Gays and Lesbians React to GC Denial of Approval

[SivartM]

There was a time only a few years ago when I would have been overjoyed if your idea was correct. I would have loved nothing more than to believe God was OK with my living with other guys. But I have studied this topic intensely since about 1973 when I was baptized. I slipped back into the practice of homosexuality until 2004. So emotionally I have every reason to want to believe your viewpoint, but it doesn't hold up to valid biblical analysis.

[SivartM]

Oh, and by the way... I don't support gay sex. Just gay people.

[Guest]

Some people just don't like the what the Bible says. That's ok, go ahead and change it. It's all about what YOU want, not what GOD wants.

[Guest]

Like Sam Pipim says: (with African accent) They make all kinds of Bibles now. You can find gay Bible if that's what you want.

[SivartM]

Some people just don't like the what the Bible says. That's ok, go ahead and change it. It's all about what YOU want, not what GOD wants.

Good point... why don't you like what the Bible says?

Or were you talking about someone else? Certainly not myself, who so far has not endorsed any particular theology (except in my last post, which you can hardly disagree with, I hope).

It must be very convenient to avoid discussion by just telling other people to believe the Bible (aka your interpretation of the Bible).

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: Oh, and by the way... I don't support gay sex. Just gay people.

Please go back and reread the thread, then, SivartM. We're evidently in agreement. I also support gay people. I'm gay myself, although non-practicing. You think I'm asking people to disrespect me, reject me or hate me because I'm gay?

This whole thread is about whether gay sex is wrong or not. It's not about whether non-practicing gays who are following Jesus are evil or should be disfellowshipped.

[SivartM]

Like Sam Pipim says: (with African accent) They make all kinds of Bibles now. You can find gay Bible if that's what you want.

I haven't seen any translations that endorse homosexuality. Which one is that?

[SivartM]

Please go back and reread the thread, then, SivartM. I also support gay people. I'm gay myself, although non-practicing. You think I'm asking people to disrespect me, reject me or hate me because I'm gay?

This whole thread is about whether gay sex is wrong or not. It's not about whether non-practicing gays who are following Jesus are evil or should be disfellowshipped.

I know. What I mean is that I support gay people even if they interpret a few texts differently than I do. I'm not going to kick someone out of the church for not living up to my standards. If someone, as far as I can tell, is a sincere Christian who wants to follow God, but does not believe that the Bible condemns homosexual marriages, I'm not going to try to make them believe as I do or else.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: I haven't seen any translations that endorse homosexuality.

OK, but a few posts ago, you made it sound like you think it's possible or likely that the Bible doesn't condemn the practices of homosexuality. Now you are talking as if you realize the Bible doesn't condone it.

[SivartM]

Quote:

SivartM: I haven't seen any translations that endorse homosexuality.

OK, but a few posts ago, you made it sound like you think it's possible or likely that the Bible doesn't condemn the practices of homosexuality. Now you are talking as if you realize the Bible doesn't condone it.

I do think it's possible. As I said, I haven't studied this as much as you have.

I didn't say that the Bible absolutely doesn't condone it; I just haven't seen any translations of the Bible that endorse homosexual activity.

[Guest]

I haven't seen any translations that endorse homosexuality. Which one is that?

Don't know. Let me know when you find it. I don't know why you need ANY translation. Because we're all going to heaven right? Why waste time reading?

[SivartM]

Don't know. Let me know when you find it. I don't know why you need ANY translation. Because we're all going to heaven right? Why waste time reading?

You're the one who said there is a gay Bible.

Do you think that we're all going to heaven? If we were, however, I don't see how that would mean we shouldn't read about the God we'll be there with. But that's another thread.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: What I mean is that I support gay people even if they interpret a few texts differently than I do. I'm not going to kick someone out of the church for not living up to my standards. If someone, as far as I can tell, is a sincere Christian who wants to follow God, but does not believe that the Bible condemns homosexual marriages, I'm not going to try to make them believe as I do or else.

I support the right of gay people in society to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. I don't support "gay marriage" but I do support their right to have their relationship legally recognized so that they can visit their partner in the hospital and have them recognized in their wills the same as anyone else.

But I see a difference between the church and the state.

I'm not talking about what someone's idea is about homosexuality. I'm talking about people's practices. An SDA may have a different view of gay marriage outside the church, but that's not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether members of the church should be allowed to practice homosexuality and still be members in good standing. If they can, the very next step is that they will also be able to be church officers, including pastors and elders and conference presidents.

[SivartM]

I support the right of gay people in society to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. I don't support "gay marriage" but I do support their right to have their relationship legally recognized so that they can visit their partner in the hospital and have them recognized in their wills the same as anyone else.

But I see a difference between the church and the state.

I'm not talking about what someone's idea is about homosexuality. I'm talking about people's practices. An SDA may have a different view of gay marriage outside the church, but that's not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether members of the church should be allowed to practice homosexuality and still be members in good standing.

I just told you my opinion relating to members of the church. I wasn't talking about society in general.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Like Sam Pipim says: (with African accent) They make all kinds of Bibles now. You can find gay Bible if that's what you want.

I haven't seen any translations that endorse homosexuality. Which one is that?

Sounds like you're very quick to condemn those who have a biblical view that is different from those who you have been defending,SM. Why not just allow those with whom you are arguing with to state their case without immediately being critical of their convictions? Everyone knows that there are at least two different viewpoints on just about every subject in the Bible. Your argumentative approach smacks of skepticism particularly when you admit that you don't know that much about what you're trying to defend. Why don't you read the Scriptures for yourself and then from it defend why homosexual behaviour is amoral if someone thinks it so? Scoffing at those who are trying to clarify truth is unproductive in the discussion, unless you're convinced that no one can truely know the truth.

[fccool]

I'm a non-practicing gay person, but I don't consider myself "openly homosexual," because I don't flaunt my homosexual tendencies. In fact, I'm constantly in an attitude of prayer that God will work in me to sanctify my whole being, including my mind and body. I have gender identity disorder and God still has lots of work to do in me that way, but I know from personal experience that He's able fulfill His promises.

John, I would certainly agree with you. Salvation is essentially about reconciliation through repentance. Some may say that practicing homosexuality is not a sin, but I disagree. Sin is essentially anything that is contrary to the purpose of God... loosely speaking.

It does not however mean that homosexuality is any worse than lying or gossip, or divorce, or neglecting one's wife and children, or any other forms of sexual immorality, or hating and unforgiving attitude. Yet we elevate it above these.

We would not deny a person who is divorced and re-married the membership. Neither would we deny membership to people who have marital problems, or spousal abuse problems.

Yet, we tend to single out sins that we don't have as the ones to be "showcased". I'm sure that if all of our sins would be projected on the wall during the worship meetings... it would be evident that all of us need God quite a bit... no matter of the sexual orientation.

I'm not saying that we should just let go and go about failing, and then let God take care of our mess. We should certainly strive for perfection. But we do fail. The difference is how we are dealing with our failures and those of other. Should we begin stoning people? In effect this attutude does reflect of (Puritanical) Pharaseical-lead stoning we see in NT. Originally, only God could approve of the severe punishment and isolation, but later on the Rabbis took that task upon themselves.

Puritans adopted the same strict ideals and stoned law-breakers.

Catholic church adopted inquisition.

Non of the above were Biblical approach to discipline. "Handing people over to Satan", means exactly that. If talking to them fails, then you let them go astray... because there's nothing else you can do for them.

In light of the homosexuals coming into the church... especially if they are practicing homosexuals, I think we should let the Spirit do the work.

Imagine if one is going through divorce and everyone comes by telling how bad divorce is, and how wrong it is Biblically. Pointing out does not help these people. Support and love does.

[SivartM]

Sounds like you're very quick to condemn those who have a biblical view that is different from those who you have been defending,SM. Why not just allow those with whom you are arguing with to state their case without immediately being critical of their convictions? Everyone knows that there are at least two different viewpoints on just about every subject in the Bible. Your argumentative approach smacks of skepticism particularly when you admit that you don't know that much about what you're trying to defend. Why don't you read the Scriptures for yourself and then from it defend why homosexual behaviour is amoral if someone thinks it so? Scoffing at those who are trying to clarify truth is unproductive in the discussion, unless you're convinced that no one can truely know the truth.

I'm certainly not condemning anyone here for their views. If I condemned those who thought differently for their views, then I would be condemning the very people I'm defending. That would be awfully confusing.

If you're specifically addressing my reply to Richard, I'm simply asking him to back up his assertions.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: But that does not mean that everyone who has a different interpretation than you is to be condemned. There are people who have every reason emotionally to believe something, come to a different conclusion, and are still wrong.

Here's the point: Do you believe the Bible teaches that God considers the practice of homosexuality to be a sin?

It's not about whether there are people who disagree with you or with me. There are also people who disagree with you and me on the Sabbath and on the state of the dead and even on whether the Bible is true or not. All those things are irrelevant.

It never is about whether people disagree with me; it's about whether the Bible is clear about something and whether people disagree with the Bible. For instance, the Bible is clear that God condemns fornication and adultery. Yet today there are people in the church who practice it. Most of them find ways to explain their actions in such a way as to make it appear it's OK for them to do what they're doing. They often convince themselves that they can have their favorite sins and heaven, too. It's a very popular message because it appeals to our sinful desires.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: If you care to, let's discuss it.

Quote:

SilvartM: I don't know enough to discuss it to you, but maybe you should talk to someone who has studied more than I have.

I agree, and I often have.

[SivartM]

I believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin and I also believe that breaking the Sabbath is a sin but if someone is doing something that I think is breaking the Sabbath but they disagree I'm not going to condemn their convictions and I will not condemn people who sincerely love God but interpret verses about homosexuals differently than I do and consequently are in a relationship.

In light of the homosexuals coming into the church... especially if they are practicing homosexuals, I think we should let the Spirit do the work.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[doug yowell]

[

John, I would certainly agree with you. Salvation is essentially about reconciliation through repentance. Some may say that practicing homosexuality is not a sin, but I disagree. Sin is essentially anything that is contrary to the purpose of God... loosely speaking.

It does not however mean that homosexuality is any worse than lying or gossip, or divorce, or neglecting one's wife and children, or any other forms of sexual immorality, or hating and unforgiving attitude. Yet we elevate it above these.

We would not deny a person who is divorced and re-married the membership. Neither would we deny membership to people who have marital problems, or spousal abuse problems.

Yet, we tend to single out sins that we don't have as the ones to be "showcased". I'm sure that if all of our sins would be projected on the wall during the worship meetings... it would be evident that all of us need God quite a bit... no matter of the sexual orientation.

cool, your examples are not all appropo. But even if they were, one doesn't allow a sin of equal magnitude to be openly practiced in order to insure a balanced approach to sin in the church. If homosexual practice is no worse than neglectng one's children (that's more than debateable)than adding it to the camel's back will not lessen the load that the church is already carrying. Additionally,people with marital problems, abuse problems, pride,and the gamut of other spiritual ailments,don't publically showcase their issues and then demand that the church embrace them as coheirs with Christ, in hopes that someday they might change their behaviour. In fact, many,if not most of the sins you mentioned would require some form of church discipline in order to attempt to heal their perpetrators, if done publicly.Baptizing a couple that was living together but not planning on getting married comes to mind. Why should a person in a monogamous gay relationship be entitled to any special membership privileges?

[there buster]

Okay. In spite of the fact that I suspect willful incomprehension.

the question is not about what theologians consider. That is a diversion. The question is about what the church considers. Please note the original wording.

Quote:

Should we reject bank robbers who disagree with the view of the church on theft?

The church in fact considers homosexual behavior wrong. It also considers theft wrong. The church considers that a number of things makes one ineligible for membership. Various people--some of them called theologians-- disagree with these positions.

Should the church reject those who reject the seventh day Sabbath? Should it reject those deny the inspiration of Ellen White?

Those who intend to practice homosexuality are not equivalent to those who differ over whether there is actual furniture in the heavenly Sanctuary.

And you have not answered why someone who claims to have always had a desire should automatically be allowed to satisfy that desire.

[John317]

Quote:

fccool:

In light of the homosexuals coming into the church... especially if they are practicing homosexuals, I think we should let the Spirit do the work.

I'm wondering about the above sentence. Do you mean practicing, unrepentant homosexuals who are coming into the church as members-- or do you mean homosexuals who come to worship with us in our church services?

We should welcome anyone who comes into our church to worship with us.

I would be opposed to baptizing any practicing homosexual. If they are practicing, and have not repented of their homosexuality, then they are giving evidence that they're not ready to be baptized. If the church goes ahead and baptizes them and accepts them into fellowship, the church is at fault and must bear the responsibility before God. I would apply the same principle to any known sin. We certainly don't baptize people who are continuing to practice their crimes and are unrepentant for them.

NOTE: I'm not suggesting that people have to be perfect before getting baptized.

Quote:

Imagine if one is going through divorce and everyone comes by telling how bad divorce is, and how wrong it is Biblically. Pointing out does not help these people. Support and love does.

This is what Ellen White wrote on this, and I'm sure you agree with her. I certainly do.

Quote:

If there have been difficulties brethren and sisters,--if envy, malice, bitterness, evil surmisings, have existed, confess these sins, not in a general way, but go to your brethren and sisters personally. Be definite. If you have committed one wrong and they twenty, confess that one as though you were the chief offender. Take them by the hand, let your heart soften under the influence of the Spirit of God, and say, "Will you forgive me? I have not felt right toward you. I want to make right every wrong, that naught may stand registered against me in the books of heaven. I must have a clean record." Who, think you, would withstand such a movement as this? There is too much coldness and indifference--too much of the "I don't care" spirit--exercised among the professed followers of Christ. All should feel a care for one another, jealously guarding each other's interests. "Love one another." Then we should stand a strong wall against Satan's devices. Amid opposition and persecution we would not join the vindictive ones, not unite with the followers of the great rebel, whose special work is to accuse the brethren, to defame and cast stain upon their characters. {RH, December 16, 1884 par. 7}

Let the remnant of this year be improved in destroying every fiber of the root of bitterness, burying them in the grave with the old year. Begin the new year with more tender regard, with deeper love, for every member of the Lord's family. Press together. "United, we stand; divided, we fall." Take a higher, nobler stand than you ever have before. {RH, December 16, 1884 par. 8}

Many appear to be steadfast in the truth, firm, decided on every point of our faith; yet there is a great lack in them,--the tenderness and love which marked the character of the great Pattern. If a brother errs from the truth, if he falls into temptation, they make no effort to restore him in meekness, considering themselves lest they also be tempted. They seem to regard it as their special work to climb upon the judgment seat and condemn and disfellowship. They do not obey God's word, which says, "Ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness." The spirit of this passage is altogether too rare in our churches. It is the lack of it that shuts out the Spirit of God from the heart, from the home, from the church. Shall we not henceforth practice the Bible plan of restoring erring ones in the spirit of meekness? Shall we not have the spirit of Jesus, and work as he worked? {RH, December 16, 1884 par. 9}

[SivartM]

Okay. In spite of the fact that I suspect willful incomprehension.

I can't think of any reason someone would write something like this except to offend, so if you'd like you can come right out and call me incompetent. I doubt any of you will ever accept any of my answers, so I guess I'm out.

[John317]

Quote:

fccool: In light of the homosexuals coming into the church... especially if they are practicing homosexuals, I think we should let the Spirit do the work.

Quote:

SivartM: I agree wholeheartedly.

What are you agreeing with? Are you talking about practicing homosexuals becoming members or coming to worship?

We should always let the Spirit do its work, but the Spirit also wants the church and the church officers to fulfil their responsibilities.

Check out 1 Cor 5; 1 Tim. 6: 3-5; Titus 1: 9-11; 2: 1-15.

[there buster]

Quote:

Okay. In spite of the fact that I suspect willful incomprehension.

Quote:

I can't think of any reason someone would write something like this except to offend, so if you'd like you can come right out and call me incompetent.

I simply stated my suspicions, not any conclusions. In fact, my answer was based on the assumption of your good faith. In addition, not only do I not think you are incompetent, I believe you are quite competent.

It does appear that you do not want to address the pertinent issues, however.