tsenri veros
04-06-2006, 01:43 AM
hey, I firstly want to applaude the members of SoulForce who visited Azusa Pacific University today; your speeches and personal testimonies/experiences were more than i had even hoped to hear. in all honesty, i had expected to be faced with a panel of angry social activists, primarily because (to my understanding) SF has chosen the campuses and bases they visit based on that establishment's descriminatory policies. this made it hard for me to imagine SF's intentions of being anything other than mainly to provoke persecution of some kind, as though they intentionally set themselves up to be arrested so as to put that institution in a bad political light. I was relieved to hear that they were relieved to find APU as welcoming as it was. this attitude convinced me that SF is not attempting to martyr themselves, but to educate a specific audience.
that said, i'm a straight christian male who is VERY passionate about this issue. I have a handful of friends and relatives who are openly gay which has helped me understand their side of the debates. in response to Romans 1:27 which came up in the forum today, i definitely believe there are two kinds of homosexuality that need to be defined. there is that which is physical lust, as blatantly expressed in this verse, and there is a second kind, in which a person knows they are moreso attracted to the same sex than (at all) to the opposite sex, but do not lust after each other. I strongly believe that homosexuality may only be considered a sin as far as lust plays an active role. In this way, homosexuality is rightfully put back on the same field as heterosexuality, where lust is the common sin that drives men and women to "worship and serve created things rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25).
ha, that's a big nutshell...it's basically where I stand today, before and after hearing SF speak. Thank you Haven for you bravery, you are an inspiration to at least this heterosexual!
that said, i'm a straight christian male who is VERY passionate about this issue. I have a handful of friends and relatives who are openly gay which has helped me understand their side of the debates. in response to Romans 1:27 which came up in the forum today, i definitely believe there are two kinds of homosexuality that need to be defined. there is that which is physical lust, as blatantly expressed in this verse, and there is a second kind, in which a person knows they are moreso attracted to the same sex than (at all) to the opposite sex, but do not lust after each other. I strongly believe that homosexuality may only be considered a sin as far as lust plays an active role. In this way, homosexuality is rightfully put back on the same field as heterosexuality, where lust is the common sin that drives men and women to "worship and serve created things rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25).
ha, that's a big nutshell...it's basically where I stand today, before and after hearing SF speak. Thank you Haven for you bravery, you are an inspiration to at least this heterosexual!