La Sierra University Church Now Has a Sabbath School For Homosexuals

[B/W Photodude]

23 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I think there is a bit of confusion here. It is not hating on gay people to expect those in leadership to uphold the beliefs of the church. It is also not acceptable to use words like "love" to cover the sins of others. Loving your neighbor does not trump doing what is right.

What I am seeing, as I said before, there is a real effort going on to legitimize sin. Frequently, it gets thrown out that other people commit sins of every other color also. However, that does not excuse this one. As mentioned, there is not a Sabbath school class out there to affirm liars, thieves, parent haters, blasphemers, or whatever your favorite sin to use to justify immorality is today. 

Do keep in mind that there is a movement out there to legitimize pedophilia. In another generation, will we have a class affirming pedophilia at the home church of one of our SDA elementary schools. You may think this crazy and not likely, but a generation or two in the past, affirming LGBT+ sabbath schools would have been just as crazy. Have you ever read the literature of pedophiles? Or read their heartbreak that they could have the child of their dreams? Does not their feelings justify it?! (Heads are going to explode on this one.)

This is where it sometimes gets crazy. Some will throw out that their best friend was gay or that some gay person was just the most loving person. I get that. I have not said that gay people are not nice people. Or that they should not have civil rights in this country, etc.

I also have had gay friends. I even had a gay roommate once. (That was a funny story!) I have had a friend who was gay that I worked with until he quit his job and died of AIDS. Another friend once was having troubles with his boyfriend one night, this was a long time ago when I was on summer break during nursing school. He said to me in his down moment, "You are going to be taking care of gay people during your career, you should come and hang out and meet some of us. (Like I didn't know any gay people!) So, we spent the evening barhopping gay bars! That was weird. And he stayed broken up with his boyfriend. I haven't even mentioned the opportunistic same sex activity I was aware of in the academy and college (LSU!).

Any of them I would have been thrilled to see them in church and sabbath school and would have welcomed them to attend. I would not have thought they should teach the class. So, I do not need any more "love" lectures!

[Bravus]

I had misgivings in raising the ‘We’re all sinners together’ point, and this response bears those out. 

It’s a longer theological argument, but I reject the claim that loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships are sinful. 

[pierrepaul]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

As far as LGBTQ+ people, I find most of them to show more love and concern for others than the general population.  Outside of their sexual orientation, I find them to be a great group to hang out with.  I have several friends and acquaintances who are gay (and/or that I suspect to be gay) including some Christian friends; and not one of them has ever hit on me.  They respect my affirmed heterosexuality and don't "judge" me for it. The least I can do is return the favor.  I can love and respect them without affirming or celebrating their gayness.  I can accept them without condoning their behavior. I don't feel like any less of a man because I'm comfortable around gay people.  That being said, I would probably never go to a gay bar or a gay club; or preside over a gay marriage.

This is what I have found as well. I have also found Jews, atheists, and people who like to eat shellfish, bacon, or to enjoy an occasional beer or glass of wine to be fine people too.

I personally have grave questions about a God who condemns people who were born with unnatural sexual proclivities, and who may have fallen to strong temptations that I have never and will never face. But I trust Him to judge justly. I don't trust most of my fellow church members to judge justly.

[pierrepaul]

3 hours ago, Bravus said:

I had misgivings in raising the ‘We’re all sinners together’ point, and this response bears those out. 

It’s a longer theological argument, but I reject the claim that loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships are sinful. 

I tremendously enjoy this forum as it allows for an exchange of ideas beyond what often occurs in church. I lean towards Bravus' view, but I'm unable to square it with scripture. Fortunately I am not the one who is charged with judging private sin.

 

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Of course you dont! lol But my question is simple: IF a small graphic art representation as in the picture being worth a dozen words constitutes a "lecture," what does THAT actually mean here?

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.

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Whats really unfortunate to me is that no one really wants to talk about that; it seems most posting here is "defending their position"

Well, if your position is anything other than the Bible, you are in trouble. Defending a position is one thing but forcing it on another is something different. Oh yeah, I can hear the chorus now. "You are forcing gay people to change or they can't be SDAs." But they are also trying to force their ideas on someone else. If you want to be a a homosexual sabbath-keeping person waiting for the second coming, go form your own church. Reality is, the SDA church is under attack from all directions and even from within.

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

... for reaching all classes "every nation, every tribe, EVERY PEOPLE..." 

Like I have said before ... ALL should be welcomed into church to hear the good news of the Gospel. There are specific instructions in the New Testament that include disassociating yourselves from those who are intransigent regarding holding on to unsound beliefs. 

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

It is my understanding that Adventist doctrinal referees and their todying  religionism

Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching", "instruction" or "doctrine") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system.

Every church has it's own set of doctrines, which are nothing more than their set of beliefs. We are instructed (commissioned) to go and teach all nations.

[B/W Photodude]

14 minutes ago, pierrepaul said:

I personally have grave questions about a God who condemns people who were born with unnatural sexual proclivities, 

We are all born with unnatural "proclivities," ... It is being born into sin. I see nothing in Scripture that excuses one for engaging in "unnatural sexual proclivities" because they are sexual in nature. When and where will you draw the line and finally say this has just gone to far in being "born with unnatural sexual proclivities" and a certain activity is finally sin?

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, Bravus said:

... but I reject the claim that loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships are sinful. 

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.

When God said "Let us make man in Our image" He then created a man and a woman. So, this man and woman was the image of God. The tired old cliche of "Adam & Steve" is not the image of God. Two of the same sex cannot be the image of God. I would submit that presenting a gay union as the image of God to be blasphemy. Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

I would further submit that someone engaging in homosexuality does not have the "mind of Jesus" and does not reflect the image of God. Not all "goodness" is necessarily of God and even has it's own ulterior motives. There is much "goodness" in the world today that at it's core is selfish in nature.

[B/W Photodude]

23 minutes ago, pierrepaul said:

 Fortunately I am not the one who is charged with judging private sin.

Promoting a concept or enabling one to engage in a certain practice is no longer a private sin but a very public sin. So, the practice of promoting wrongdoing by an organization makes it even more public. Those doing so were blessed with the benediction that it would be "better to tie a rock around their necks and throw them into the sea."

[B/W Photodude]

10 hours ago, JoeMo said:

What a blast from the past! I actually saw the Dave Clark 5 live back in 1966. 

...in the stone age of British Rock and before the 'Stoned Age".

"stone age" is about right as that was more than 50 years ago. In the early 2000s, I was in line to see John Mayall (John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers). I heard someone near me in line say, "Boy am I glad to get to see John Mayall before he dies!" Time passes by. Hard to imagine Mick Jagger is 76. Bill Wyman passed his 80th several years ago. Keith Richards looks like "death warmed over" sometimes. Someone said that "for every cigarette you smoke, Keith Richards gets 20 more minutes of life!"

Good times!

[JoeMo]

In a way, I kinda get where B/W is coming from.  Although I enjoy the company of my gay friends and am thrilled to see some of them coming to church (even some of them staring to lead celibate lives), 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. I think it's okay for them to attend; and maybe be members; but I would be uncomfortable having an openly gay person ( or a person who smelled like they just had a cigarette or a shot of tequila) lead out in the congregation.

OTOH, how many "closet" gays - those who are extremely discrete and secretive - do we already have in the church and its leadership?  I'll bet my bippy (only folks over 60 will know what a bippy is) that there are more than a few.  One whom I know was a church elder until he became convicted that hiding his gayness was being a hypocrite.  He "came out" and resigned his eldership.  He's just a regular church guy now; but he is still a member.  As a matter of fact, he is married to a wonderful understanding woman and has 2 kids now.  Gay or not, he is a great guy and much loved by the congregation.  He still claims to be attracted to men; but is very comfortable in his exclusively heterosexual relationship.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bravus]

Can't find the old thread, so I'll start a new one in Theological Townhall.

[Bravus]

New thread is here: 

 

 

[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!!

[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. 

[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.

[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.

 

 

[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.

[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] 

[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.