Jared

Thanks--I think you gave a satisfactory account. The question that no one seems to address is the Christian Charge to the witnesses that includes the traditional phrase: "Those whom God has joined together, let no one put asunder."

What is the Scriptural basis for that use in a same sex
clergy administered wedding? Why didn't the pastor discuss that since it seems from your report the pastor was not pleased with same sex unions although he attempted to demonstrate compassion for those struggling with the issue.

In my mind, God reserved the right to define sin but gave man the right to define crime. I believe that homosexual activity has been decriminalized in most if not all 50 states.

As I have stated many times on this site, I strongly believe in civil unions--I have seen too many financial disasters when property rights are not defined. As a citizen and as a neighbor I have no issue with such consentual and legally recognized unions. However, a church is an institution that can define its own standards as it understands God's will.
I can't understand anyone demanding recognition outside of the fundamentals of that private institution. One may not agree with those fundamentals and emphatically declare so, but they have no right to force a change. Bigotry may well be a sin but it is no crime if it doesn't infringe on the civil rights of either party. Tom

New Man,
Come clean Ron.

Noel, I am not sure who Ron is, but if you think you know who I am, you do not. I have never met you before. I am just another man who has struggled with SSA just as you have. I have taken a different path, a path away from homosexuality, toward my true God-given heterosexuality. I love where I am today. I am married and have children. I would not trade anything to go back to my previous position with SSA. I am glad that made the choice that I did. I know you don't agree with me, that is your choice. You, and Kinship, and Jared, and Dave Larson, and Carol Grady are just one opinion on this problem. There is another side that teaches how to overcome and walk away from SSA. I prefer my side to being stuck in yours. You can choose to be stuck there, that is your choice.

David, thanks for your comment. I agree with you that it is high time that heterosexual men of the SDA church take ownership of harm that they have done to people who struggle with SSA by their judgement, gay jokes, put downs, and physical harm. It is time that the men of our church repent of this. When this task of repentance has happened and their hearts are changed, then our churches will not be big enough to hold all of the people who will come in for healing from their sins, SSA or otherwise. The world is full of hurting people who want delivery from their pain. What a glorious day that will be.

Will the next sermon or conference be on adultery? There are many more Bible text on this subject than the few on homosexuality.

In years past, divorce meant that both were disfellowshipped, unless each wanted to sit before a church board of inquiry and list the specific actions leading to the divorce.

If those events and "shame" attitudes still prevailed, there would be fewer members. In Hebrew, or OT times, it was only a wife who was labeled an "adulteress," as she was either the property of her father or husband. Men could only be called an adulterer if he took another man's property: his wife. He could have as many wives or mistresses as he could support.

When was the last time you heard someone like Dwight thundering from the pulpit the awfulness of adultery? Unlike homosexuality, adultery brings untold misery to the participants and children, while homosexuality affects only the two involved and has no impact whatosever on heterosexuals or heterosexual marriages. Why all the conferences and sermons? Is it the "sin" of the decade, replacing adultery of the past half century? How many broken homes has homosexuality caused? Now, consider how many broken homes adultery has caused.

This is an open invitation to Dwight Nelson to preach a sermon series on adultery. He opened the door, let him finish the task. While he is at it, why not preach on lying, cheating, stealing, gossiping, overeating, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, laziness, and all of the rest. Isn't it time that we stop playing games and get at the task of cleaning up our act and serving the world?

Elaine, you wrote: " ...while homosexuality affects only the two involved and has no impact whatosever on heterosexuals or heterosexual marriages."

I agree with your basic thesis (that adultery is sin, while homosexuality, per se, is not), however cannot escape the reality that nobody lives their life in isolation. Recently some friends of mine (two families, each with several children) experienced the break-up of both families because the two wives commenced a same-sex relationship.

Your definition of heterosexual marriage might exclude the two marriages in question (because technically they may have been hetero-lesbian marriage), but given the two husbands had no prior knowledge their wives were closet lesbians, the impact to them was very real.

Rather than judging the two wives (who arguably have committed adultery), I see this situation as the type of fall-out that occurs when religious stereotypes interfere with the choices people make as they're growing up. In an ideal world, these women would never have married men in the first place.

So I'm passionately opposed to the church's stance on same-sex relationships, but don't believe you can convincingly argue that homosexuality has no impact on heterosexuals.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the studying I have done of the "clobber texts" I understand that the word translated as "homosexual offenders" in the NIV and a few other versions of 1 Cor. 6:9, "arsenokoites," has been highly disputed as to its meaning. This is the first instance found of its use, so it may have been coined by Paul. It is a combination of the words for "male" and "bed" (a euphemism for "have sex"). It could mean a male who has sex with someone (male or female) or it could mean a male who has sex with another male. Many scholars consider that this word and "malakos" which is here translated as male prostitutes are pair words, so "arsenoiktes" probably referred to the men who paid prostitutes for sex. This is an exploitive form of sex, and in Roman society both male prostitutes and men who used them may not necessarily have been homosexuals, as we understand them today. Roman men were privileged to have sex with anyone below them socially, male or female, and male prostitutes sold their sexual services to both men and women. So when Paul says, "and such were some of you," he wasn't saying that homosexuals could become heterosexual, but that those who accept Christ will stop exploiting others.

Kenneth,
I wouldn't have managed to stick around to the end to be able to walk out with you - I would've been gone long ago :)

While I think sexual purity is a noble topic, it just bugs me to no end when I perceive double standards being applied to heterosexual and homosexual purity.

For example, no less than Jesus himself clearly states that the only legitimate reason for divorce and remarriage is adultery by the other party. If you divorce and remarry, you are living in sexual sin unless you fit that criteria according to Jesus.

I have no doubt that there are people who are members of Pastor Nelson's church who were nodding their heads about how those homosexuals cannot be allowed to continue in their sexual sins and be members of the SDA church and yet they themselves have divorced and remarried outside of those stringent bounds. Has anyone told them lately that they must sever that sinful relationship, divorce, and live single, celibate lives if they want to be members? It's Biblical isn't it?

If homosexuals are seriously being told that they must end any long-term loving relationship - even if children are involved (imagine the pain and disruption that would cause) if they want to be ok in the eyes of the church, then it is only fair that the same Biblical standard should be applied to straights.

Any prospective member who wants to join the church must know that if they are remarried after divorce, the only way they can continue in that second marriage is if their ex committed adultery AND they didn't. Otherwise, they are living in sexual sin, they must divorce (kids or no kids) and live celibately for their remaining days. Any current member who divorces cannot remarry and must stay celibate and single until such time as the ex commits adultery and of course whoever does the adultery must always stay celibate and single no matter what. You committed adultery 30 years ago, divorced and remarried? You are living in sexual sin and Paul has some words for you. Celibacy and singleness is a tough burden yes, but we are called to obedience are we not?

Should I hold my breath that that is going to happen? Nope. Homosexuals simply make a much more satisfying target than the large percentage of your church body who are divorced and remarried outside of Biblical bounds.

David Larson,

Having been a preacher for aound 30 years, I note with interest your diappointment that Dwight Nelson did not preach according to your particular perspective. As I'm sure you know, for every sermon topic there are a multitude of tacs, we can take in making our presentation.

Dwight, as a powerful and skilled preacher took the one that the Spirit led him to embrace for the occasion.

Surely David, you were able to detect the huge amount of compassion in Dwight's sermon for the plight of his gay correspondent.

Yes I have heard the phrase that they sit there like dumb dogs.

Adventists love a show and they got one IN Dwight Nelson.
A lot of Pastors would have made better showman than preachers. Then, I am talking about the United States and people hamming it up.

It is a shame that people trust there Pastor and give over personal stuff that should never be given, unless of course you want it to go round the grape vine of Adventism.

The one thing I have learnt in the Christian faith is the human nature shows through regardless of his/her faith.

you know, before i move on with my day--why have i not yet seen the biological side of the argument presented?
for those of us who believe that GOD created the earth and all that in it is, and that GOD makes no mistakes which is why we worship and respect Him (who bothers to worship a god who messes up? not me)--then why do the human male and female chromosomes work so well together and have for thousands of years without any other possible way (not using technology) to reproduce?
why was adam, the first male, not given adam? who then together went forth and populated the earth as commanded to by God, the creator....?
why do the male and female bodies fit together perfectly to create life? two female bodies and two male bodies do not fit together in a way that can create life. to be brutally graphic, last i knew, babies were not able to be born via a male anus, and one vagina cannot fit inside of another. someone let me know if this has since changed, as well as any breaking news that two eggs joining or two sperm likewise somehow now have the right amount of the right kind of dna to create a whole human being.
why has reproduction been this way since the beginning of time?
for those who believe that we just came about, changing gradually: why have our bodies not yet changed to accommodate procreation on the homosexual plane? heck--for that matter, why aren't we asexual by now? yes, there was the man who had a baby a year or so ago--but again, only with the help of science.
what's interesting to me is that homosexuality has been going on forever, since after "the fall" in the garden of eden (or for you evolutionists out there, since "thousands and thousands of years.") there is nothing new about it. so from a stark evolutionary standpoint, at the very least *some* of the human population should've by now been created in the womb in such a way to accommodate the way our brains have already "changed."
i guess the sex organs are lagging by a few thousand millennia, huh?
it is said, "but it feels so right," yet without the help of science and technology.... reproduction of the human race would nevertheless be impossible. not to hurt any feelings, be politically incorrect, or to step on any toes, but this is simply the bottom line--whether anyone likes it or not.
so did God make a "creation mistake?" if you believe that's unlikely, then how on earth can anyone defend homosexuality as an acceptable way to live your God-given life for Christ? we all know that sin changes things--and that this change is *never* an improvement over the original design--the original plan.
that said, my heart breaks for those who encounter high and mighty church members who refuse to even look a homosexual in the eye as a human being. i feel for their inner battles. i worry about their self esteem and their mental health as they field insensitivity and cruel and condescending criticism, and hope that they never, ever doubt that God loves them. and i pray for them and their personal decisions and struggles.

David

It seems nobody was satisfied with Pastor Nelson's sermon.
"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." Dwight took the position that self gratification sex is one of those sins. Thus the title Sex in the Sanctuary. Clever, huh? Then he attempted compassionate sensationalism for 50 minutes. If he couldn't make his point in 20 he shouldn't have started.

He failed to consider that homosexuals believe that they have a gift or a birth right not a congenital anomoly. Thus, he left them at the gate. The issue was Prop 8. He could have given a riveting Patrick Henry sermon on Religious Liberty entitled: Fornicating in the State House.

What he should have done was rail against Jezebel, all the prophets of old did. Or done a Cliff Goldstein, a cut from the old prophets cloth. It seems you favor the Cliff Goldstein approach on this issue---Bash the bashers.

What he should have done is be out of town on important business and let the Associate Pastor take the heat. At least decline the invitation like you and Nam did.

Proposition 8 was wrong, the isolation of any classification of sinners for human abuse is wrong.

The greatest public sin in my mind is the pollution of our earth, air, water, and food. The second is war, even preemptive war. The abandonment and abuse of infants and children comes high. Heterosexual sexual gratification seems at the heart of child abuse. Yes for sure, Dwight had a lot to choose from. He tried and failed, as would anyone less on that Sabbath, in that Church, in that setting.

It seems to me from Jared's report the brethren from the Religious Liberty Department dropped the ball far worse than
Pastor Nelson.

Dr. Oliver W. Holmes, as professor of Anatomy at Harvard, was posted to give the lecture on the Sphenoid bone. That bone that forms the base of the skull. It looks like an owl in flight. Professor Holmes strode into the lecture hall white coat flapping. Took to the lectern, raised the Sphenoid bone high in the air in his right hand and said: "Gentlemen, (no women in medical school in those days) I give you the Sphenoid bone, damn the Sphenoid bone, and strode out of the lecture hall.

Pastor Nelson should have read a text from Revelation on who would be outside the heavenly city and then said: "Don't Be There, you'll!" and sat down. Tom

I wish Pastor Nelson had asked to stand to their feet all those who pledged by the mercy and power of God as we receive it through Jesus Christ our Lord not to be driven by our fear and hate, not to forget the logs in our own eyes while trying to remove the splinters in others and not to abuse, oppress, wound and kill homosexual men and women.

That he didn't do this, that instead he took the easy path by stirring up passions against a small and already marginalized and wounded group surprised and disappointed me.
Posted by: davidrlarson | 31 October 2009 at 11:16

I returned home to LA last night following a farewell evening concert at Campus Hill in Loma Linda honoring Hyveth Williams who will soon be leaving to join the Andrews U Seminary faculty. I came across these two Spectrum blogs: first, despair and depression among pastors; and second, a critique of Dwight Nelson's most recent sermon in connection with the Marriage, Homosexuality, and Church Conference in Andrews. The thought that came to me after reading first one, then the other was: "What in the world are pastors and will-be pastors saying about Dwight Nelson (perhaps without the person concerned being aware of it)!"

Although it was late, I took the time to watch Pastor Nelson's sermon on my WMP. What struck me was how biased and slanted was the reporting, actually editorializing (more commentary, Tom observed) that was offered on this site. It amazes me that the contrast between the confessions of the two Davids, Israel's king and David Letterman, was totally omitted by Jared.

While Pastor Dwight preached on the theme of I Corinthians 6:9-20, the other portions of Scriptures he used to support his thesis were:
Psalm 51:7; Hebrews 9:14—washed by His _________ (see also I John 1:7, 9; Revelation 1:5; Titus 3:4, 5); Acts 22:16.
Finally, 1 Kings 14:8 (New International Version)

"I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes."

http://www.pmchurch.tv/site/1/docs/2009-10-17_Temple-7.pdf

What was Pastor Dwight's message regarding Israel's king? Briefly, justification in the forensic, biblical (in his view) sense of the word. Agree with him or not theologically, I thought it was a balanced presentation, not sparing anyone present, at the same time offering hope to those who fail again and again in their endless search for personal moral purity.

Lastly, I believe some of us are essentially asking for another sermon from Dwight Nelson. That may be forthcoming, who knows?

Thank you, Dave.

I pray that God's Spirit will continue to penetrate and occupy the hearts, minds and actions of those who sincerely seek His will. I also solicit your prayers as I prepare to present the sermon "Sex and the City" at the Oakwood University Campus Church on Wednesday evening. May God's will be done.

David

Might be well if we all read Gen. 18, and 19. Recall what the men of Sodom wanted to do with Jesus and His angels. hate, violence is pandemic.

When I was in dental school in Chicago, the Chicago retail store was directly across the street from a porno theater.

One afternnon, I took the "El" downtown to Sears. As I came down the stairs, I noticed s Salvation Army Band playing directly in front of the porno theater. The manager of the theater was outside protesting violently against the members of the band. He never hit any of the women but came very close to physical attack.

Funny, I understood the theater manager more than I did the Salvation Army. I knew what the manager wanted--cash flow. I couldn't understand who the Salvation Army was trying to save or say.

My point is there are enough stories of abuse on both sides to fill many books. None of which say more than man is a very perverse willful sinful being. One need read no further than Lot and his daughters to know that destroying Sodom didn't change the sexual habits of mankind. Tom

i'm not saying their love is not real in any way, shape, or form. unnatural? yes. is it following the natural plan for our bodies and the way they were created based on the way basic biology works? no. like i said, sin tries it's best to deviate us from the original plan and homosexuality is no different in being just another form of deviation.
but i hate to think of people who strongly feel that their orientation is what it is, having to deal with hatred from other human beings. that hatred is *also* a deviation from the original plan and it's the human race's (eve and adam's) fault that any of this "deviating mess" exists--not God's.
i promise that i firmly believe that homosexuality is not okay just because people strongly feel that it's "so right," JUST as firmly as i believe that hatred of someone for sexual orientation is not okay just because it feels "so right" to hate on them.
feelings cannot be trusted; they are not to be a baseline measurement for us of what is "okay." we are sinful beings, we cannot trust ourselves--only our Creator.... whom i don't believe has ever made any mistakes, btw.
and yes tom, i agree. there is no new thing under the sun.

While none of this comment is about homosexuality it is about understanding the Bible.

Newman wrote:
--
It seems pretty obvious that from Genesis 4 that when Abel brought the firstborn of his flock, he understood about the evilness of sin and the need for a savior. That lamb or goat (from the margin of my Bible) offering was symbolic of the coming Christ. Abel seemed to understand that and God rewarded him. The fruit of Cain was not representative of Christ, only his (Cain's) works, that is why I suspect God rejected them. See also 1 John 3:12. What a great early example of righteousness by faith.

This all seems to make sense to me. Do you have another explanation?
--

If you say that in the first place as Newman did say:

"Because it was not what God asked him to do. It was disobedience. Cain harbored rebellious feelings. God asked for obedience" and then your proof is the above based on Heb 11:4 which is about faith you have equated faith as obedience. In fact you have placed obedience first when it cannot possibly be first.

Then as is the problem with the original exposition that the Cain and Abel story was about obedience you add that it was symbolic of the coming of Christ which is nowhere given in the story or the proceeding stories and the idea of something symbolic of something never seen or told about is a complete absurdity. So all you have done is assert that you can answer the problem by continuing to read your ideas into the story. Which is a huge problem when the problem exists because you were already reading your ideas into the story. (see end quote from the Expositor's Bible Commentary on the Heb 11:4 verse)

The reading into the Bible is a huge problem in Christianity Nelson does it as well when he says as the report/commentary says:

"Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Anna the Prophetess all lived without sexual relationships, Nelson pointed out. "It can be done," he shouted. Nelson has two children."

First we should exclude Jesus from the list as His mission was unique to humanity. Then we have Paul who we don't know if he had been married or not:
--
Question: "Was the Apostle Paul married?"

Answer: The Bible never says whether Paul was married or not. Some think that he was at one time based on what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Paul was married at one time, his wife likely passed away considering he never mentions her in any of his writings. Paul declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.
http://www.gotquestions.org/apostle-Paul-married.html
--

The basic idea is that if the Bible record is silent on a subject than it did not occur. The argument from silence is a logical fallacy (whether one assumes something not mentioned is there or is not there, all we know is it is not in the story, Cain could have been given instructions but why would that not be included in the story as it would be crucial to understanding. If John the Baptist had a wife it would not be crucial to any story about John.). Considering that the majority of the Bible was written when women themselves were often simply property the wives of people in stories are not often relevant to the story.

The Anna the Prophetess is just silly. From the 3 verses in Luke that mention her we know:
" * She was a prophetess.
* She was a daughter of Phanuel.
* She was a member of the tribe of Asher.
* She was widowed after seven years of marriage (her husband is not named).
* She was a devout Jew who regularly practiced prayer and fasting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_%28Bible%29

The point is that what you read into the Bible is often more influential with many Christians than what the Bible actually says. And that is often before the point where we even interpret what the Bible is saying. Because if we read something into a story we then always carry that eisgesis into our interpretation.

From the Expositor's Bible Commentary on Heb 11:4
--
4 The first example of faith is Abel, who brought God a more acceptable sacrifice than did his brother Cain (Gen 4:3-7). Bruce (in loc.) canvasses a number of opinions as to the reasons for the superiority of Abel's offering: it was living, whereas Cain's was lifeless; it was stronger, Cain's weaker; it grew spontaneously, Cain's by human ingenuity; it involved blood, Cain's did not. But all such suggestions seem wide of the mark. Scripture never says there was anything inherently superior in Abel's offering. It may be relevant that there are some references to Abel as being a righteous man (Matt 23:35; 1John 3:12), while the author of Hebrews insists on the importance of Abel's faith. Abel was right with God and his offering was a demonstration of his faith.
Once again, NIV's "commended" represents the passive of the verb "to witness": "it was witnessed" or "testified" that he was righteous (cf. v. 1). This is explained as that God "bore witness" to (NIV, "spoke well of") his offerings. This indicates the importance the author attached to Abel's sacrifice offered in faith, for very rarely is God said to have borne witness. The meaning may be either that on the basis of Abel's sacrifice God testified to his servant or that God bore witness about the gifts Abel offered. We should probably accept NIV's "And by faith he still speaks," though the Greek is simply "through it," where "it" might refer either to "sacrifice" or to "faith." Whichever way we resolve this problem, the main point is that Abel is not to be thought of as one long-since dead and of no present account. He is dead, but his faith is a living voice.

Ron

I wonder if he thinks homosexuality is worse than adultery. The sermon was supposed to be about marriage and he ignored the problem of adultery - perhaps because of the situation that is close to his family. Firing grenades at others and conveniently steering away from one's own issues. Clever smokescreen.

a perfect garden with two perfect people who chose to disobey God.

kb

As the couple had not eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil how could they possibly know that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil was evil? I prefer to be able to discern evil when I see it, such as the homophobic vitriol which spewed forth at the Andrew's "conference".

The character 'Eve' should be a hero to every freethinking person on this planet.

they did know it was a choice for evil because they knew that God was good and perfect in what He'd said. they understood that they didn't create Him, but it was them who were created! and so it goes without saying that they understood that to do the opposite of what He'd said was choosing evil (disobeying).
why on earth else do you think they would they have HID after they disobeyed?? they were guilty and they knew it!
this is going in circles. some people just do not like to accept the simple answer because it's just that....too simplistic. they like everything difficult and multi-faceted....maybe life is more interesting to them that way....
i agree with you, elaine, in that what is clear to some, may not be..." which is what makes these discussions interesting. in response to your question, "natural" for this earth is the active and constant "condition of sin." what evil high angel thrown out of heaven roams the earth? satan. therefore anything happening here that goes against God, as well as we can understand Him through thorough reading of the Bible, is sin and is unfortunately natural --let me be clear-- *for this earth*......in this sense i am glad for a God who can take whatever happens to me and turn it for good--genesis 50:20 "you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good...." (not you, per se)......... and keafan, you sound like my brother, who for a long time hated God because to him, God was "obey Me, or else you end up with satan."
even though the reality is really just as simple as an evil power against a good power (how star wars isn't it), he felt that that really wasn't free choice at all, but a forced type of decision.
i don't know if he was looking for some kind of alternate dimension with special "extra" choices, or what, but i know he was very unsettled and unhappy with God for a long time.
honestly, this is how it is throughout life on this imperfect earth!--obey the speed limit or you get a ticket. so what-- am i going to speed anyway because that would be "freethinking?" would you applaud me in this? we're told not to speed for a reason. how much more willing should i be to obey my Creator, whether i understand that reason fully or not, if i am willing to obey common earthly law enforcement!!
there is obeying God in what we understand Him on and studying more. always, always studying and praying for more understanding and wisdom and willingness to obey. like i said, our feelings alone should never be a baseline for everything we do or how we live. if you believe in the Bible and in creation by God, then you believe that we did not create ourselves, we were not "there" in the beginning, and we cannot see the whole plan. if you applaud eve, i can only take that to me that you see yourself as some sort of deity..... interesting as that was satan's problem right from the beginning--he wanted the throne and everything that came with it.
i don't look up to eve's decision at all, whereas you do, and so i suppose our discussion on eve/sin/"knowledge of" ends here and now because we'll apparently never agree.

i trust in a God that has led people through good and bad and time and again has blessed them for their faith. there is proof in Bible history, and proof in the lives of believers around me today. i do not praise, nor aspire to be like, people who choose to disobey--like eve.

like i said, we may never agree. and here's how i disagree. i will be as clear as possible:

they did know that God was good in that they knew Him as their "Creator" who provided for them-- example: He made so that they could eat what ever herb and tree whose fruit yields seed to eat, gave them all of the animals to name and keep busy caring for, an entire garden for their keeping, and for adam-- a companion. why? because God knew it wasn't good for him to be alone. after all of this, yes, they understood good. just because they didn't yet know what bad treatment would've been, doesn't mean they didn't love and trust their God because of all He'd done for them already. they had absolutely no reason to fear Him, to distrust Him whatsoever. "ah ha here," you say, "kb, you have proven my point through your very own words!" wait, i'm not finished.
(and i am sure that after seeing eve, adam especially understood that God = good!! ;)

then they received the warning--to not eat of a certain tree for they would surely die.
at the instant this warning was rendered, there is no doubt, all of us being human and understanding the basics of how the human mind works, that they then understood that it would be wrong to go ahead and disobey God by eating of this tree anyway.

do you see what i'm saying? even though they didn't yet understand what evil fully entailed, they did realize and know, at that moment, what it was to "do" wrong--which was to fall away from God and to disobey Him--which would be the first time in their lives, ever.
they knew bad as the opposite of everything God was telling them they needed to do--they simply didn't know for themselves the specifics of *what* would come after choosing Against their Creator.
and just a side note--what could've possibly even had more of an impact on them initially after the warning was issued, of how their God must love them and be all things "good," was the realization that He cared enough to warn them beforehand of this apparently harmful, awful thing. i can see them now-- "a tree with knowledge of good and evil? what does that mean exactly? what is death? why the warning? why is it so bad? it looks like a beautiful tree. i don't get it."

again, the only difference between them and us was they didn't know how evil, evil itself could be. they didn't understand the horror of the consequences that can follow, and had never felt that gut-wrenching feeling one has after making a big mistake.

in a nutshell: not understanding the consequences of evil as deeply as we now do, doesn't mean that they didn't understand that disobeying God--moving away from and not trusting that He knows what is best--was wrong.
they had been given an out (don't go near the tree), but like us now, they couldn't resist testing God, sating their curiosity--instead of simply trusting.
so how does that make genesis contradictory? doesn't the Bible say that you must become like a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven? if you have a different view, let me know, but i always understood that verse to mean trusting and obeying in God supremely.

first eve, and then adam, chose to not do so and even as eve reached for the fruit, we both know >>*since she had been forewarned* << that she knew in the back of her mind what she was about to do was against her Creator's command. that is a fact. she was told "this thing." and she knew full well that she was instead disobeying and choosing "that thing."
that for the first time, she was doing the exact opposite out of everything her so-far-good Creator had ever told her.
so to say that adam and eve didn't know good from evil, and that genesis contradicts itself, is kind of a moot point here, keafan.

maybe what you are referring to is the different meaning the warning had for both parties? God knew, of course, what was really going on if they ate of the tree-- simply that they had chosen rebellion, sin, disobedience, as opposed to peaceful, simple trust, which allowed them all to continue to live in harmony together. choosing your own faulty path is sin--and i mean, they were warned in advance! it's not like it was a trick--and sin against God could in no wise exist in the perfect garden of eden while the divine God of the universe continued to commune with them.
they, on the other hand, only knew that it looked beautiful and wondered why the "knowledge of good and evil" was apparently such a horrible thing. in fact, they already had the knowledge of good and evil--they were wrestling with choosing between God = good, and disobeying God = rebellion and this thing called death, amidst an ominous warning--every single time they looked at that tree and debated trying it anyway. obviously, they didn't realize this on the surface, did they?
the only thing they were missing--and which was what God was trying to protect them from--was the consequences side of "the knowledge of," for they had not yet, until that day, committed any sin.
i ask you, is it our job to know everything God does right off the bat, or are we to simply trust in Him and do as He asks?--seeing as how He IS the omnipotent one, after all...
do you really think that you're going to get to heaven with all of your questions, and God is going to just look at you with His mouth sealed? rev 20:12 promises us that the books will be opened.
in disobeying, they did in fact fulfill what God had warned would happen--death did eventually come, and their inoculation to the consequences of choosing evil died that very day. and we certainly do now understand all too painfully better the consequences of the knowledge of good and evil, don't we? :s

if they'd just kept to obeying God they could've avoided sin in the first place. this was the beginning of free will--and look where it's led to. now you have free will. i have free will. are you happy with the way the earth is going? because i'm not. i'd like for someone to show me how the whole of the human race on this earth is becoming a better people, century by century. where are the stats to back it up?
so based off of your issue with the very beginning of the Bible, which would mean you had an issue with God himself and how good and evil ended up having to be played out, means that you're not Christian? you don't appreciate God or His gift in His Son?
i'm just trying to understand, because i think then that coming to these forums would be a form of mental torture if i were where i understand you to be standing.....just wondering....

Its interesting to me that we have latched onto the "sin" (depending how we fall theologically) of homosexuality for this right/wrong debate. I suppose part of it has to do with the way some people have pressed the issue insisting that the Bible does not condemn it. But what about all the other "sins" our culture has Validated: Greed/Capitalism (oops...), Killing/Bombing/War, Judging others, Revenge/Grudges/Not Forgiving, Entitlement, Defending our wealth/position, indifference to the suffering of people who are determined to have earned their position, punitive punishment of wrongdoers - things like these have largely been accepted into church culture without thought.
At the same time, we have relegated as 'ridiculous' or 'wrong' Biblical virtues like peacemaking/pacifism/'turning the other cheek', transparent accountability in community, confrontation/rebuke, etc...

It seems to me we need to find a reasonable way to talk about sin/virtue/gray areas in church that includes everyone and gives everyone a place at the table: a way that allows the scripture to genuinely confront our lives, and a way that provides grace and acceptance to all no matter where we are at.

I'm so glad God's love isn't based upon my interpretation of scripture, my performance at meeting that interpretation, or whether or not I think homosexuality is a sin.

It seems to me that a subject as intimate and personal as my sexuality, and how it relates to my faith and spiritual well-being, is most meaningfully and respectfully discussed and prayed about in a smaller group of trusted friends, with people whom I admire and respect and believe in. People who can hold me accountable--because we have personal relationships. To gather a congregation together to worship and praise their God and Saviour, and then turn that worship experience into a "sermon" on the evils of homosexual love seems abusive, not to mention a waste of precious corporate worship, and praise, and thanksgiving. I can't sit through anything like that. Not ever again. And to think that this young person's letter was read publicly (even if anonymously or with permission) strikes me as an abuse of confidence. I go to church to be spiritually uplifted and encouraged. I wonder how many left church that day feeling validated and loved by God.

Reading the report on the sermon and the entire debate above, it seems clear to me that the true challenge has nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality or adultery or greed or what may or many not have been an acceptable offering for Cain to bring; the real challenge stems from the true tragedy of Adventism.

I am convinced that the real tragedy of the SDA church, the church I belong to and love, is that as a Church we continue to believe that salvation is about what we do, rather than about what Christ HAS ALREADY DONE.

Until we finally accept this beautiful truth we will continue to major in minors and continue to see our children walk away from the church. Oh how I ache to be a member of a CHRISTIAN Church.

i like RD's idea--definitely.
david larson--i don't think anyone doubts you're kidding. yes, we could use a whole series on every single sin listed in the Bible, sure why not. i think they bothered to have a conference on homosexuality, though, because pastors speak on many, many things. it's not often though, especially in this day and age of trying to keep within PC confines, that you'll find a pastor who will spend his entire sermon hour exploring the theme of homosexuality in the now, and how we should understand it based on what the Bible says, how we as a people should treat the subject.....
i'm an ex PK and grew up exposed to the sda church, its doctrines, and heard sermon after sermon, week after week. no, i'm not brainwashed. i've researched other religions and denominations and did my bit of wandering and exploring.
but what's interesting is that for all the many sermons i've heard, speakers tend to spend that sermon hour talking about Jesus' love, grace through faith, or a significant exchange between Jesus and his disciples, or what adultery does to people on both sides, or the 7 deadly sins, or how to have great health and help your body (temple) function as optimally as possible, or how self control is needed in all areas of life--for example to not let one's temper run rampant, etc and so on.... but i don't recall anyone ever taking that hour to go on and on regarding homosexuality.
i just think its a subject whose time has come. it needs to be discussed because people have strong and varying views on it--and take note that it is not only SDAs who all share very differing, impassioned opinions on it. the U.S. view regarding it is changing in the same way, with the same impassioned responses to every little political move that affects the rights of those who identify as homosexuals.
long gone is the way of treating it as though it's some dirty little secret-- as though we're all still living in 1920s.
so no, i don't see the church's agenda as making it worse than anything else. anything you see happening in the world, you will soon see the adventist church wrestling with and finding a place for whatever issue is "hot" and noteworthy--in the SAME manner as what other denominations and religions go through.
does anyone here really think we're the only church who bothers to respond to whatever is the "now" subject matter in the news??
and i'm done here as far as this responses to the report. i still know where i stand. thanks all for sharing opinions and ideas.

Personally I don't have a problem with a sermon on homosexuality. It needs to be talked about.

My problem is that the way it is talked is often a greater sin IMO than the sin itself (though I don't think practicing homosexuality is necessarily a sin.) The reasons given to support the condemnation are unevenly applied - they are trotted out for homosexuality but quietly ignored in other equally applicable situations. The "solutions" given (celibacy) are draconian and not asked of other sexual sinners (those remarried apart from adultery.) Even if asked of other sinners, they are not enforced. For example, straight singles are asked to be celibate but no one is checking whether they are sleeping with a partner before they are allowed to teach SS - you better believe gays are.

The message almost always allows the straight listener to feel morally superior and justified in the singling out of this particular "sin" as especially bad and dangerous. Many straight men have a visceral repulsion towards gay men (notice how so much of the focus is ALWAYS on gays not lesbians) and they interpret that repulsion as evidence for the wrongness of it. Their message says more about them then the issue.

Just to be sure I didn't miss anything important Dwight Nelson said, I watched the video of his sermon a second time early this morning. I must say it was a well-crafted piece he delivered; and that most of the negative criticisms I've read so far, starting with the main article and subsequent comments, are either due to misinformation or because as listeners with our own unique personalities we hear things differently.

Instead of responding to all the critiques, I invite you to compare Jared's analysis with my own notes:

JW: Then, turning to the scriptural passage for the morning, 1 Corinthians 6:9ff, Nelson apologized in advance "for all the blushing you're going to do." Nelson called the passage "One of the great, great human sexuality passages in all the holy scripture."

JC: Possibly hyperbolic, but definitely a rhetorical device. Moreover, who will argue that the portion of 1 Cor 6 Dwight chose is not mainly about food, neither is it simply addressing lawsuits against one another, as we've been taught in Sabbath School and by evangelists, but about sex and every sin of the flesh?

JW: The text begins with the question, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God (NIV)?" The passage goes on to admonish hearers not to be deceived (and Nelson inserted, "Don't let the culture pull the wool over your eyes--don't be snookered by society, don't be duped_dramatic pause_by politically correct thinking"). The sexually immoral, adulterers, male prostitutes and homosexual offenders (in the NIV rendition) will not inherit the kingdom of God, according to the passage. The text also mentions drunkards, people who swindle, steal, and slander and the greedy. Nelson added several comments of elaboration on the sexual offenses, and simply rattled off the other categories.

Then came the punch line for Nelson, a line he wanted to let hang on the screen all by itself: "And that is what some of you were (verse 11, emphasis Nelson's)."

Nelson finished the thought for Paul: "But something radical has happened to you, and what you were, you no longer are." Those words do not appear in 1 Corinthians.

JC: Whatever conclusion Jared would like us to draw from the passage, that Pastor Nelson simply added his own words to the text ("... you no longer are"), it constituted the preacher's main thesis.

Here's the complete statement of vs 11, ch 6 (NIV): "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Greek (Westcott and Hort): και ταυτα τινες ητε αλλα απελουσασθε αλλα ηγιασθητε αλλα εδικαιωθητε εν τω ονοματι του κυριου [ημων] ιησου χριστου και εν τω πνευματι του θεου ημων

JW: Punctuating the sermon for emphasis, Nelson repeated the phrase, "What you were, you no longer are." He added you have been_________________ and then asked congregants to fill in the many blanks in the study guide with the words "washed," "sanctified," and "justified," commenting on the latter that it is a phrase right out of the courtroom. Nelson then described standing in the courtroom and hearing read out a list of "all your guilty sexual sins."
Nelson's repeated insertion of the phrase "What you were, you no longer are," gave the impression that it was part of the text although the phrase is absent from the 1 Corinthians passage.

JC: I'll let others to decide for themselves whether or not Pastor Dwight's assertion of forensic righteousness (justification) and sanctification by the Spirit, he believes the passage suggests, is valid or not. "What you were ... you no longer are!"

JW: Drawing toward his conclusion, Nelson again referred to the student's letter and the plea for allowing homosexual monogamy. Again, Nelson quoted Hays to respond, noting that for Hays, homoerotic monogamy is not acceptable and Jesus charges, "Go and sin no more." The quote went on to compare homosexual activity to heterosexual fornication or adultery.
Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Anna the Prophetess all lived without sexual relationships, Nelson pointed out. "It can be done," he shouted. Nelson has two children.
Nelson threw in one more statement from Hays, who seemed to be doing most of the talking for Nelson. Homosexual individuals do not have the option of homosexual marriage, according to Hays. Gays are "summoned to a difficult, costly obedience, while groaning for the redemption of our bodies," quoting Hays.

JC: The comparison Pastor Nelson made, quoting Hays, if I heard them correctly, was in particular between homosexuals who choose celibacy and heterosexual singles for whom celibacy is not a choice.

"If the Bible is so simple to understand (at face value, depending on the translation), why does our denomination spend the money to have a seminary at Andrews and other universities where graduate level work in theology and religion are studied?"

This seems in total contradiction to the Protestant belief in the "Priesthood of All Believers" and the "believers" must rely on the "educated" seminarians and theologians to tell them how and what to believe, similar to the papal pronouncements. This patronizing attitude leaves no room for open discussion and encourages members who think for themselves to either part company with an institution that practices this concept or relinquish their minds to others. Which is it?

Newman,

I am not be an expert on SSA, as you say. I respect the path that you have *chosen* in response to your SSA (I call that homosexuality or "gay" because I don't think it is merely SSA). But I am informed enough to know there is more than one path - although that may be difficult for you to accept (I could understand that).

There is growing acceptance among religious people - that being gay is not a choice. That the choices regarding that are how you decide to live.

I call on you to respect those who chose differently than you have. I perceive you have chosen to suppress or deny your innate sexual orientation. While the American Psychological Association has determined that this is often a harmful "path", you have the right to choose that.

However, I know that other sincere gay people believe that God did not answer their agonizing, sincere prayers to change them [do NOT tell me they didn't try as hard as you have] and have chosen a life of monogamy and faith (and it is not your God-given right to declare those mutually exclusive)! Miracles are exceptions, not the norm. Perhaps you have been given a gift others have not. But I believe you are unfortunately mistaken if you declare, "I've done it. Therefore anyone can do it." You may sincerely believe that, but I think to say / think that may be conceited, proudful, or ill-informed.

BTW, Elaine. I think you misunderstood me. I meant to disagree with Newman's idea that reading and understanding the Bible is a simplistic exercise and requires no effort or depth of study. Of course all of us can and should study for ourselves. I believe Carrol Grady is an example of someone who is not a trained theologian but has studied intensely to understand this issue. But, fact of the matter is, the Adventist denomination does have seminaries for some reason, don't they?

Helen,

I find it very interesting to watch the state of the church right now. The church is splitting. I believe Sister White calls it the shaking. There are definitely two groups forming right now before our eyes. One group says that the Bible is true and does not need to be reinterpreted to suit our modern ways, we only need to trust our Lord and his righteousness and prepare for His soon coming believing the Bible for what it says. The other groups says that the Bible does not agree with modern science, and when we hold the two together, the Bible loses and we must reinterpret the Bible to agree with modern science. This is happening in multiple ways: evolution vs. creationism at La Sierra and our other Universities, homosexuality, and with the smorgasbord Adventists that pick and choose which beliefs that they want and disregard the rest. I'm sure that there are other areas too, I am just not aware of them.

I choose to stay with the Bible. The APA is not an unbiased organization, they have an agenda. I choose to trust the Bible over the APA.

Newman,

"I AM RIGHT! I have THE truth!" So Adventist. So sad. The opinions you express remind me of when I was a young woman and my children were all pre-teen. In those days it wasn't unheard of for a "good" Adventist to tell their Catholic neighbors that they had the mark of the beast and wouldn't be saved. Of course, they thought they loved those neighbors and were only trying to warn them. But, many Adventists have since learned that this was counterproductive and not Christlike. Now we seem to have a new "mark of the beast" issue to learn about. Homosexuality.

I believe you are wrong, Newman, to even suggest that your way is the only way, that if people don't believe the Bible the way you do they are profligate sinners, and infer at the least that they will not be saved. I believe you are very enthusiastic and committed to your view and the solutions you have found to taking the Bible seriously.

Jesus Christ never approached people the way I think you do! I take the Bible very seriously. I'm sure others like Carrol Grady, David Larson, Jared Wright, etc. take the Bible very seriously! And I think it is very wrong for you to sit in judgment of whether those who read the Bible differently than you do are not taking it seriously.

My grandmother was expelled from nursing school at Paradise Valley Sanitarium for cutting her hair. That was "against the Bible." Do you believe it is wrong for a woman to cut her hair? I've always cut my hair. Am I ignoring the Bible? The people in charge at Paradise Valley would have said so. But most Adventists today see the Biblical injunction about a woman's hair being short differently than Adventists did 100 years ago.

When I was a young mother no self-respecting woman who truly considered herself an Adventist ("good Adventist") wore a wedding ring. We believed what EGW said about it being wrong to wear a circle of gold on your finger. We were proud to be "different" and believed that if we lived virtuously it would be obvious to others that we were married even though the normal societal sign of saying "I'm married, I'm not available" was to wear a wedding ring.

Today good Adventist pastors and their wives wear wedding rings. People in rather prominent positions within the NAD and GC wear wedding rings.

So, Newman. Who was taking the Bible more seriously. Those who refused to wear a wedding ring (and some still sincerely do that) or those who now considered themselves to take the Bible seriously but do wear a wedding ring.

Views change. Ellen White told us to be prepared to have new understandings of the Word of God. It is fine to say, "With all due respect, I disagree with you." But I believe it is wrong to suggest to someone else that they don't take the Bible as seriously as I do because we understand it in different ways.

Hansen, I bother responding to you because I cannot quietly abide having people like my gay grandson and others I know even possibly discouraged from knowing that the Lord loves them and wants them. I take the Bible very seriously, and I believe with all my heart that this is the message from Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels.

Be very careful, please, lest you be the one who discourages a child of God and leads them to believe the lie that God no longer accepts them - regardless of the reason. Please be careful lest you become a "millstone" weighing down another child of God.

Believe the Bible as you do. Stand by it. But please stop short of claiming that anyone who believes otherwise is a lesser Christian. It is so wrong and I believe that this violates a clear Biblical injunction: JUDGE NOT! That command does not say, "Judge not those who you think agree with you and see the Bible as you do." No! It says, "Judge not!" And I think that means, Newman, don't judge anyone.

Newman, you are free to believe as you do and, as I've said, I'll respect that. But I beg you not to judge those who believe differently. I think you're wrong to even suggest that they don't take the Bible seriously.

Sign me a concerned Adventist grandmother!

Helen,

You have most eloquently stated what should be the Christian's position. From another very concerned grandmother, who though has no gay children, am concerned for all of God's children that they be welcomed, loved unconditionally and accepted as the song says:
"Just As I Am." God help those who usurp the Judge of All.

Helen, thank you for articulating what I think most of us were thinking, but were unable to put as eloquently as you did.

Michael: you write "If as you say wearing a wedding ring is the normal societal sign of saying "I'm married, I'm not available" why is it so pathetically ineffective?
...
I mean if it is so important to you that you think everyone should do it, it should at least work shouldn't it? So recognising that wearing a wedding ring is a complete failure as an aid in preventing adultery, why then do you still recommend it?"

I'm sorry, but your logic just doesn't follow. Sure there is a lot of adultery in the world. But why would you conclude the wedding ring is the sole variable involved? It most certainly isn't. If you want to isolate one variable and determine the effect it has you would need to somehow run a study where all other variables are controlled and this one is different.

Reality is that there are many many reasons for adultery. For all you know the wedding ring could be a significant deterrent to adultery. Perhaps if everyone took them off the rate would skyrocket. You don't know one way or the other and neither do I.

How then can you say wearing a wedding ring is a complete failure? If you want to draw such an extreme conclusion - picking out one variable and attributing all cause to it - then please provide some empirical data to support this.

Unlikely that any exists.

Rich
Read the original quote from Helen.
You miss every salient point.
I'll only point out one. Your conundrum of "why would you conclude the wedding ring is the sole variable involved?"
I didn't conclude that.
Helen said "Today good Adventist pastors and their wives wear wedding rings. People in rather prominent positions within the NAD and GC wear wedding rings."
That was contrast with when she was a young mother.
"When I was a young mother no self-respecting woman who truly considered herself an Adventist ("good Adventist") wore a wedding ring."
Due to the changes over time she asks, "Who was taking the Bible more seriously?"
She offers no answers except in her contrast of the Adventist position compared with the worlds at the time.
She says, "even though the normal societal sign of saying "I'm married, I'm not available" was to wear a wedding ring."
Hence, wearing a wedding ring is designed as a signal warning off advances.
Since a 50% success rate is not considered effective in any medium we can conclude that the stated practice given (not by me) is ineffective as a solution to the stated problem.
I asked since the practice is ineffective for the problem, why support the practice?
It takes a lot of effort to even walk you through this one point. I hope I wont have to do it in the future.

This is a tiresome subject, or an annyoing one, at any rate. Why would a loving God allow little five year old boys to be attracted to hired hands [male] they saw showering in an outdoor shower? I am quoting from my own experience as a very adventist five year old who paradoxically was fascinated by what I saw in that outdoor shower area. It was not simply fascination with the adult body I assumed I'd have one day. It was an attraction before I even knew what sexual attraction was. A God of mercy would have allowed that little boy to at least grow up to adolescence before he even had an attraction for nude showering males. Conservative Christians who drone on and on about homsexuality being a choice are sadly misinformed. Those who suggest marriage for gays who really have no stomach for heterosexual sex are the cruelest of the lot. Those who insist that gays should be celibate should lead the way and give up relations with their own wives before dictating what others should or should not do regarding their sexual make-up.

Michael,

A simple wedding band can be very inexpensive.

Some people wear a wedding band so as to not bear false witness in their culture.

A story. My brother tragically lost his wife in an accident. Heartbroken, it took a very long time before he could get the courage to ask someone out and begin dating again. Working at an Adventist hospital, he decided to ask a woman to a concert. It took every ounce of courage he could muster. She did not wear a wedding ring, so he assumed she was not married. When he finally summoned the courage to ask, he was quickly told by her that she was married. He was mortified, embarrassed, and quite upset. NOT wearing a ring sent the wrong message.

Many wear a wedding ring to avoid this kind of confusion and to avoide assumptions of promiscuity. A physician was prescribing birth control for a woman without a ring, not realizing that she was married. The Adventist woman was sending, unknowingly and embarrassingly, the message that she was sexually active and single when actually she was and have been married for several years.

"Why don't you wear a wedding ring?" the Doc asked.

Why, indeed, the woman wondered, realizing the false message she was sending. She and her husband immediately discarded the mantra of "not one penny should be spent on a ring of gold" from the agrarian age when neighbors for miles around knew everyone's status, bought inexpensive rings, and focused on truth. Sentimentality, feeling good about spending all that money on themselves had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Ironically, to judge people as unrighteous, sentimental, and showy for wanting to tell the truth is an amazing assumption. Assuming without truthful knowledge is risky.

"...why on earth,when dealing with such a sensitive topic, do we use the NIV? which was written for those at the 7th grade level and has drastically changed verses from what was originally in the KJV??? are we not adults? can we not "handle" as close an interpretation as possible from original?"

kb,
You have got to be kidding! As "they" say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"; and I might add, no knowledge ends up with statements like this.

As it turns out, the KJV is based on the Greek New testament that was hastily put together by Erasmus, who translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. Besides that, Erasmus relied on some shaky manuscripts that he begged and borrowed from who knows where, some of which had missing pages that he had to improvise. And you prefer the KJV, because ... its sounds intellectual? Can we not handle some research into how the various versions of the Bible got written? and dispel the myths associated with the good old KJV?

PLM
I can see that happening, I mean about your brother.
Perhaps I would problem solve it differently or go about it differently.

In engineering the saying form follows function is big. It means the way you go about things or design things is based on how you want it to function.
You might condense it further to something about the ability to reason from cause to effect and weigh the variables.

I might have tried to be friends first and get to know her before asking her out. I would then have discovered if she was married or not prior to making embarrassing declarations. Also one can get to know the real person before one is overtly putting their best foot forward, like on a date where you only see what they want you to see.

Empirically the example you have given is not the best one in favor of wedding rings because that girl could have as easily had a boyfriend that would have amounted to the same reaction! Right?
So the solution is get to know her FIRST not make her wear wear a ring.

As to the Doc. His assumptions are his own. Or does he do confessions on the side?
Women send many more false messages with their attire and demeanor.

PS I looked up the quote by Sullivan and it works even in general context of this thread.
It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,
Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That form ever follows function. This is the law.
-Louis Sullivan-

This principal is in our modern physics, biology and science.
It even applies to How God made us.

Newman :

I still am waiting for your mail.

I was not at all kidding, For a long time I search for a man or woman having changed the sexual orientation from homo - - to hetero - - . Repeatedly I heard the speakers down the pulpit, the rostrum and the TV screen talking about persons with a change of sexual orientation they definitely know. Kindly requiring a personal contact I always heard : " - not in contact any more"/ "has moved away"/ "does not reply just now" / "Was very long ago" - "passed away inbetween"- - - .

Your last posting seems to reveal your approach : " - is not heterosexuality, it is holiness" . This is a clear statement I have to accept.

Anthropology and Theology thereafter have to deal with the issue "sexuality vs. holiness" - am I right ?

Tom
Everyone knows Ezekiel 16 is a story of redemption and betrayal not a treatise on adornment.
The whole chapter is an allegory.
Unless you actually believe Jerusalem is a woman whose father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. In that case there is little hope you will understand what is going on there.

Elaine
I do not understand. The text says long hair is a dishonor to a man and yet you say Jesus is always portraid in long hair.
I've seen the pictures too.
Are you saying portraying Jesus with long hair was done to dishonor him?

My grandmother told me of one girl she knew,if I remember right, she held the opinion that a womans hair was her glory so she felt, the more glory the better. I guess it eventually reached the floor or nearly and due to EGW's counsel of not wearing excessivly long skirts for sanitary reasons, was forced to braid and ball it up on her head, where she started recieving rebuke for all the time she was spending "adorning" herself.
So on the one hand she was following the dont cut your hair thing and on the otherhand she was chastized for expending the energy to manage it.
There will always be nuts. They used to involve themselves in trivialities like cutting hair. There are still nuts but now they are on both sides of the street.
On the right side you have the hair cutting nuts.
On the left side you have the homosexuality is just like hair cutting nuts.
They are both wrong.

We seem to have strayed from the original topic of this blog, but I'd be interested to know how Michael understands Gen. 24:22,30,47,53.

Michael

God only implied the Wheaties. I use milk and honey on cerals most mornings. You should try it. I think you'll like it.
Only a suggestion not a lecture. Tom

Michael wrote:

"Elaine

I do not understand. The text says long hair is a dishonor to a man and yet you say Jesus is always portraid in long hair.
I've seen the pictures too.
Are you saying portraying Jesus with long hair was done to dishonor him?"

I agree, you do not understand.

Elaine

Just one possible addition to your last sentence: "I agree, You choose not to understand!" The man is not witless just enjoys himself a bit too much. Tom

Everything written in the Bible was during an era when common practices were far different from today. Unfortunately, there were no cameras in the first century, just as in the Middle Ages when portraits of Jesus and the Bible figures were often displayed in the dress of different eras.

Helen, we are all unholy, every one of us, me included. We all fall short of the glory of God. The Bible calls us all sinners. Homosexuals are sinners just like the gossips, liars, the arrogant and everyone else in the church and in the world. Unfortunately, the church has its acceptable sins and its unacceptable sins. To me they are all a problem. We all have work to do. The opposite of all sin is holiness. Holiness and obedience are what God wants for us. Works do not accomplish anything to earn our salvation, but after we accept Jesus as our savior, doing things his way keeps us out of trouble and makes us happy.

As for homosexuals, I have worked with at least 100 men who want to come out of homosexuality and who, when they finally discover their true masculine identity, are happier than they have ever been in their whole lives. I too have a very deep-seated concern for all people. In regards to homosexuality, the topic of this current blog, you propose to leave them stuck in their condition. I don't find that very compassionate at all. The Bible proposes helping people to overcome their problems, and have true freedom, including from homosexuality. That is compassion.

One last thing, you can keep making your snide comments about me and my freedom from homosexuality. Go ahead, you don't know me or my situation. It just keeps showing me and everyone else on this blog how closed minded you about the possibility of change.

Bunbury,

That website already exists.

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

It is not my site, but I know the owners and have worked with them on my healing, as well as helping in the healing of many other men who have worked with them as well. It is a great group of men, men from many faiths, SDA, LDS, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and others I'm sure. This is not all that i've done, but for someone who wants true change, it is a good place to start.

I am not the least bit New Age. I am not a total "power of positive thinking" person either. Sin does exist there is no way to avoid its effects. I did see myself and the world in very destructive ways before and by learning to see myself and the world differently, I am a much more happy person.

GlobeScout, are you always so superficial? Are externals all that you focus on? I never mentioned the word EFFEMINATE, you did.

The men that I have worked with have found themselves to be more self confident, learned how to see how they fit in to their world, how to relate to destructive relationships, how to deal with unhealthy events and memories of the past, how to deal with wrong perceptions, how to take better care of their body, how to release body shame, etc. It is really great work. It is really fulfilling to participate in and really great to help others experience too. Hope to see you there someday!

I'd like to add that I truly value a very wonderful grassroots organization and would like to thank SDA Kinship for all that they do!

www.sdakinship.org/

Finally, God Bless the State of Washington for passing Referendum 71 yesterday that continues to allow same-sex couples to have the same rights as other married couples!

Newman,

am I correct ? - You dont intend to change "homo-" to "hetero- ", I mean from the one sexual orientation to the very other sexual orientation, but you say "from homo - to holiness".

May I remeber Mt 22 : 30 - Mk 12 : 25 - Lc 20 : 35 36 ?

We (oh, sorry, I can only speak for myself) just have to accept that. The men you helped have improved by finding their true masculine indentity - - and are happier as they have ever been - - .

This I accept.

But what is "true masculine identity" ?

But where did your clients come from (that is the one question so often neglected)

and where did they get ( I am not satisfied with the validity and reliability of Joses and Yarhouse to measure their success.)

to happiness or to at once being attracted (or tempted) by the very and essentially female ?

This is an approach I miss in the discussions especially by some conservative Christians, maybe based on the disavowal
and denial of their very own (hetero)sexual orientation and all its facets.

Maybe we must limit our expectations.

Helen Dunn must be invited to present at the next SDA Church Conference on Homosexuality for a fresh and vital perspective. It is so interesting that it takes a grandmother to put this debate into real life context, and in such a beautiful and forceful way too.

If you want me not to judge your path and if you want me to respect it, all I ask is that you do the same for me.

I want to add, Newman, that one of the ways you can show respect for those like me, who have chosen a different path than you, is to watch the language you use. In many of your posts above you use phrases that make it sound like you are somehow superior to me. You make it sound like you have taken this wonderful high road, while I still wallow in the mud. I believe that this is unintentional on your part, but that is how you are coming across nevertheless.

I don't want you to betray your conscience, but if you really believe that people like me are 'stuck' in a 'condition' maybe it is best not to say so. Maybe it is best for you to simply tell YOUR story without denigrating mine, even if you do think I am depraved and unsaved. That way other gay people who may be reading this can read both your story and mine and make a decision without being made to feel ashamed of who they are.

Truly,
Jamie.

Carol,

Earlier you wrote something very interesting: "I wonder - are homosexuals all given the gift of celibacy?"

It strikes me as inconsistent that as Adventists we don't believe in predestination, but when it comes to homosexuals, we believe, by necessity of our stance on homosexual relationships, that every homosexual is predestined to exercise the gift of celibacy as a Salvific requirement. Never mind that some of the other "gifts" offered up to God are never an issue of Salvation, but rather a response to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

How often are we encouraged to help members find their "gift" within the congregation. Hospitality, Compassion for the bed ridden, Music, Organization, etc. None of these are compulsory to membership, and certainly none of them are considered Salvific. Yet we apply a predestined Salvific "gift" to any homosexual who desired membership and inclusion into the Christian body.

It seems Pastor Nelson must have missed this inconsistency when writing his sermon.

I applaud your efforts here Carol. The church needs more like you.

Afriend

To Joselito :

Thank you for your comment.

I do not intend to correct Newman. Only the matter is , as far as I see it, developing towards a broader understanding :

Whe I hwas beginning my studies and training long ago, my preassumption was that everything could be trained, cleared, reinforced, improved : The low bood pressure, the asthenia, the panic attacs.

With a very uneasy feeling I had to accept "biological" limitations here and there.

One just has a dyslexia; I have something similiar in doing any arithmetics.

But may I display two cases (alienated) : The beloved
clergyman with a family, repeatedly found caressing the buttocks of young men in the subway - with two lawsuits.

The successful and renowmned business manager with family, not being able to withold his desire to caress the penis of a young man helping in the garden - lawsuit.

Do you know what I want to show ? - Well, , believe me, I never ( n e v e r ! ) had a temptation in that direction, and dear close friends assured me feeling in the same way.

That means : We also never had to fear the police or the court or the gossip in case we should lose our self control.

On the other side there were those couples of men the left - liberals used to invite ostentatiously to every social event in the seventies - - I felt uneasy.

Where do we place Newmans unquestionable personal experience ?

There seems to be a very broad spectrum that is not met by just quoting Genesis or Romans or Corinthians.

Newman,

My perception is that you continue to sound very conceited!

You speak of the 100+ men you've helped. Please give us follow up on those men. How long have they remained "changed"? What do they report after five years or ten? (Anything less than that would not demonstrate true, lasting change in my view.)

Where can we read their stories? Not stories from some other ministry. The stories of the people you've helped!

Helen

Newman,

For someone that brands himself as some kind of counselor, I find it curious that you are relentlessly passive/aggressive, then somewhat patronizing, although with underhanded compliments. You navigate between these frequently as in the previous comments to Carrol, Helen and Elaine and Jamie.

Anyways, "assertiveness" has nothing to do with sexual orientation. In fact, all the traits you've talked about helping people with, are peripheral to the discussion of homosexuality vs heterosexuality, and as Elaine put it, they have nothing to do with masculinity or femininity.

So how in fact are you helping them change their orientation from "SSA" to OSA (to borrow your type terminology)? Or is it as Gerhard has quoted you and sought to confirm, whether you're leading them into "holiness" as opposed to heterosexuality? Heterosexuality certainly is not synonymous with holiness.

It would be a cruel trick (already documented in numerous ex-gay ministries) to teach young men to act "masculine", assertive or whatever else, then expect this to somehow translate into successful copulation where the object of arousal is not any movie that you play through your mind, but the actual sex appeal of the member of the opposite sex. Falling short of being able to function sexually with a member of the opposite sex when they were promised this would be God's reward, is what has sadly led more than a few to commit suicide, during and after such programs.

Here is a heart-wrenching apology by some of the well-meaning pioneers of the ex-gay movement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo

GlobeScout, that sounds a bit like MY story at the end, except I had it in this fool head of mine that it wasn't fair for me to "burden" anyone else with the knowledge that I might be gay (I say 'might' because I also had it in this fool head of mine that this was just a stage, and how could I know unless I actually had sex with a woman...even though I knew about my attraction to men without having sex with any.)

I fell in love with a woman, though I'm not sure I should say 'fell in love'. To this day, I love her deeply, and we share a love for each other that, if I live long enough, I believe will be resurrected in a new and proper form (ie. NOT a sexual-romantic relationshiop).

So I buried my sexuality. I told myself that this was my cross to bear, and I would bear it dutifully. And silently. That lasted until I was about 36...through 14 years of marriage and 4 children. And then it all came crashing down and I just couldn't do it anymore. The truth came out and my wife was obviously devastated. I still thought that I should do my duty and stay in the marriage for the children and for her. But she would have none of that. She wanted me to love her as a straight man loves a woman (and why wouldn't she?!). To this day she doesn't understand why I can't do that. I could stay in the relationshiop, but I could no longer lie about who I was. She didn't want me to lie, but still believed, as many Adventists do, that I could make that lie the truth if only I surrendered enough to God.

And so here we are, living in two separate houses, just around the corner from each other, trying to raise our children the best we can. I can't regret the past as these beautiful children couldn't be here without it. But because I tried to 'play it straight' all of us have to go through an enormous amount of deep pain.

I eventually repented over my homosexuality. But not in the way the church would like. I asked God's forgiveness for the way I tried to be somebody he did not make me to be, and thanked Him for showing me the way to be who I really am.

Newman, it floors me that you see that as homosexuality ruining lives. To me, that is clearly of case of this world refusing to accept that gay people are okay JUST AS THEY ARE that did the life-ruining here. If that man lived in a society where it was okay to be gay, he wouldn't have married that woman in the first place. Homosexuality didn't cause this pain, homophobia did.

Joselito,

i fully agre with your solution.

Anyway, the discussion - I feel - has stimulated some reconsiderations.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

GlobeScout and Jamie deserve our respect with their story of multiple tragedies. They have illustrated what we know out of numerous other fates. Their not at all jubilating presentation shows facts that siply cannot be put aside anymore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do I personally assume that "orientation" can be changed ? When I reconsider some problems we have with people of high age and their varied states of dementia ( and I in the last 15 years am in charge for a large nursing home, the inhabitants between 70 and 105 of age ) I imagine the sexual orientation like a continuous thread densely woven into the fabric of ones life.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

I experienced people having frequently gone to questionable places and after conversion avoiding these. I experienced some living quite careless and promiscuous and after conversion living in responisbility and monogamy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

For example a revision of Jones and Yarhouse ( "Ex - Gays ? A Longituinal Study - - ") or other studies together with some arguments in the very conversation stimulate to reaffirm precautions against testimonials and eager responses in questionnaires ; "Studies" in many fields of human behaviour are simply misleading.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Out of a part we gain our knowledge and out of a part we prophesy : That is I Cor 1 : 9 (literaly translated).

I spent 7 yrs @ Andrews University and although I attended another church, I heard my fair share of Nelson's sermons. While he is not at all a favorite preacher of mine, I concede that he DOES deal with a variety of subjects, including adultery and promiscuity. He did not shy away from, but instead confronted the issues that surrounded the infidelity that took place in his own family. I may not be a fan of his, but give credit where credit is due: he doesn't make homosexuality out to be worse than other things he's tackled in the past. This particular Sabbath this was the topic. He evenhandedly distributes rebuke to hetero & homosexuals alike! LOL!

I'm heterosexual, but I'm unmarried--therefore I'm celibate. It's not easy all the time, but my sexuality doesn't consume me-aren't we more than that? Just because I'm celibate, my world doesn't come to an end...sexuality is only one part of my whole self.

I must say, I've never considered celibacy a "gift" per se, but I do know that just because something is difficult doesn't mean we aren't called to do it...Christianity is a challenge against our natural tendencies because ALL of our natural tendencies are sinful--whether we're homosexual or heterosexual (Romans 6 & 7).

How come people who are against homosexuality, when trying to make up some reason outside of religion (yes, make up) that it is wrong, start talking about it being "unnatural" or "against natural law". But when faced with more and more evidence that it is not a choice, or faced with the celibacy question (as above) then say that our natural tendencies are sinful.

Which is it? Natural or unnatural? Can't have it both ways, people.

Please take time to read the article at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR200911...

This was much like my story, and Jamie's. And this is why I think many who have spoken on this blog are concerned about the idea of a gay man claiming he has "overcome SGA" and can prove it with his wonderful "straight" marriage. Long-term, this has created thousands of tragic stories. Mine was one.

I would have been better to have understood who I was at 17 rather than 47 (when I acknowledged to my wife that I was gay). I know so many, many others with similar stories. And it was their stories that led me to decide that I would be better to accept who I was rather than trying to change who I was.

I sublimated my true sexual orientation. I was "changed". But true peace and happiness came when I was able to be honest about who I am - with myself, my family, and my friends.

I came out 13 years ago this week. In the perspective of years I can now say God true led me and has provided for me.

John

So I think it is much more tragic

John
Have you read anything on testosterone levels in men falling with age? At a certain age the eros aspect wanes in heterosexual men.
Is it not a possibility that how things looked up until one was 47 might change after that due to many considerations including the ones that effect all males going into that life stage?
A waning drive in older men is understood as normal however is it beyond the realm of possibility that normal cause and effect relationship is experienced differently in a gay man?

What Carrol?
As someone who has experienced both the emotional and physical symptoms of aging and the accompanying estrogen effects, your saying that there is no way any of it could play ANY part whatsoever to a persons viewpoint at 47+ compared to 17 given the situation stated?
Please Carrol. Dont let your precocieved opinions distract you from the fact that you are not a doctor or a man or that very little research has been done considering it as "a" factor.
There is no definitive answer. John may answer what affect if any that body chemistry played in something that had already gone on for 30 years. It is his opinion I asked.

Thank you Jamie and John Young for sharing your compelling stories. I have no doubt that in good faith, you pursued a course which society (especially church) would once have recommended. Sadly we've seen in this discussion that some still recommend it.

In an age of greater accountability and transparency, the ravages of such arrangements have come to light. This has saved me and countless others from entrapping ourselves and unwitting partners in such doomed ventures. I commend you for your fortitude in rectifying your lives according to the dictates of your conscious and that life has given you a second chance!

The same veteran SDA missionary I mentioned before, once suggested to me while Andrews that I should seek a woman to have sex with, convinced that the pleasure I'd get from it would be self evident. I asked her, wouldn't this be adultery/fornication? She said in my case, that didn't matter. It was for a greater good.

Any volunteers to give your daughters in marriage to a ("repentant") homosexual?

P.S. More simply. A lack of testoterone with prevent an erection--a problem not seen in active male homoesexuals.

The problem in today's society seems to be a congenital one.
Not the type that Paul was addressing in Romans--a life style they picked up from the Greeks.

A little research would have prevented an embarrassment. Tom

Homosexuality, as we prefer to define it today, is a congenital anomoly resulting in sexual attraction to the same sex and to indulge that attraction in a various assortment of bondings.
A few find a sexually partner for life. Some of whom live quiet unassumed lifes with pledged fidelity one to the other.

None of the above was God' intention in giving humans procreative power. It had two purposes: To populate the earth and to give the marriage partners some understanding of God's creative power and accompanying love for His creation. Besides the natural bonding and love such power creates throughout life--even beyond the limited range of procreative power.

Therefore, in the fall of man, many anomolies have resulted: an enemy has done this! Never-the-less, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Many churched continue to entertain sinful thought and behaviors. So the church, while condemning all sin, does explicitly deny membership to those who openly engage in sinful practice. Smoking, Drinking,
a promiscous sex life etc. As of this moment, the church includes persistent homosexual activity within that classification. Its only suggestion is refrain from such sexual bonding.
Some homosexuals protest that decision and demand acceptance not only socially but as full members in a church community.

The result has been the tension in the nation and in the church that has exploded into some very unchristian behaviors. The Church is wrong in relaxing its bane on certain behaviors while denying acceptance to others. If it has standards, they should be addressed across the board.

It is that double standard the irks those denied fellowship.
Furthermore, the church has been unsuccessful in making the case that this congenital anomolly is sin any more than a cleft of the lip and palate is sin. Or blindness etc.

I personally believe that the church has the right to form its oun standards. I personally believe that Christians should treat all as ones that Christ died for. Certainly in the civil arena heterosexuals and homosexuals should be civil to each other. Tom

I'm glad there is a place where this conference on homosexuality and the pastor of one of the most prominent churches in Adventism can be held accountable. I attended much of the conference as well as the events in the church. I believe that the conference presenters and Pastor Nelson mean well. Nelson was put in a difficult situation. He had to preach on the topic of the big conference, and of course he's expected to reiterate the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach. The fact that he largely spoke through another writer might be telling.

I completely agree that there is a huge double standard when it comes to homosexual and heterosexual purity. When can we expect sermons and conferences to preach that people who divorced and remarried for reasons other than their spouse's infidelity are egregious, flagrant sinners who must repent, divorce, and then live celibate lives as their "cross to bear"? Of course we have adjusted our definition of what is acceptable grounds for divorce based on newer understandings of equality and fulfillment--for example, Jesus didn't say that battered women could divorce their husbands, but who would say otherwise today?

By the way, I was interested to hear that a documentary about gay Adventists is being produced. I understand from an Adventist Today interview that the filmmakers were not allowed to film this conference, and I'm assuming this sermon, which is very disappointing. It seems that if people (especially straight males) are going to say things about gays, then they should be willing to do so on the record.

It's clear that this isn't the end of this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Pastor Nelson decides to preach a "sequel."

Out of a part we gain our knowledge and out of a part we prophesy : That is I Cor 1[3]:9 (literaly translated).
Posted by: gerhard svrcek-seiler | 06 November 2009 at 7:19

Gerhard, that is so true, that in our present life much of the reasoning and theorizing that goes on is based on partial information. [εκ μερους γαρ γινωσκομεν και εκ μερους προφητευομεν]

I'm glad you agree we need a joint, bipartisan consultation composed of professional counselors, pastors, pastors-in-training, and laypeople.

Tom, we may never know how many Cliff has influenced to sever relationship with the SDA church because of his vitriolic pronouncements: "My way or the highway." That he still is an official spokesman for the church should be a disgrace for civil and courteous demeanor. His attitude is more like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

I believe that the General Conference Session in Atlanta is going to change the face of Adventism greatly. I think that the North American Division will lose considerable clout.

I believe the outcome will be highly conseervative and strongly international.

College Educated North American Anglo Saxsons will be dying off and/or voting with their feet.

Academies will continue to close, Colleges and University Boards will be strongly tempted to become independant. First Loma Linda. Next? Tom

I haven't listened to the sermon, but by reading the article, comments, and the title of the sermon i realize that the topic is on homosexuality, and more specifically, monogamy in a homosexual relationship. If you are a follewer of Christ, know the word its obvious that any sexual act that takes place outside of marriage is a sin. It's clear in both the OT and the NT. Rape, heavy-petting, pornography, orgies, prostitution, incest, beastiality, adultetry, homosexuality etc. its considered sin. 1 Corinthians 5; 6:15-7:4, the church had a case where some one was messing around with their father's wife (that church had ALOT of issues) and Paul (being an apostle) rebuked the behavior. He called it by its right name...SIN!!! John the Baptist rebuked King Herod for taking his (Herod) brother's wife in Matthew 14:3-5. Was Paul preaching a message of hate? Was John preaching a message of hate and injustice? NOOOO! Sin is the reason why GOD sent Jesus...save US FROM SIN! As far as marriage and homosexuality is concerned, look how Christ defined marriage in Matthew 19:3-6 and Mark 10:2-9. Even though He answering a question about divorce, it was still on the topic of marriage and Jesus Christ the LORD and Savior of mankind defined marriage as a relationship between 1 man and 1 female.
But the good news (gospel) is as 1John 2:1-2 puts it (paraphrasing) we have the Bible to tell us right from wrong, if we mess up we have Jesus, but He is not just for me but for any one, even the whole world. Warning: be careful and don't get caught up in "worldly" philosphies bro and sis. Be careful and don't write people off as being impossible to reach. Be careful and work out YOUR OWN salvation with fear and trembling. Peace and Blessings to all.

"For God sent his Son into the world NOT to condemn the world, but so that through him the world might be saved. No one who believes in him will be condemned" (John 3:17).

It's the best way to train children: Praise much more than scolding. Jesus did not come into the world to judge or condemn, but to point to God, who so loved the world.

There was a time, and still is in some parts of the world, where albinos were seen as "cast-offs" and were twins were taken out to the jungles to die. These were birth anomalies seen as curses. Homosexuality seems to have the same fate in some circles.

God's order of one man-one woman was distorted from almost the very first. We know very little about Adam and Eve's offspring but soon there were multiple wives for each man--thus fulfilling the command to be fruitful and multiply in a way that monogamy could not fulfill. "Lamech, a greatgrandson of Cain married two women (Gen. 4:18-19), From that time forward it became a customary practice. So God's "order" was frustrated soon after Creation.

Had God been adamantly opposed to this arrangement, why did he order the Israelites to take additional wives of the nations they captured and killed (making sure they were virgins) and yet he did not want them to intermarry?

To rely on Paul's knowledge of human nature, would be akin to our reliance on the Bible for cures of leprosy, epilepsy, and demon possession. We either accept modern medical and psychological science or revert to ancient descriptions and make them prescriptions. Failure to note the difference has been the curse if Biblioaltry since it was canonized. It tells us only what men thought about God and men were never inerrant, which is why God wrote not one single word in the Bible.

I agree with you in all you have stated here. My son is 15 and has just come out. He stated that he didn't want to live the gay lifestyle though. I have known since before he was 3 years old that he was not like my other sons. I would far rather he accept himself as he is than to try to pull the wool over the eyes of his heterosexual friends and get married and then break the heart of a woman and maybe children later.

Because he told the truth, he was told he couldn't help with VBS-church policy. This has had a profound negative effect on his trust of "Christians." Makes me very sad.

I get so sick of hearing that homosexuality is a "choice" and you can choose not to be this way. My oldest child is DEAF. He can't change that. I have an autistic grandson. . . same thing. My Deaf grandchild, from her deaf father, was able to get CIs but she is still DEAF!!! She CAN choose when she wants to hear or be deaf! Or she could if her mom didn't force her to be hearing all the time.

There ARE physical reasons for being transgendered. However, even if a person doesn't have any outward sign like Kleinsfelter Syndrome, Testicular Feminization, or Ambiguous Genitalia, it doesn't mean that in our world that something didn't develop in the hypothalmus the "normal" way! Why do we want to be so judgmental? FEAR. Plain and simple. We have a hard time accepting others that are different.

May God give us the wisdom to stop being missionaries for the DEVIL!!!!

TheFinest:

There is no refusal by Spectrum to allow all opinions to be expressed, even the most ignorant, which is why you are free
to spout your ignorance on a subject which you cannot understand, and is demonstrated by your tirade.

I can tolerate the view of those who say it's okay to engage in homosexual sex as long as they don't claim that it's compatible with the Bible or Christianity. In Christianity, it is and will always be a shameful act. You're not being true to yourself by engaging in homosexual acts but rather being true to a lustful heart. Is a heterosexual being true to himself by engaging in sex with dozens of women outside of marriage or is he being true to a sinful heart? For those who simply see no physical attraction in the opposite gender, consider celibacy. I know of a couple sisters who died over the past 10 years that lived together and never married for their entire 80-90 year life. And while they both were physically attracted to men, they died celibate.

Twist scripture all you want but you simply can't do away with Romans 1.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And 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.

greg prout,

This debate is not about whether we should love sinners whatever their sin should be. It's blatantly obvious that we should and that we should never treat people with contempt. The debate is whether or not committing homosexual acts is a sin. Many people on spectrum seem to have no problem with it whatsoever.

No one is casting a stone at any person. We're not judging people. We're judging a behavior. The reason people are talking about homosexuality so much as opposed to a slew of other sins is because homosexuals are the only group out there demanding that Christians and society at large recognize what is clearly a sinful behavior as instead just a normal non-sinful alternative. Ellen White mentioned that what the world needs is people who will call sin by its right name and that's what I and many others are doing. If a heterosexual committing open adultery was asking to be an ordained minister, eg, I would be just as vehemently opposed.

jonathan40
I appreciate your distinction between judging behavior and not the person. The problem is we can do that, I suppose, in this Spectrum forum but it gets lost when the homosexual person enters our church to worship. Please explain to me how this distinction is carried out when a homosexual is attempting to worship in our midst? How do you separate your hatred of their sin while you love them? I am not talking about candidates for ministry, I am speaking about welcoming God's children, even gay ones, into worship. If the Holy Spirit is the one to convict of sin (John 16:8) then let Him do it; that His job not ours. We are not in the judging or condemning business. I want to convey to my world anyone, ANYONE, is welcomed regardless of their sin just like you and I are when we enter God's holy house. Each one of us brings to worship our secret pet sins, our grievous sins, those sins that relentlessly hound us in private, those sins that if others were to know, we might be asked to withdraw from the community of the spiritually elite. Yet we come hoping, believing God accepts us, forgives us, and cleanses us. We trust He is the One who deals with our sin, and only He.

I understand the Gay lobby and its politics of thrusting their sexuality in my face and i don't like it, (politically I'm very conservative), but politics must be left aside when in the context of worship and grace. They can demand acceptance of their sin all they want politically or otherwise, but that doesn't negate the Lord's command to love even our enemies. Love is also a BEHAVIOR we would do well to make prominent in our church. When the overly obese enters our ranks and wants to stay for potluck, do we advise them they are over the limit and we can't lunch with them because we would be contributing to their gluttonous sin? I don't think so, nor have I ever witnessed an obese person being treated this way. Certainly we can extend the same graces to the homosexual. And I prefer the example and words of Jesus over Ellen's advise. When Jesus says, 'Come unto me... no where does He add: 'except.' The world needs people to stand up and exemplify the heart of God. Gays give us this opportunity.

Yes gays should be welcomed. The preacher should not have to change the sermon he prepared on Saturday, if he gets up to preach and sees a person in the congregation who he knows to be gay - but really this is because in the first place he should not have prepared a sermon that would need to be changed in such a case.
=
Ordination is a different issue - I suppose an organization should be permitted to impose requirments on holders of any of its offices, so long as the requirements are publicly known. If I were "king of the world" and made such a pronouncement, I would expect some objection, but I would hope that having the requirements publicly known would expose them to some sort of review and potential revision if they were really onerous. (Compare the US Military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy which seems about to be discontinued.) Many public offices at all levels require residence within a geographical area, for example.
=
If a candidate for ordination were refused on grounds of gender orientation, I suppose it would be no worse (in principle) than an experienced biology professor being fired for teaching Natural Selection.

jonathan40
we will respectfully agree to disagree. however, question: if you care to, how do YOU explain matt. 7: 1-5 when it comes to gays in the church. i appreciate your thoughts. as you know, my position is to love them. period. care for them, know them, share with them, receive from them, break bread with them; exchange ideas and philosophies with them. get to know their heart as i share mine. i believe God will have His way with them and with you and me on His gracious time and terms. but He asks me to reflect His love, not His judgment. judgment is above my pay grade. that's His sphere of influence. yes, their lifestyle is sinful and God will deal with all sin. (actually, He already has on the Cross). in the mean time, 'love is the answer.' 1 john 4: 14-21. and, jonathan, you are right, it is none of my business, or yours, who one chooses to love, but your analogy of marriage and potential infidelity does not address my position. i am not talking about me marrying them. (and if you were sleeping around your wife should kick you out as would mine). i'm addressing something else. i'm talking about respecting their choices even if i disagree with them, (and i do), but not allowing their decisions and behavior to thwart my efforts to fellowship with them as my fellow life sojourners, God's children, errant or otherwise. and if i am wrong, i choose to err on the side of mercy. nevertheless, i am curious how you interpret the above text in matt. 7? please share.
greg

Excuse me but am not gonna normalize perversion just so i can make you feel good in your sinfulness. This is sick. I never imagined the time will come when this foolishness would creep into the church. Am not being holier than thou by pointing out that homosexuality is a perversion punishable by death. And am not saying other sins are ok. Sin is sin. Am just disgusted with 80% of people here trying to normalize this foolishness and saying they were born that way.. Are you out of your mind? No one was born homo!!!! Leviticus 20:13 " If a man lie with man as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Now tell me if a just God can command people to stone someone because he was born blind or crippled. Homosexuality is a perversion by choice and not a disability get it into your head! Just like committing adultery and killing is a choice so is homofoolishness..You see, if other people were put to death because of this perversion what makes you think you will escape? Sin should be called by its right name. And by calling sin sin doesnt mean am judging anybody. What makes me sick is that most people on this blog are trying to give an excuse for this disgusting practice. No excuse should be given for any sin. We should not make sinners feel comfortable in their sins, we have to tell sinners straight on that this and that is a sin and if you dont straighten up you are going to HELL. Now thats not being judgmental or holier than thou. And why should i be diplomatic about it? so that you can like me? No thankyou!!! SIN IS SIN PERIOD!! HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PERVERSION AND A SIN AND ALL SINNERS WHO DONT WANT TO REPENT AND GIVE UP FILTH ARE GOING TO HELL PERIOD!! EVERY SIN IS A CHOICE AND NOT A DISABILITY!!!! But there is hope for homosexuals just like there is hope for any other sinner. But dont just normalize it, humble yourself and plead with God to heal you of this sin or any other sin. Every day is a struggle against temptation for all of God's children, but we need to choose daily whom we will obey, the devil or Jesus. And please beloved lets not give license for sin or normalize it. Thats what brought God's wrath on the ancient world, Sodom and Gomorrah... God bless you all as you choose to give up sin and follow Him!

Elaine Nelson let me address your query directly here.

I think you should go back to scripture and study more carefully. It would also be of benefit to you to study the significance of the sacrifice given and why it had to be done as it was....then you would understand why your statement concerning God's lack of specification is not only erroneous but not in keeping with God's character. Ultimately to say anything was ok to be sacrificed has huge ramification for your salvation and negates the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as the only saviour for mankind. This sacrifice pointed to him and had to be a correct symbol for Jesus.

God is very specific and lucid in his specifications. He said to offer an unblemished lamb and that was what was to be offered for their sin. He didnt leave options of A or B. Furthermore, just like Cain's actions were disobedient to God's express will, so too is homosexuality. if one chooses to disobey God in perpetuating this, then it is their choice. However let us not try to cleverly debate God's will and how he states it.

NOT ALL "LOVE" IS EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE BY VIRTUE OF BEING "LOVE"

Love is a commandments given to all humanity: to love God first and others as ourselves-a summary of the 10 commandments. There is nothing wrong with Jane loving Sally. That is commendable. Philos, or brotherly love (or indeed sisterly love) is alright. However eros(romantic/sexual love) between Jane and Sally is not. I ask you, should we also let Mary and Jake who are siblings marry just because they "love" each other? Does "love" make everything ok? Does it sanction a sinful inclination, misguided choice or even a blantant disobedience? no indeed! Brethren each of us must search our inner most heart and invite the Holy Spirit to speak to us and reveal to us God's will on the issue of homosexuality. I am sure we all know it is not right but we want to debate, argue or plead it away based on human rights, human intellect, compassion,(feigned) ignorance or a rebellious spirit....whatever the reasons are. In the end we need to decide on this issue. And as in all cases, there is God's way, which he makes quite clear, and other ways. it's our choice.

truthlover
Yours is a lonesome mission on this site. You obviously have strong convictions on the subject.
You certainly should seek to hold those convictions until proven other wise. Thie issue seems to be knowing God's mind on the subject of sexuallity. The basic argument is: "God made me this way, therefore He must accept me this way!" The accompanying argument is: everyone who is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a sinner and without doubt has sinned between Sabbaths.

The unsaid and unargued is that as sinners we come confessing, repenting, seeking foregivenes, and healing. The predominate view of homosexuals is: I have nothing to foregive nor a need of healing.
I come here as natural as any heterosexual. Furthermore, the heterosexual critic is a self-righteous bigote--who should take the beam out of his/her own eye.

Obviously Pastor Nelson is a man of courage and conviction. The thrust of most responses on this threat was a lack of tact and good judgment in his timing. As well as the inability to prove anything more that condemnation. A sermon must end with healing or a least pointing the way toward healing.

Sexual idenity affect the entire person. Todate no one has the answer on how to make man whole.
Until we do, condemnation is totally an inadequate response. There is the rub! Tom Z

Tom Zwemer you said: The basic argument is: "God made me this way, therefore He must accept me this way!" God did not make anyone homo, neither did he make anyone a murderer. Every sin is a choic PERIOD! Why dont you people get it? Would it make sense if a murderer came and said, well, i murdered so and so because God created me this way; i think that would sound stupid! So are all these excuses for this sickening perversion. The truth of God doesn't change and its not subject to a popular vote. I dont care if the Majority of you on this blog are giving license for this foolishness. It is a sin and even if you defend it, it will always be a sickening perversion and God commanded Israel to stone such as were found practicing this perversion, God calls it an abomination and you want to call it normal, how foolish! God's word never changes and its possible for heaven and earth to pass away but not God's word. Its as sure as God's own throne. God is not subject to a popular vote, the truth of God is truth no matter what you think, the word of God is true no matter what you believe. Truth never dies though ages come and go, though mountains ware away and the seas retire; destruction lays earth's mighty golden cities low, and empires, states and dynasties expire; truth will stand forever. So if you got your hormones mixed up,cry to God and repent because its a sin and a perversion and the wage is death. And Elaine you said you cant be a part of this community of faith(SDA GODS CHURCH) because the man of God called sin sin? Well, go ahead and leave. You will only leave to your own damnation. You are trying to blackmail God; you seem to be saying God, i will leave your church because you hate sin(homosexuality), go ahead. Otherwise God will not change His opinion just because it rubbed you the wrong way. Thats what truth is for, it has to rub us the wrong way so that we repent and not to make us comfortable in our sins History tells us the majority has never been right. During the flood only 8 people were saved out of millions; and you think God will change His stance just so your can enjoy your sins? NO SIR! And am not saying Homosexuals are hopeless, homosexuals are dearly loved by God and they like any other sinner are the reason God came to die in the person of Jesus Christ. But normalizing sin as though it was alright wont change God's hatred for sin. God hates sin but He loves all sinners. But making sin seem ok and saying homos were born that way is foolish and an insult to God. Only a unjust God can make someone homo and command them to be stoned if they were found practicing this filth according to Leviticus 20:13. Its so sickening trying to normalize this perversion or any other sin for that matter.

The msg. quoted scripture===God does not lie====If you lie with same sex, you will not enter the gates of pearl==100%
REPENT NOW

"...I have no issue with such consentual and legally recognized unions. However, a church is an institution that can define its own standards as it understands God's will.
I can't understand anyone demanding recognition outside of the fundamentals of that private institution. One may not agree with those fundamentals and emphatically declare so, but they have no right to force a change. Bigotry may well be a sin but it is no crime if it doesn't infringe on the civil rights of either party. Tom"

Ditto.
If believers believe God’s word forbids it, believers have no choice but to view it accordingly. The Bible forbids born sinners sinning. There’s just no need to justify our position, whatever it is, by being unscientific and denying the glaring facts.
In ethical terms, the consensual act can be objected to only on religious grounds, as it doesn’t quite measure up to the classic violation of person or property. Whether or not legislating against gay marriage thus crosses the bounds of a secular democracy is for the ethicists to figure out.

Don Tucie
Probing the fallacies of orthodoxy

Jesus declared, as you judge others, so you will be judged.
Judge not that ye be not judged.

NOT ALL "LOVE" IS EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE BY VIRTUE OF BEING "LOVE"
Amen, truthlover

Love: a word so profusely bandied about and so terribly misunderstood. Love: that one word in the English language with that whole gamut of meanings ranging form an attitude which concerns itself with giving, to an emotion intent on getting; from the very essence of the Divine (I John 4:8) to “the root of all evil” (I Timothy 6:10). The original languages offered more choices: three in the Hebrew, along with their more mentioned Greek counterparts, only two of which appear in the Bible. At one extreme, there’s the absentee, Plato’s not so platonic eros. This self-centered variety focuses only on those things that gratify, that offer enjoyment and comfort. Typically it manifests itself in strong feelings of desire, like the love of music, money or a member of the opposite sex (or, in this case, the same sex). It is all about getting.
While erotic love, that appetite for pleasure and enjoyment, that attraction to the attractive, is God-given and by no means an inherently evil thing, it’s the same love that objectifies people and reduces them to the level of a mere indulgence. For that reason, it is all too often dangerously misdirected and perverted. So we read the tragic stories of Solomon’s love of strange women, and of the burning love that possessed his brother Amnon as he raped his sister Tamar, in both of which cases eros’s Hebrew equivalent aheb (in the respective tenses) is used.
Yes, love can indeed be misplaced.

Don Tucie
Probing the fallacies

It Gets Better (For Adventists Too)
To my gay brothers and sisters...God loves you. He made you...He knew you before you were born. He has a special place in His heart for you and only you. He loves you as if you were the only person He has ever made. He watches over you, speaks to you, woos you and entreats you. He loves you so much that He became a man and suffered and died to take the punishment that justice requires of you.

Recently, there has been a group in the Seventh-day Adventist church who have joined hands with the rest of the world in promoting an "inclusive" philosophy towards homosexuality. That is the reason for this article.

God created this world as a lush, beautiful garden...a veritable paradise. When sin entered the world at the fall of Adam, that perfect creation was shattered. Sin spread like a cancer through every living creature and every plant, through every drop of water and every breath of air.

Many animals began to attack and devour one another and became venomous...many plants developed thorns and thistles and became poisonous...nothing, neither plant nor animal, was left unaffected.

It is said that Adam and Eve wept over the first fallen leaf as we weep today for the death of a child. These things were never meant to be. Death was never meant to be.

But it wasn't physical changes alone that came with the entrance of sin; there were spiritual changes taking place as well. Since that day, around 6,000 years ago, mankind has been slowly degrading both physically and spiritually. While Adam was said to be perhaps 15 feet tall or more, with a mind that was able to recall every sight, sound, touch, taste and feel that he had ever been exposed to...today men are lucky to stand even 6 feet, with minds that sometimes struggle to remember even such things as what we had for breakfast.

And while we have become more and more debased, our lusts have grown more and more perverse until now we see so much adultery, fornication and fetishes that it all seems normal. A man thinks nothing of going to a bar and bringing to bed whatever girl he strikes up a conversation with that night, oftentimes never to see her again. A woman thinks nothing of letting men use her in any vulgar way he pleases. Children now, often before puberty even begins, are engaging in sexual acts without batting an eye.

As this broken Earth has fallen further and further from it's former perfection, so too have we who inhabit it. We are all born with natures that are selfish, greedy and lustful...seeking to maximize our pleasure and minimize our discomfort. And the world just urges us on, encouraging us to be proud of who we are...to be ourselves.

But dear one, ourselves are wicked wicked things. That is what the world doesn't understand. We were made for greater things. We were made to be greater things. Pure and joyful and holy. We were made in the very image of our Creator!

We all struggle with sins...those sins which do so easily ensnare us...a man's lust to sleep with women outside of marriage, a woman's lust to sleep with men outside of marriage, a man's lust for men, a woman's lust for women...a lust for the riches and power of this world...a lust for food and drink...a pride deep within that says we know best. There are so many things we struggle with because we are a broken creation. But please know...it does get better.

The more we surrender to God and the more we decide to follow His will even though our hearts desire our own way, the more His Spirit comes in and comforts us. As we die to self, He begins living in us. And His light shines brighter and brighter until that perfect day when He shall make us brand new again...when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality. And God will wipe away every tear from our eyes; and there will be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

So please, my brothers and sisters...do not lose hope. Do not go to the right hand or to the left, but listen to that still small voice behind you saying, "This is the way, walk ye in it." Forsake self and be reborn, for if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Take hold of Jesus' loving hand and let Him lead you all the way through the gates of heaven. Trust the promise of the One who said, "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." For He also said, "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."

God's great mercy be forever with you.
With Christ's Love,
Todd oursword.blogspot.com

Scripture References (almost in the order I used them):

John 3:16, Jeremiah 1:5, Ezekiel 33:11, Genesis 1:28-31, Genesis 3:18, Isaiah 51:6, Romans 8:22, Romans 5:12, Matthew 24:12, Jeremiah 17:9, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 John 2:16, Isaiah 53:6, Ephesians 2:10, Revelation 4:11, Isaiah 45:18, 1 Peter 2:9, Genesis 1:26-27, Hebrews 12:1, Romans 1:27, John 14:16, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Galatians 2:20, Proverbs 4:18, Job 11:17, 2 Peter 1:19, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54, John 3:3, Revelation 21:4, Proverbs 4:27, Isaiah 30:21, 2 Corinthians 5:17, John 16:33, John 14:2-3.

Styrra...that's just it...no one is on the outside. We are all struggling with carnal things inside of us. Mine happen to be heterosexual desires, but does that make them any less sinful or powerful? Certainly not. Some people struggle with other things...addictions to drugs, alcohol, food...the paths leading to destruction are infinite...wide and easy. The one leading to God is single, narrow and straight...and NONE of us are naturally drawn to it. There is a war raging inside us all. Though our battles are unique and individual, our victory is the same...it is only in Christ.

Always,
Todd

"We are all struggling with carnal things inside of us. Mine happen to be heterosexual desires, but does that make them any less sinful or powerful? Certainly not."

Only, you have the consolation prize of living out those desires and experiencing them after a symbolic blessing at a codified ceremony as evidenced by a signed piece of paper. Being born with a different sexual orientation, gay people are doomed (read: predestined) to a cross they didn't choose to bear?

Gen 4:6-7 KJV And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? (7) If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Gen 4:6-7 CEV The LORD said to Cain: What's wrong with you? Why do you have such an angry look on your face? (7) If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling. But you did the wrong thing, and now sin is waiting to attack you like a lion. Sin wants to destroy you, but don't let it!