong. If we live in an age of increased light, as we now do, and we know better, then it is sin for us, no matter how strong our inclinations are.

Can i say that if i have strong feelings for a child that it is o.k. to have relations with that child because i need love and have no attraction for adults? Of course not! Would we not be right to expect a child abuser or prostitute or polygamist or someone who cheats on their spouse to leave their life of sin and be born again to be baptized into the church? This does not mean they are awful people with no hope and no need of compassion. But it does mean that they cannot expect to continue their sin and be fully accepted and entrusted in the church. The same is true with the sin of homosexuality. Just as it would for any other sexual deviation from God's plan, it may be a struggle to change to become heterosexual or to live alone and not act on their inclinations, and that can be a tough life to have to live, but it must be done in order to gain heaven and heaven is so wonderful that if we really valued it as we should, then we would be only to happy to give up our desires and needs and struggles to God.

Perhaps our sin as a race may have complicated relationships so much that there will be no marriage in heaven, but if there were marriage in heaven, can anyone imagine God allowing and promoting same sex marriages in heaven? Are we not supposed to have as our goal by God's grace, especially during this antitypical Day of Atonement, the total preparation for the kingdom and eradication of sin? Cutting out any sin is not easy-it takes time and we need patience and compassion for any sin in all of us.

But it seems sometimes that some people talk about justice and equality, even when things are just and no one is truly being mistreated, because they have an agenda to force others to change God's standards. Some do not intend to change in response to loving treatment. They call for "equality" so that their sins and desires can be excused by the church, because their sin, which supposedly is unlike other sins, is impossible to change, so they can indulge in their sin without having the guilt. We all struggle with sins and we may fall many times before we trust God enough to gain the victory, but that does not mean we cannot overcome. God does not count our temptations and individual struggles as sin-for instance we do not expect that an alcoholic will never have attractions to alcohol again-but acting on our inclinations is still sin, no matter how we may say we cannot help it.

It may be hard to forego giving up intimate love if all a person is interested in is one's same sex, but that is what is called for if we are to gain the kingdom. This is where church members can help the struggling one with friendship and meeting social needs.

I just wonder sometimes if there is an agenda in the church as well as the world that goes beyond the balance of loving and helping the sinner while not agreeing with their sin, into an almost subtle barrage of trying step-by-step to get the church to say, as other denominations have done, that it is not against God's will to have same sex preachers and fully accepted marriages with the church's blessing.

There are those in the church as well as the world who hate and abuse and joke and make slurs against gays and this is just as evil as the acting out of gay tendencies and will keep us out of heaven as well. When we remember that the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy clearly says that all men are our brothers and sisters, part of our family of humankind, then we will truly treat others as we would ourselves. However, this does not mean churches and parents should not have caution when people who have struggled with child abuse of both a hetero and homosexual nature are around their children at church. We may forgive, but we also have to be aware that sometimes people slip up who have struggled with things. To call those parents or church members homophobic would be unfair. Some people may not be able because of these circumstances to be as close as friend as others may.

Balance is not always easy, and not every issue is crystal clear. Some things of Caesar's have to be rendered to Caesar and to God the things that are God's. And no one can expect a church to accept everything that "Caesar" accepts. It is good for the church to discuss these things, and it is vital to be loving and understanding, but equally vital to never allow our standards to be let down as far as calling sin by it's right name as Jesus did.

I get so sick of people comparing homosexuality and pedophelia as if they are on the same level. There is a difference, a huge difference. In case people are too thick, blinded, or whatever to know what that difference is I'll give a hint: It has to do with mutual consent and causing (or not causing) the suffering of another. It really is pretty cut and dried.

I always wonder why those who still believe homosexuality is a sin can manage to be okay with God "winking" at polygamy, but can't fathom that He might do the same for homosexuality. If you were a polygamist, then "God allowed it because of this or that". If you are Gay, though, you fry in the hellfire. Nice.

Can I imagine same sex marriage in heaven? You bet I can! I can also imagine that in heaven people will realize that we are equal to heterosexuals and that we'll be able to hold hands in public without fear of getting beat up. Hopefully those who are so horrified by same sex relationships will still be allowed in, but who knows? Such prejudice may not be compatible with the Kingdom of God.

And are you serious about no one being "truly mistreated"? Do you seriously believe that gays have not been mistreated by religious people, and by society over the years? Trying to take away the rights of those who don't believe the same thing you do IS mistreatment.

I don't know why they bother with this issue. Andrews University should be trying to rebuild Meier Hall that disaster of a pre Fair Housing Act building with no elevators and poor accessibility that violates the handicap housing law and the equal housing based on sex. There is a such a thing as inequality and it exists at AU with the women's dorms. It's unfathomable that the University built Lamson as a classical dorm and then had an architect build Meir Hall with 6 stairwells and ugly concrete car garage style entrances and no mail room and no TV lounge. Burman was placed 150 feet from Meier and Meier has never had a renovation.

I'd like to thank Rittenhouse and Richard Hammill and Murray for the disaster of Meier Hall and years of dorm mismanagement at Andrews.

Get a grip AU show some love for the male students. I just love paying 18k to discriminated against as a man.

http://iripoff.com/771/Andrews_University.html

My understanding of the bible is that there is no marriage of any sort in heaven, (as Jesus taught when asked by the Sadducees about the wife of the seven brothers, each who died). There IS the more mystical concept of Christ being the husband of His bride the church.

In this sense marriage is given as a sign of this wonderful relationship and covenant between God and His people.

When we are perfected in Heaven (God willing) all our relationships will be perfect, loving, and completely self-sacrificial, just as Christ's love for us. For we are called to fulfill his commandment: Love one another as I have loved you. For this they shall know we are his disciples.

Although the religious liberty directors present tried to cast the debate as gay rights against religious rights, they ignore the fact that this is a religious belief and a significant minority of Christians and members of other faiths hold different beliefs, so they are trying to force their beliefs on others who hold different beliefs.

Nick Miller, who presented his thesis that gay marriage must be opposed because it has a less-than-ideal effect on children in such marriages (citing research that shows children do best when raised by both biological parents), also ignores the many adoptive, single, widowed, or divorced parents who manage to raise well-adjusted children, not to mention many gay and lesbian couples.

Carol: my gut-reaction on the 'it's about the kids, stupid' argument by Nicholas Miller, is that it's a red-herring.

However - while this won't happen - I'd be interested in a little test put to those who say they hold this view.

Suppose any gay marriage law came with a stipulation that such couples were not allowed to have/raise children. The fact that such a proviso wouldn't/shouldn't happen is beside my point. Would that really make a difference to Mr. Miller and similar-minded folks?

I seriously doubt it. But testing on this point would then uncover other, more fundamental, reasons.

Rich, I agree that they have tried to disguise their basic, religion-oriented reason for opposing gay marriage under various other "reasons," such as the supposed loss of religious liberty by our schools and institutions which are subject to anti-discrimination in hiring laws because of having accepted government funding.

"Rich, I agree that they have tried to disguise their basic, religion-oriented reason for opposing gay marriage under various other "reasons," such as the supposed loss of religious liberty by our schools and institutions which are subject to anti-discrimination in hiring laws because of having accepted government funding."

The saddest thing about what appears to have been the starting assumptions and central conclusions of most of the conference speakers is a bias in favor of what are essentially several words of an ancient script compared to the real lives of actual human beings.

Fundamentalists (even well-educated ones) like to position themselves as defending the Bible against various evil forces in society, i.e. secularism, science, etc, but what they are really doing is elevating (treating as an idol) the words written centuries ago by human beings we don't know over the experiences and lives of the people we do know, or can know. Based on one of the blogs following this conference, one of the speakers is said to have remarked that whenever scripture and science conflict, then science must give way. That's a rather theologically correct thing to say among a room full of fundamentalists. But what if certain words of our ancient scriptures are found to cause inordinate hardship for actual people? Are our ancient words from another culture (where, for example, the buying and selling of human beings was accepted) to take preference over the views and lives of people today? That's really the issue as I see it.

But I don't doubt that the risk of challenging our ancient scriptures is too much for many people who need to take a legalistic, code-book view of the Bible in order to assure themselves of their compliance with the commands of an angry God who holds the keys to their future eternal salvation (and with it the exclusion of most of the world's peoples for Eternity for improper beliefs).

YES!!! Glennspring - you've hit the nail on the head.

Protestants removed "the mass" as the center of worship in the church and placed the Bible on the table and worship it.

I should add that the fundamentalist view of homosexuality would be more defensible or consistent if Bible-as-codebook adherents actually really did treat all scripture as equally and universally binding. But they do not. Where the Bible condones slavery and polygamy, fundamentalists will typically say that God "winked" at what we now widely regard--at least in the case of slavery--to be egrarious abuses of human dignity. But the NT verse that alludes to God's "winking" is in reference to new gentile believers, not cases in which God was communing with and giving direct instruction to His people in the OT. Regardless, a reliance on this NT verse serves only to highlight the problem with Bible-as-codebook theology, namely that it's stated belief in absolute, universal morality binding on everyone at all times is unsustainable.

The problem here is really a case of the theology underneath the theology being suspect. Conservative reaction against issues such as women in leadership and the acceptance of homosexuality is really a symptom of what is, I think, a set of faulty assumptions and expectations about the Bible and God.

For example, a blog following this conference reported one of the speakers, an SDA academic, as claiming that the Bible, as the Word of God, is fully consistent and harmonious with itself. This is a pretty big--and I believe--invalid assumption. I can't imagine that anyone can read the Bible with any degree of objectivity and claim this. But it helps illustrate the underlying issues that serve to polarize this debate and distort it through the use of "natural law" and "it's all about the kids, stupid", and other pseudo-rationalizations.

Some brave Adventists, notably Alden Thompson, have gently tried to challenge the underlying assumptions about inspiration and Biblical interpretation that have long gone unexamined. But these have either been expatriated or had their work suppressed. It's too bad.

I hate to pile on here, but one thing that strikes me about this conference is the introduction of the natural law argument. I've attended umpteen Revelation Seminars over the years, studied the Sabbath School lessons pretty faithfully for many years, and have read pretty widely a variety of SDA scholarly and polemic work and can't recall an instance where natural law was invoked, let alone it's providing the foundation of SDA theology. What little natural law I've come across has, oddly enough, been in the Roman Catholic context, as many among that church's conservatives seem fond of it. One might wonder whether Adventism's new devotees of natural law theory--at least as it may apply to homosexuality--have thoughtfully considered the depth of the ramifications associated with it and its major adherents.

Speaking of "Natural Law" it's interesting that when it is argued that being gay IS natural for a certain portion of the population, then the fundamentalist argument becomes, "Yes, but our nature is sinful and we must work against it.".

So which is it, I wonder. The cake, or eating it?

"What little natural law I've come across has, oddly enough, been in the Roman Catholic context, as many among that church's conservatives seem fond of it. One might wonder whether Adventism's new devotees of natural law theory--at least as it may apply to homosexuality--have thoughtfully considered the depth of the ramifications associated with it and its major adherents."

I was just in a meeting at Andrews where a paper was given pointing out that natural law theory, as used by Catholics, opens a back door to persecution. (The last history brown-bag, Jason. ;) You should have come.) I'm still working through the implications of that for other natural law theories.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

post deleted. Jim, your comments are consistently negative and spew anger. If you cannot change your tone you will risk being asked to leave. - website editor

I find it interesting that in the comments above and presumably in the conference, there was little discussion about Jesus, the centre of the Christian's life. The amount of paper and time and vocal exercising consecrated to this topic tells me that it is a red herring that the devil uses to distract churches and individuals from the real issue of eternity, which is my relationship with Jesus and how closely my character is coming into line with his.

As mentioned above, we do not take our marriage partners to heaven (we will be like the angels, unmarried). That means the only thing I do take is my character and I should be concentrating my resources on beholding Jesus so that I will become more and more like him and he will recognize me and I will recognize him when he comes.

As a gay man, I can attest to the fact that for years I focused on my sexual orientation: what to do about it, how to change it, what would God allow me to do in the area of relationships? Meanwhile I was totally focused on myself, totally selfish, in a mindset of "it's all about me".

This was driven home to me during a train trip - I had been thinking how vile a couple was in front of me who were complaining and smoking up a storm (you could still do that in those days). Then the little girl across the aisle threw up the junk food she had been consuming. The "vile couple" leaped to their feet, handed over paper tissues, ran to the washroom for wet paper towels, got right in there to offer assistance: while I sat there rather smugly - but only for a moment - suddenly I realized that I was the vile one, not because of homosexuality, but because of my superior attitude. Thank God for that lesson - I finally began focusing on Jesus and asking him to make me like him.

I truly believe that a relationship (marriage)helps develop a Christ-like character, and I pray that one day (soon, please) God will provide me with a loving companion who is a Christian, and preferably an SDA Christian. Of course, I know that is unlikely to happen short of a miracle, because most of the possible partners have been chased out of the SDA church, overtly, or by stupid and unkind comments.

It boggles my mind that a supposedly God-led ministry like It Is Written would actively encourage gay men to marry straight women. Such a suggestion says that It Is Written considers straight women expendable - their emotional and physical lives are of no importance - they can be used by gay men who wish to hide their sexual orientation. Is that how we should think of women? Do they not deserve to be loved and cherished for their unique female characteristics?

But I'm losing sight of Jesus while I type. Let's all focus on Jesus and his character and leave these other issues in the dust where they belong.

Thanks, Robert. Bless you.

Did anyone stop to consider the basic demographic statistical issues confronting denominational growth?

Fundamentalist charsimatic churches are growing dispite a bias against homosexual relationship of any type or dimension; while the "staid" churches that are "bending their historic rules" on sexuality are losing membership by the train load.

Adventism is among the leaders in membership loss in North America. But it will have to change more than its historic stand on homosexuality to change the loss. In fact, such a change could well accleration the loss particularly in the deep South.

It is one thing to find a relationship between Dan 8:14 and
Hebrews and quite another to find sexual significance in the bond between David and Jonathan.

To church administrators the issue has an entirely difference hue than that of behavior scientists. If history is any indicator, the church administrators will prevail. Tom

I think the fact that stricter fundamentalist churches are growing while more accepting ones are shrinking speaks more to the nature of humans who prefer to exclude rather than include. It's primitive tribalism at work if you ask me, and some people just aren't happy if they aren't exluding others.

I read the following bible verses on a talk radio program, based in a city of over a million people, after the California PROP 8 vote. Remember the fuss after the voting results?

ROM 1 [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The next quote has been challenged as authentic yet it is tossed around a lot

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Edmund Burke

ROM 1 [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Of course, this is exactly what straight people who don't know any better (including Paul) think of gay people. They can't imagine that maybe their attraction to the same sex is natural, so they demonize it.

Just think of how many GLBT people have died because of these verses. Think of how many more have been shunned, abused, picked on, and teased. If we could count the number of lives made miserable by these verses I think we would find the number staggering.

Just so you know, my affections aren't vile. They are beautiful, tender and loving. Because they gross you (and Paul) out doesn't change that reality.

Someone in a blog on either the 1, 2, segments of this thread asked the question why is pedophilia co-mixed with homosexuality?

There are a long history that remains current.

1. Greek behavior, including Alexander the Great.
2. Roman behavior
3. British Boy School Behavior.
4. Roman Catholic Priests--a stream of accusations and convictions.

All a mix of homoesexuality and pedophilia. History and the media co-mingle the two behavioral patterns. The reading public has no other than to conclude a relationship, rightly or wrongly.

Story: A faculty member of an university of which I was a senior academic officer was a member of the local theater club. In that club was a 14 year old boy. The faculty member invited to boy to spend the might in the faculty member's bachelor's pad. The boy agreed. In the morning, the boy told his folks what transpired the night before. The parents brought the issue to the University with members of the city vice squad. The pro-s and con's of bringing charges were explored in depth. If the boy brought charges--his name and his future in high school could become "hell". If charges were not brought the University had no recourse to discipine the faculty member. The family spent several hours in private consultation and chose not to bring charges. The faculty member continued employment at the University until retirment. He met all of the professional criteria for pay increases and advancement. No action and no isolation occurred. If charged and convicted in Georgia, he would have lost his faculty appointment, faced a possible prison sentence, and placed on the sex offender list- published on the internte. He would be required to seek residence so many feet from a school, playground, or other location where young boys might be present. The city posted a map of acceptable locations under the law--mighty few and mighty unddesirable--They also would have to report to a probation officer on any move or intended move. Their address, phone, and e-mail/web site would have to be recorded and subject ot posting.

So it ain't just the Church that has a serious struggle with the issue. It is no longer wise to admire babies and young children in the mall or any public place. Tom

We need to remember that in Leviticus and in Romans the prophet/apostle was addressing straight people. In Levitical times, if you read the passage in context, the straight men were totally out of control: having relations with daughters, father's wives, aunts and when they ran out of women, with other men. Same in Romans, Paul is saying that straight men, when they neglect their relationship with God, go haywire, having sexual relations with everything that moves.

A careful review of the Bible, which is a record of God and man relating, shows that God deals pragmatically with us all. He knows we are weak flesh.

When Abraham took a second wife (committed adultery, 10 commandments), God could have spewed him out of his mouth and chosen someone else, but He didn't. He continued to work with him.

God promised to drive the people out of Canaan with hornets, but when the Israelites decided they wanted to fight with swords, God blessed their efforts even though His character (10 commandments) proscribes killing.

When Israel wanted a king, God warned them not to go that direction, yet he worked with them and blessed the kings who made him first in their lives.

As a gay man, I may not be the ideal man God envisioned when he got down on his knees and formed Adam, but He will help me to be the best gay man I can be. If I let him, he will make me into a loving human being who cares and nurtures his partner (hopefully I'll have the chance to do that soon).

God's statement that it is not good for man to be alone, and Paul's admonition to marry rather than to burn applies to me as much as to my heterosexual brothers. What an awesome God we serve: how marvellous that he doesn't give up on us, doesn't give up on me.

I walked out of my local SDA church several years ago, with my family behind me, when the topic of the sermon was the evils of homosexuality. I find it tragic and abusive for a church to use it's pulpit to promote bigotry hatred of homosexuals. Christians seem to savor the picking and chosing of which "sins" they believe they should rail against, consistently using the Bible to thump us with to support their judgemental beliefs. It appears, we are now attempting to move forward in action, to make a statement on supporting the conservative movement to deny a basic civil right of American citizens to marry the person they love and are committed to, simply because they are same sex marriages. If the church believes it's pastor's should not marry homosexual couples, so be it. But to actively participate in denying these rights as a civic matter is beyond the bounds of our church.

I think a bit of historical context in the "sacrement" of marriage in order as well . . . even the Puritans thought marriage should remain a civic matter.

In the not too distant past, it was illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry, Alabama being the last state to repeal it's miscegenation laws in 2000. The support for such discriminatory laws were based on Biblical thought and moral belief, however misguided. I sincerely hope, the Seventh-day Adventist church rises above the issue to acknowledge and treat this issue in a nonjudgemental way; to refocus on what is most important, love and acceptance, not hate and intolerance.

"Someone in a blog on either the 1, 2, segments of this thread asked the question why is pedophilia co-mixed with homosexuality?
There are a long history that remains current.

All a mix of homoesexuality and pedophilia. History and the media co-mingle the two behavioral patterns. The reading public has no other than to conclude a relationship, rightly or wrongly."

Wrong. All this does is reveal the prejudice of people who associate the two. To go by your argument, then we should also associate heterosexuality with pedophelia because there are SCADS of male teachers, pastors, etc, etc, who molest girls. To associate homosexuality with pedophelia for the reasons you suggest and to not associate heterosexuality with it is hypocritical and illogical.

In resoponse to Teresa, and as a question to those of you searching and studying longer than I, what was the churches response to the Loving case (black/white marriage) in the 60's? Has that changed? Did god change his mind?

I first started questioning the concept of human interpretation of divine intent in elementry school when the church wouldnt let the parents of a friend of mine attend his baptism because they were wearing too much makeup and jewelery. Not three years later, God changed his mind and a wedding band was suddenly OK.

Now, many years later, I see this issue as another of the same type. Will someone look back in 40 years and wonder how the church could have been so simpleminded?

As for me, My God has not changed, however He and I now have a one-on-one relationship not associated with any organized group of humans who believe themselves qualified to tell me how to live. I also have, as of this last May, beeen in a relationship with my male partner for longer than my church going parents were married.

I have heard Moses and Paul talk about homosexuality however I don't recall Jesus saying anything about it when he was here on earth. He did say a great deal about not judging, loving others as you love yourself, caring for those who are poor and downtrodden - the least of these in society...

Since when does this country create laws based on the Bible and Christianity? We have laws against stealing and murder but those come from wanting to protect citizens from harm and not from Christian convictions. If we based laws and set up society based on the Bible, we would have health care for all, no homeless, no one in poverty, no billionaires while some go without housing, food, clothes, health care... Maybe the government should only offer civil unions for legal issues and marriages can be offered by churches as they do in Europe.

I just saw a program about Denmark where they pay 50% or more on taxes but have education and healthcare for everyone. They have no homeless and the smallest gap between the richest and the poorest person. They are not materialistic and care for the environment. They even get a stipend to go to college. When asked if they were socialists, she said "no, they were civilized." She said they had the fewest religious people and are considered the happiest on earth. Hmmm, non-Christians who care about the poor and are Christ-like.

I fight discrimination and I support my gay friends who want to be in a committed marriage. I love love.

In response to Collin . . . I'm happy to see you living the life you were born to live! I was only 6 in 1968 when the Loving case was sent to the Supreme Court, so I'd like to hear from pastor's or other adults during that time period to hear if SDA ministers were allowed to perform marriages with interracial couples. I know in 1959, my mother's SDA minister at CUC refused to perform a marriage ceremony with my parents because my father was Presbyterian. Never mind he was a good man; never mind he became an Adventist 3 years later thanks to the influence of my grandparents (certainly not of the minister that refused to marry my parents); never mind he went back to college to become an SDA school principal working for the church for 40 years.

Christians and SDA's who say same sex marriages are detrimental to the institution need to rethink this stance. The divorce rate has gone down in the state of Massachusetts since legalizing same sex marriages. And to those who still believe it will be harmful, I challenge them to make divorce illegal, because divorce and adultery seem to be the real culprits. Surely you would agree these things in heterosexual marriages are contrary to what the Bible tells us. Are you willing, when a couple divorces or has committed adultry to deny them church membership and to deny them rights as American citizens to marry again?

I have gay members of my family, and many gay friends. If you think this is a choice, or something that can be "counseled out of you" you are not paying attention to the numerous studies that do not support that position. One friend I was at an SDA nursing school with, tried to change into a heterosexual because he was told he was an abomination, and was misreable for years. He has been in a committed relationship with a man now for 15 years and longs for the day they can marry. Another friend is a 31 year old man I have known since he was a teenager. I know what his struggles have been. Going to Christian therapists who told him they can change the way he was born. He struggled with his sexuality identity until just a few years ago where is has finally found peace with who God made him to be. These are good, Christian people, not deviants.

I read through some of the comments and was saddened to note a thread of thought where the belief is that exposure to homosexuals will influence your child to be a homosexual. How many homosexuals have been educated by a majority of heterosexual teachers? Yet, they are still homosexual. If you are a heterosexual, ask yourself when you made the decision to be a heterosexual? Or were you just always a heterosexual?

In support of Maggie, I would like to add, the Bible heroes had slaves, the Bible supports the mistreatment of women, and many other cultural positions of the people and the time that we would find abhorrant today. It's back to the picking of chosing of the things you hold important when all we have to do is love our brother's and sister's, regardless of their sexual identity. Judgement is mine, says God; so why don't we do everything on this earth to make our neighbors road a bit easier to travel and let God worry about the rest.

Very well said, Teresa. Thank you.

Your god is too small. The Church is too small. People's hearts are too small. God's heart is bigger than all.

That's a sign of a week organization that scurts over it's problems. It's also why Andrews will never be as successfull as Ohio State.....

On a separate issue this message is brought to you by Amanda Sheppler who kindly thanks the University for using her as a lab scapegoat and using other students to investigate her.

Jamie

I was explaining the way things are. You are arguing the way things should be! My citations are demonstrably true--the deductions of the public may be in error. Never-the-less the question was why not how justifiable were their conclusions.

The media flames the readers worst fears'--it sells. By the way there are fearsome heterosexual predators--one made the Augusta papers today, in fact. A 28 year old female teacher and a 14 year old boy.

I have a grand neice who attends public school in the greater LLU area simply because her teacher began the week by printing the Sin of the Week on the Chalk Board on Mondays and preach against it all week. Enough negativity already.

I answered the question with a short history and a current media frenzy. That targeted the naive. Tom

Tom, thanks for clarifying. What you said makes some more sense to me now.

I have just witnessed a lecture, "Soldiers in Petticoats: The Struggles of the Suffragettes." http://www.livinghistorylectures.com/suffpg.html As that lady, in period costume, described the plight and role of women in the United States in the 18th, 19th, early 20th century, a culture based on Biblically sanctioned misogyny, I felt a sense of such shame for what has and is done in the name of religious fundamentalism. Over and over again, I found myself substituting the words "Gay Rights" for "Women's Rights." "Same sex marriage" for "Women's voting." The justifications and saga are the same.

For women's suffrage, it took 70 years before the US Constitution was finally amended to grant the vote to women. At first, it was a states-rights thing. Some states granted voting rights, only to be rescinded, then subsequently re-granted them again.

Canada, Australia, England all granted voting rights to women before the US. France, not until 1947 or some such time.

The suffrage movement was fraught with conflict between the "liberals" and the "conservative" activists within the movement itself with respect to strategy and tactics.

But the common foe was the ego of the male and the hellfire of fundamental religion. In Tennessee, the law was such that not only was a woman hardly a human, with no civil rights at all, but it was codified into law that a woman did not "have a soul."

The demonization of homosexuality is just the latest. The struggle for equal rights for GLBT people to include not only equality in marriage, but equality in housing, employment and healthcare is the "Suffrage" movement," the "Civil Rights" movement of this day and this generation. And the internal struggle of "gay rights" is just as fraught with strategy and tactics. But the common foe is again the same . . . the fragile ego of men and the hellfire of religious fundamentalism.

There have been gains made in some states, and rights that have been rescinded. And in Maine and Washington State, rights may be rescinded there as well on November 3.

As rational, thinking people realize that the humanism in humanity is something that transcends ancient superstitions of a penetration-based, agrarian culture were men sowed their seed in the fertile fields of their women, where one story of origins expounds the subservience of women as being nothing more than an excised rib, where a religious legal system condones slavery and misogyny . . . rational, thinking people that have transcended the ignorance and bigotry of that ancient Mesopotamian world have and are moving on.

As people realize that there is no legitimate civil argument to deny equality in marriage, the true separation between church and state on which this country was founded becomes the prevailing force. All "marriage" is first a civil union. Religious entities can bless that civil union in whatever way their traditions dictate or rightfully elect to disassociate themselves from it.

Marriage equality is coming.

There is no point in wasting one's breath with ignorance and bigotry. These people can pontificate their self-righteousness all they want. The more marginalized they (and the SDA church and other fundamental religious entities along with them) become, the more virulent in their self-righteousness machinations they become. And some of that fomenting takes the form of blaming the gays and the whores and the feminists for natural and man-made disasters. And that AIDS is god's curse on teh gays.

As slavery was finally banished by society, but not from the hearts of white supremacists even to this day, as equal status to women was finally, mercifully granted, but not in the hearts of misogynists even to this day . . . there will always be homophobes. For some, there simply must be an "other" to hate. For to be able to hate the other, is to cozy themselves in their own fear and loathing of who they are.

And of course they must be right . . . for their god also hates the same monsters that they hate.

Stonewall rioting was 40 years ago.

In thirty years from now, in about the same time women's suffrage was fully granted, same-sex marriage will be fully assimilated into the constitution of this marvelous land and the notion that same-sex marriage was a denied right will be a distant memory of an intolerant past. But there will still be white supremacists, misogynists, and homophobes, all thumpin' their well-worn killer-texts of the relics of ancient cultures and religions as their god-ordained justification for hate.

Another wonderful weekend of frustration wading through this tripe. As the archivists of Andrews University archive this monstrous seminar away, I hope they place a tag on it, identifying it as one of the more shameful things Andrews did.

And yes, I ask myself why do I even come to this forum?

I suppose there is a morbid fascination in watching a train wreck.

Kenneth James

Thank you, Kenneth James, for the history lesson. We have nothing to fear for the future except as we forget the past - and the way God has led.

God had to led a "stiff necked" people kicking and screaming into the promise land, scared and frightened of the future - longing for the leeks of Egypt. Scripture records that when all the warriors had died off then they crossed over Jordan.

Says a lot about us and our future.

Thank you Kenneth. I think you have eloquently covered it. I sought out information yesterday on what took place during the conference as I have been disturbed by it's taking place since I heard about it this summer. I find myself a bit relieved to find at least some of those affiliated with Adventism to have the kinds of hearts and minds I think God really wants of us.

We live in a sinful world. Let’s use the same measurement for both sides.
One important part on this discussion is on the practice.
As the Bible estates the normal is to be “straight” but because we live in a sinful world we are going to see and we should expect to see not just a normal situation in all the issues. What the Bible teaches as the normal “straight” situation? You can practice sex inside the marriage only, outside the marriage it is a clear sin, and Jesus said very clear that just a desire outside the marriage is a sin (Mathew 5:28). Than the question, what kind of marriage the Bible establishes, between two persons or just between male and female? The answer is very clear.
Now it is not because a legislation defines something different from the Bible we can imply that it will be ok to go along with it. Divorce is legal in the USA, but under the Bible rulers only in a very few situations it is accepted. Likewise if later on a legislation legalizes a “gay marriage” it will not imply that it will be ok to have it either under the Bible teachings.
If is only ok to practice sex under marriage, and the marriage is between a male and a female only, that means there is not sexual life for people outside marriage. Anything else is a sin, the Bible say. But what we do with people that not following these teaching? We love them without accept theirs wrong doing. We should do the same in all situations, and that includes the “gay” people. Thanks God that we cannot judge anybody, but we still need to continue to preach God’s message.

Heber

I think we need clarity. Is homosexuality sinful attitudes and behavior?? We are all sinners - all our supposed righteousness is described as filthy rags by someone who knows. We must not excuse our sins for any reason.

Heber Duarte...we cannot ignore that there are other possible interpretations of the verses where the word "homosexuals" is used. We need to study all of its possibilities before coming to a definitive conclusion. There was no space for this discussion at the Conference. At some points it was very confusing. For instance. It took, in my perception, a "long time" for them to come to grips with the difference between "having an inclination or attraction towards the same sex" and the actual "practice of homosexual experience (sex). I'm still not sure that the audience as a whole really understood that. I think some members of the panel tried to get that across. However, a distinguished professor of the Seminary made it clear, towards the end, that having this inclination is not a sin, but practicing it it is. (sex between two persons of the same sex. There are a few problems though when you take this position.

(1)Why then all the effort to convince homosexuals that they need to change (through the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives) if the inclination is not a sin?

(2)So the inclination/attraction for the same sex is not a sin, but my inclination towards the opposite sex is? My desires towards another women besides my wife is? What if I'm single? Can I have the sexual desire for a women and that would not be a sin? My natural inclination is for the opposite sex. The homosexual's natural inclination is for people of the same sex. Now, what is envy, selfishness, kleptomaniac,pride,gluttony, avarice, ...? Aren't they also personal inclinations and soul hearted attractions? Why are these inclinations sin and the inclination or same sex attraction isn't but the practice of it it is?

I think that the problem resides in trying to put homosexuality and other sins all into the same plate.

If homosexuality is genetic, then to me, it COULD BE a fruit or consequence of sin, just like someone who is born deaf, blind, with Down Syndrome, mentally retarded, cerebral palsy. Even if homosexuality has an environmental origin. Its no different. It would be a consequence of sin. Now, get a group from church together, make a list of everyone you know (and they know) who suffers from these "illnesses", and pray and fast for their cure. How come I never seen anyone praying or telling them that they can CHANGE!!!!!! I'm not even sure that parents of children with these challenges pray for their "cure".

But in Conference what I most heard is that with God's power and grace and if the homosexual gave his life entirely to the Holy Spirit, God could change him/her.

We don't go around saying that being blind is a sin, but we are very quick to say that being homosexual is...and we don't even know what this really is yet.

I'm not saying that God has not the power to change people, even genetically, in any of those situations. I'm just saying that there were moments where I perceived panelists being confused and the audience also. So please, don't go throwing Bible verses around the table without really knowing what this is really about.

The Conference did not take in consideration that:

•Homosexuality is not about sex (only)– it’s about love.

•Sinners don’t long to come out in the open and confess publicly their sins. On the contrary, they want to hide it as much as possible from public knowledge. Homosexuals have a deep desire to “come out” and alleviate their pain and suffering, but are afraid of not being understood and accepted.

•Homosexuality is not only an attraction to the same sex, it’s a repulsion for the opposite sex. The same repulsion a heterosexual feels towards other people of the same sex.

•There are other possible interpretations of the texts about homosexuality.

•If the Genesis account establishes that men was made to be with women and vice versa, and that this is the natural way of being, as commanded by God himself, why does the Church supports singles and don’t condemn them for not following God’s orientation?

. "Plain” sinners don’t identify themselves as being that sin. Our sins don’t characterize who we are. Homosexuality is what a person is. It has not been proven that he/she can avoid being that, the same way that I can’t avoid being a heterosexual person. I can, if I want, engage in same sex sexual experiences, but that will not make me a homosexual.

•It’s very misleading to talk about homosexuality as being a sin without having a clear understanding of its real nature.

•Panelists were interpreting some Bible verses at their “face value” and others they were interpreting within their cultural and historical context.

•Recognize that I Tim. 1:10 – “arsenokoitai” was never used by Clement of Alexandria and also by John Chysostom in their discerssions of same-sex behavior. It seems that they cite it when presenting the list of sins described in I Cor. 9-10, but not where they discuss homosexuality. Also, lists tend to group categories. “Malokai” is in between male prostitutes and thieves. “arsenokoitai” is in between fornication and slave traders. This should tell us something…

•Deut 29:23, 32:32; Isa 1:9-17, 3:9, 13:19; Jer 23:14, 49:18; Lam 4:6; Ezeq. 16:46-56; Amos 4:1 and Zeph 2:9 all talk about the sins of Sodom. None mentions homosexuality as being its sin.

•Every sin has a name. For many years many homosexuals don’t know what to call what they “have”, the feelings that they are experiencing until they finally find out that what they are has a name.

•People who are trying to overcome their sins of selfishness, adultery, jealousy , pride, etc. don’t commit suicide in the process, but homosexuals do.

. In depth theological issues related to the subject. For instance: "Can we say christian gay? How about a christian thief"? How much will God interfere with sin,s consequences? What will He take in account? Jesus life can give us a hint.

. If having the inclination or same sex attraction is not a sin, how a distinguished professor firmly stated, why then my attraction to the opposite sex is? Why is my inclination towards envy, selfishness, pride,avarice...is a sin then?

. IF homosexuality has a genetic component or biological propensity, why do we expect homosexuals to change and not blind people, deaf people, people with cerebral palsy, people with Down Syndrome? Aren't all of these biological consequences of the original sin? Even if the environment is the main component responsible for homosexuality, isn't dysfunctional families and society a consequence of the original sin also? Why don't we go around asking these unfortunate people with these challenges to change? Why don't we pray for God to change them? It's all consequences of sin, is it not?

. Will God interfere in the consequences or results of sin? Hitler was a very sinful person. He had an awful inclination. He thought that there should be only one race. He thought that the other races were a disgrace to humanity. The Jews prayed for their loved ones in the prison camps. Hitler got away with 7 million plus unanswered prayers.

Can we have some lessons in logic? It distresses and apalls me (it would amuse me if often the arguments aren't so damaging) at what some people are willing to say and believe to back up their viewpoint in illogical ways that made out to look logical.

It's time to get over Bible worship, bibliolatry, and take it off the pedestal. There are things in the Bible that are morally wrong and need to be not believed and acted on, just as there are interpretations and ways of interpreting that are counterproductive and hurtful.

Say goodbye to the literalistic attitudes. Look at the Bible through lenses of higher values and morals and things become a lot clearer. I don't see the spirit of Jesus or of love in much of what is said and written these days.

Someone asked, why stay/be adventist if you are gay? Good question. I ask why be Adventist if you are human? I get benefits from associating with Adventist communities but they are just a part of the richness of my life. If I lived in Adventism in belief, behaviour and belonging in totality it would kill me!

Thanks for the link.
I was not aware of the article since I have my browser set to only go to the blog.
I was posting so anyone certification dumps who cared could present a sabbath commercial about St Patrick. I saw the Youtube outreach theme presented on this segment scjp and since it was St Patrick's day, quickly put in the post.
This year I presented the St Patrick/sabbath commercial on Youtube, PALTALK , Yahoo Christian chat and vmware training a couple religious forums including this one.
I also emailed a few pmi certification SDA friends and found that some never heard of this info.

So much is in dispute these days...even the existence of JESUS.