Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
B/W Photodude

La Sierra University Church Now Has a Sabbath School For Homosexuals

Recommended Posts

pierrepaul
3 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I see nothing in Scripture that excuses one for engaging in "unnatural sexual proclivities"

Nor do I; which is why I am conflicted on the issue.

Quote

"When and where will you draw the line"

Fortunately, I am not charged with drawing any lines. That is for Him to decide.

As President Obama famously quipped on a different issue during the Saddleback Chuch "debate" back in 2008, this question is above my pay-grade.

As I get older I realize that I don't need to have the answers to everything. This is one issue for which I'm comfortable not knowing the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

The Wanderer
4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Believe me! It is not the first time someone has used the concept of love to cover wrongdoing. In fact, that in it's grandest way is the concept taught by the universalists when it is said that no one will die in the lake of fire and all will be saved in the end. That is pretty much against the very Word of God who spoke of eternal death.

But we dont get to do what the Word is to do in people's heart. HOW on earth could anyone decipher my putting that graphic representation up into "using the concept of love to cover wrong-doing?"  Im talking about the Sabbath School classes, and how they are intended to be conducted. It doesnt look like you know what the other words I used mean?

 

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I'm at odds with myself as to just how far into the church we let them or anyone else who is practicing open sin.

everyone practices "open sin"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 hour ago, pierrepaul said:

As I get older I realize that I don't need to have the answers to everything. This is one issue for which I'm comfortable not knowing the answer.

Now theres something I can work with!! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
On 4/16/2019 at 6:09 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Such people as immigrants may have unique adjustments to make living in our society.  In addition, their cultural/racial background may he given the some variations in the nature of "Church" to include Sabbath School classes. It is O.K. for them to meet together in   a common study and worship.

I literally came off the streets when I first joined the church. Most would never have "accepted" me in their Sabbath School class, as it took me a year or two to even start dressing like a good little Churchianity boy. The first church I attended had a separate class for new members, and its the only thing that kept me coming back. Was I "sinning openly" by wearing tight red pants? Or, was it riding to church on my bicycle with a suit on when I was feeling extra religious, or, maybe it was the open sin bacon? Why I couldnt even handle the Fundy on Marriage for the first year as it would mean I would have to do things way different. Was I "open sinning" then too? I probably was.

But it seems "open sin" is being foisted upon us as somehow "worse" than the hidden ones. (my sins are better than your sins because I am a Churchianity member).

In that special Sabbath School Class that was set aside for "new members" they expected us to ask uncomfortable questions that others classes would be aghast with. And its what kept me coming back. Demographically, I had nothing in common with anyone there, they were all filthy rich, and I definitely wasnt. Why some of them looked totally shocked just because "a guy like that" would even march into their church and say He loves Jesus!  and the class for new comers did help me to feel "affirmed" although that did take some dark twists down the road too. But to denounce an entire group for supposedly the idea of "open sin" denies our own true condition and makes people feel unwelcome, and yes, unsafe in the regular classes from dirty looks, religious sneers, and shunning. Is THAT not "open sin" too? Lest anyone still thinks their "hidden sin" is "better" than "open sin," we have some counsel on that

Quote

Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4:1-2)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Why I couldnt even handle the Fundy on Marriage for the first year as it would mean I would have to do things way different. Was I "open sinning" then too? I probably was.

almost 50% of church members who are married "open sin" and throw the seventh commandment out the window. They need a special class too. Gay people would not even come close to 50% of "open sin."

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bravus

B/W Photodude: you presented some arguments and a cliche and a condemnation, not Scripture. 

Beware arguing spiritual matters in a carnal way. 

Consider what the scriptures actually say and the cultural contexts in which it was said and the meanings in the original languages of the texts. 

Mine is a scripturally-based, not society-based, perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

everyone practices "open sin"

Everyone sins; but some people are very good at hiding the more socially unacceptable ones.  The "socially acceptable" sins (like little white lies, gossip given as a false expression of concern, telling a homeless guy to get a job instead of helping him out a little) are so commonly practiced that neither the sinner nor many of the witnesses to the sin realize that sin is occurring.  Secret sin or public sin, God always sees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
58 minutes ago, Bravus said:

Mine is a scripturally-based, not society-based, perspective. 

You have not posted a single Bible text in this whole thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bravus

It's true, and a fair point.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread for that discussion. It's a long and pretty complex one. (I think it's actually been done here before to some extent, and I'll see if I can dig up and link that discussion.)

Would there be enough interest to create a new thread in a Theology forum and really dig into this issue?

While I'm here, I also reject 'unnatural procilivities'. 4-10% of humans in all societies ever known have been homosexual or had fluid sexuality, and most animal species also exhibit this behaviour. If 'natural' means anything, homosexuality is natural for a small proportion of all living things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
2 minutes ago, Bravus said:

I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread for that discussion. It's a long and pretty complex one. (I think it's actually been done here before to some extent, and I'll see if I can dig up and link that discussion.)

IMO I am thinking this thread should be OK to discuss that part of it, in consideration of the OP as well as your statement above that "some scripture" about the subject that christians typically use, are "mis-interpreted," and then you left me hanging wondering which texts you were talking about and why.  (we will have to charge you extra Adventistan Points for that)   :)

6 minutes ago, Bravus said:

Would there be enough interest to create a new thread in a Theology forum and really dig into this issue?

While I'm here, I also reject 'unnatural procilivities'. 4-10% of humans in all societies ever known have been homosexual or had fluid sexuality, and most animal species also exhibit this behaviour. If 'natural' means anything, homosexuality is natural for a small proportion of all living things. 

I agree, this should be a separate topic. The idea of "natural" has many and varied viewpoints. I would be game, although my time and energy are limited. I understand scripture to speak a bit about "the natural use,"  (Romans 1:26-27)  It would likely be a good discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bravus

There are, I think, about 7 texts total in Scripture that address this issue (Jesus doesn't in the Gospels).

All of them are, in one way or another, not about consensual adult relationships.

Looking for that thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
22 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

The line from the post was from a Dave Clark 5 song of the 60s! Checked out the words and was a bit amused to see the word "drag" in it

I don't believe the word "drag" in the song has anything to do with the drag your thinking of??

 

21 hours ago, JoeMo said:

What a blast from the past! I actually saw the Dave Clark 5 live back in 1966.  They were one of my favorite bands; and their song "Glad All Over " was one of my favorite songs back in the stone age of British Rock and before the 'Stoned Age".

One of my favorite's also. What I really like about there music was that jazz saxophone that they played!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
56 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I don't believe the word "drag" in the song has anything to do with the drag your thinking of??

Oh, I know that "drag" didn't mean anything relative to the thread. Just a funny coincidence! I have just found language and use of words to be a lot more interesting in the last couple of years than they did for much of my life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
12 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

While you may be able to make a claim that for society in general "loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships" are better. But little of human society will in any way be part of the world to come.

Some of you may know the name David Larson as one of the ones who support accepting of SDAKinship and their ideas.

https://www.sdakinship.org/120-about/faqs/frequently-asked-questions-en/837-what-does-the-bible-say

I was in one of his classes ~40 years ago at Loma Linda and even then, this topic took up a significant part of class time. And we had to write papers. I recently came across my paper I had written and my conclusion in that paper was pretty much what I wrote in the above quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
On 4/16/2019 at 1:15 PM, Bravus said:

I mis-spoke. Apologies, Gustave. My friends here have corrected me, and I agree with them. I do not mean that you should stop participating.

I do mean that you should reflect upon your perspective. You moved immediately to comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Despite your protestation that you have 'no problem' with homosexuality, everything you say communicates that you have a huge problem with it, including starting this thread.

I understand that your position is that the Bible says that homosexuality is sin, and that your culture says that it is a choice and a lifestyle, rather than an inherent quality of a person. Nonetheless, all of us human beings are sinners. There is no safe space in which only perfect saints can meet.

And, given that there are sincere believers (who are also sinners) who will, like you, compare their loving relationships with their partners to bestiality, it is unsurprising that our homosexual members sometimes choose to worship with others who, like them, love the Lord.

You also immediately impugned their faith and character by suggesting that they only go to church to 'hook up'. That is a horrible thing to say: these are people who go to church for the same reasons you do.

We can disagree on whether or not the Bible says what you think it does. I don't believe it does: the words have been translated in ways, separated from culture and context, that condemn things the original texts were never even speaking about.

But you can't both accuse people of going to church to hook up, and compare their love to bestiality, and then wonder why they need a safer space at church!

My whole point was that you are the danger. You need to at least look in the mirror enough to know that.

It’s all good Bravus and you’re right about my assumption that the reason was for hooking up. I admit that’s not the sole purpose of everyone there and I retract that statement.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Everyone sins; but some people are very good at hiding the more socially unacceptable ones.  The "socially acceptable" sins (like little white lies, gossip given as a false expression of concern, telling a homeless guy to get a job instead of helping him out a little) are so commonly practiced that neither the sinner nor many of the witnesses to the sin realize that sin is occurring.  Secret sin or public sin, God always sees.

Yes, all struggle with sin, (My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: – 1 John 2:1). That is the struggle that one seeking to follow God goes through. But some things should be put away before membership occurs.

But that is not what I brought up. It is the church endorsing and calling evil good which is my concern. Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

I am finding thru the Testimonies how intricately sin winds itself into the character of one struggling to be free of it. I am also finding thru Old Testament studies just how fast and easily Israel slid into wickedness seemingly sooner that the previous righteous judge or king could cool off in his grave and the parallels between the backsliddings of Israel and the church today to be astonishing. 

There is a huge difference between one trying to be free of sin and failing on one hand and people being led into sin on the other by leaders of the church. And you cannot justify one sin with another sin on the part of someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
57 minutes ago, Gustave said:

It’s all good Bravus and you’re right about my assumption that the reason was for hooking up. I admit that’s not the sole purpose of everyone there and I retract that statement.

I see no reason to retract. It has generally been the unspoken reason for going to an SDA college to find a suitable Christian to marry. What better place for a Christian gay boy to find a Christian husband?! [TIC] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
57 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

I see no reason to retract. It has generally been the unspoken reason for going to an SDA college to find a suitable Christian to marry. What better place for a Christian gay boy to find a Christian husband?! [TIC] 

That’s the line of reasoning I’m coming from is that in pretty much all religions there is a fair amount of “buy in” on what you can’t do.

Lately it seems as if there has been a significant push to redefine some of the “you can’t do” into something other than sin simply because the person REALLY, honestly desires to do it.  

I’ve watched church after church mutate on the LGBT issue. 40 years ago your average Lutheran, Methodist or Episcopalian would have vapor-locked if you told them their church would eventually have gay clergy who openly and actively practice that lifestyle distributing Sacraments. 

It honestly seems to me that churches playing footsie with LGBT has done nothing to change the view of the gay person - it changes the view the church has. It’s been that way in schools, our government, secular society, etc. 

this for me has been like watching a snake slowly constrict and slowly swallow a prey item.

i just don’t understand it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

I do not want to side-track this discussion began by Bavus.  I consider  it to be of value and I am delighted that    he has begun it.  But, I will make a  couple of comments,  that that  may not be related to each other.

The SDA denomination has published on  this issue,, for informational purposes, I will cite a couple of those publications.

Ronald M. Springett, Homosexuality in History and the Scriptures, was probably the first major publication.  It was authored by a conservative professor in the Religion Department of Southern.  From this perspective   it can not be considered to be a liberal publication.  It was first published about 1980 (I have not checked.) and was 164 pages in length.  Its 1999 edition was 183 pages in length.  It was groundbreaking in part due to the fact that Springett argued that  several of the Biblical verses commonly used against homosexuality were improperly used.  To be clear, he supported the common usage of other Biblical verses.  I will say that this is important. If someone argues that a specific verse should not be used as it has been used in the past, that does not mean that  one is taking an overall position on homosexuality.   In addition, I believe that this book is of value in that it alerted me to the fact that  the    meaning of the word “homosexual” is defined differently by people who use the word.  This is important in that sometimes in our conversations we simply are talking over the head of the other and the communication is not based upon a common understanding.

In 2012 Andrews University published a the 578 page book: Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church:  Biblical, Counseling and Religious Liberty Issues.  It has about 17 different authors.  While I do not consider everything to be of value,  It has much of value.  This includes how we treat people and that homosexuals are God’s children and loved by  God.  It addresses a large number of issues.

As a personal statement:  I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice.  I did not chose to be a heterosexual.  I do not believe that one choses to be a homosexual.   I am firmly committed to this position.  In my understanding, homosexuality is not defined by activity.  Rather, it is defined by gender preference.  So in my understanding, a celibate homosexual remains a homosexual.

Now back to looking at the Biblical verses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...