Dr Gordon Andersons Statement on the Equality Ride [Archive]

Venari

04-15-2006, 02:49 PM

Venari: Dr. Anderson calls himself a Christian, as I am sure he believes himself to be. He condemns the Equality Riders as being unrepentant sinners, and cites reasons as to why he believes them worthy of judgement.

I am not seeing where Dr. Anderson says they are inviting judgment, in fact he applies the "woman at the well" narrative in John to the non-condemnation of God, about 3 minuets into the address. So yes he does consider homosexuality to be a sin but he does not state it brings on Gods wrath. He also calls the students not to look at the Equality Riders in a condemning manner. So the major disagreement is viewing homosexuality as a sin yet not condemning people who "choose" to be homosexual.

Most liberal theologians agree that the sin of sodom that was highlighted in the Bible was inhospitality. Venari, I'm sure that you have listened to the talk by Dr. Anderson. Can you defend his hospitality?

I guess on the defense of his hospitality, the Equality Riders are not guests and we do not need to demonstrate hospitality. On that note, if you look at what the students at NCU do for our community demonstrates our hospitality. Unfortunately the Equality Ride comes on terms of not being invited and as Dr Anderson says they are not showing respect for "our" beliefs, 22 minuets in the address. I am not going to say what is wrong or what is right but I feel as my many at my school do that this is an attempt to force us to change, versus the goal or "relentless non-violence" where you show us why we need to change. Also there is the perceived attempt by Soulforce to change the laws to force us to "believe" what we're told to believe. As Dr Anderson states "The Equality Ride is not about creating a dialogue but about changing the law that would undermine the first amendment right of this school." (23:40)

So when it comes right down to it, hospitality is a non-issue. The equality riders are not our guests and if your referring to homosexuals then it is an equally non-issue as the student body on a daily interacts with the GLBT population of Minneapolis and have welcomed them to sit in our chapel services and as I stated before are involved in such organizations Minnesota AIDS Project. So we show hospitality to our guests and community but not people who come with "hostile" intentions, as we perceive them.

The issue of being a faggot or a bigot is rather pointless. You can be easily be both and you can equally be neither. What matters is the whole of who the person is.

-Venari

Dash

04-15-2006, 04:07 PM

Who is my neighbor?

And, who is my guest?

Very similar questions, and the ancient response Jesus gave to the first is very applicable to the second. :love:

keltic63

04-15-2006, 04:15 PM

I guess on the defense of his hospitality, the Equality Riders are not guests and we do not need to demonstrate hospitality. On that note, if you look at what the students at NCU do for our community demonstrates our hospitality. Unfortunately the Equality Ride comes on terms of not being invited and as Dr Anderson says they are not showing respect for "our" beliefs, 22 minuets in the address. I am not going to say what is wrong or what is right but I feel as my many at my school do that this is an attempt to force us to change, versus the goal or "relentless non-violence" where you show us why we need to change. Also there is the perceived attempt by Soulforce to change the laws to force us to "believe" what we're told to believe. As Dr Anderson states "The Equality Ride is not about creating a dialogue but about changing the law that would undermine the first amendment right of this school." (23:40)

So when it comes right down to it, hospitality is a non-issue. The equality riders are not our guests and if your referring to homosexuals then it is an equally non-issue as the student body on a daily interacts with the GLBT population of Minneapolis and have welcomed them to sit in our chapel services and as I stated before are involved in such organizations Minnesota AIDS Project. So we show hospitality to our guests and community but not people who come with "hostile" intentions, as we perceive them.

-Venari
wow. you are kidding, aren't you? as a community, or even as individuals, feel you are not "required" to show hospitality to anyone you define as a stranger?

Luke 10:27-29 27And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." 28And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."
29But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Luke 6:32-33 32"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

Your example has many parallels to the Sodom and Gomorrah story: strangers show up in town. No one knows what their intentions are, and no one knew that they were angels sent by God. The townspeople sought to subdue and humiliate the strangers, presumably because of some percieved hostile intention on the part of the strangers. Only Lot offered hospitality. I'll be sure that I don't stumble across your campus any time soon.

Joe Brummer

04-15-2006, 04:43 PM

keltic63

04-15-2006, 04:55 PM

This thread has such an unpleasant tone between people. I bet this could be discussed without all the sarcasm ans insults.

Proving each other right or wrong isn't exactly a way to have a dialog, it is more of a power trip.

I asked questions. I believe that is encouraging dialogue. I am insulted that the opinion of the college/Venari is that anyone who shows up uninvited doesn't deserve to be treated well. I posted the scriptures that came to mind as I read Venari's post. I don't believe I insulted anyone as I asked the question. I certainly have no power here as I'm not a moderator or staff at Soulforce. I don't even try to police the discussions that take place. Sometimes, a little anger is good. it gets things out in the open where they can be discussed.

Joe Brummer

04-15-2006, 06:50 PM

Anger is very good, it is what we do with the anger that counts!

I will say I live Dash's response....it is poetic.

Maybe this thought will help us with this thread:

"Here is the true meaning of compassion and nonviolence when they help us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weakness of our condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."

Martin L. King, Jr.

Daniel

04-15-2006, 08:06 PM

I am not seeing where Dr. Anderson says they are inviting judgment, in fact he applies the "woman at the well" narrative in John to the non-condemnation of God, about 3 minuets into the address. So yes he does consider homosexuality to be a sin but he does not state it brings on Gods wrath.

I guess on the defense of his hospitality, the Equality Riders are not guests and we do not need to demonstrate hospitality.
i

Venari,

Maybe I missed something along the way- perhaps this it's more evident in other threads- but I don't have a clear sense of your own perspective in regards to the comments of this Mr. Anderson etc and how these matters affect you as a student. What you present here is a defense of sorts. What I don't get is which side of the fence you fall on. I'm curious to know why you are defending his actions.

Another thing. Don't you mean to say 'on the defense of his inhospitality' in the quoted sentence above? From my point of view, his actions speak for themselves. Anything else is splitting hairs.

NonLemming

04-15-2006, 10:20 PM

This is a difficult situation as: a) the school claims to instruct following the teachings of Jesus (hightly doubtful) and b) the invitation to the school was declined. We cannot force others to like us or, in this case, even talk with us.

My immediate thoughts are: move on to the next stop, let as many people know of the lack of hospitality, be sure not to give monetarily to their larger controlling system (whatever that is on their state or region level), and continue to demonstrate grace. If we are unwelcome by a private institution, then we are unwelcome. We move on. Forcing them to hear our views will not work at this stage.

The important thing is for the participants of the ride not to be discouraged, but to move on to the next town. Some will get it, some will not.

Liberal Crozier

04-16-2006, 07:07 AM

I understand the correlation on all levels between the Freedom Riders of the 1960's and the Equality Riders of 2006.

The Freedom Riders, even in the age of B&W television and few channels operating twelve hours a day, knew well what the " talking points" and "spin" that they would hear from the "Last Hurrah" individuals who propped up Jim Crow. Even the most ardent supporters of spiritual segregation, men like Robertson and Falwell....are not worried about their revisionism as they attract the "Stockholm Syndrome African-American clergy and laity" as they lend vocal and resource support to their former and disingenuously-identifed enemies who are now "allies".

The enemies of my friends are my enemies, too....says a wounded US Catholic Conference as they " bedfellow " with fundamentalists who are making strategic inroads in the US and throughout Latin America....to say nothing of your immigrant populations.

What changed? What made the "moral but uninvolved majority" take notice after a century or more of violent death and oppression? It was the Freedom Riders ( and the unfortunate death of three such riders in MS ) and the courageous "ministry of presence" they evoked.

Often, and not unlike prayer, it is NOT what you say, or do or act....but that you are prayerfully IN THE MOMENT.....you are STANDING UP for truth, equality and justice. You are the living gospel of Jesus Christ.

Venari

04-16-2006, 08:38 AM

wow. you are kidding, aren't you? as a community, or even as individuals, feel you are not "required" to show hospitality to anyone you define as a stranger?

Your example has many parallels to the Sodom and Gomorrah story: strangers show up in town. No one knows what their intentions are, and no one knew that they were angels sent by God. The townspeople sought to subdue and humiliate the strangers, presumably because of some percieved hostile intention on the part of the strangers. Only Lot offered hospitality. I'll be sure that I don't stumble across your campus any time soon.

Keltic,

First you have taken what I have said out of context. I never said we are not required to how hospitality to stranger I said to people who are hostile to us. There is a difference between hospitality and love. Hospitality involves welcoming someone to your home, love is your caring for that person. You can easily demonstrate one without the other, we can refuse our enemies hospitality but still show them love.

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah you find a city state that is extremely xenophobic and would be cruel to strangers and foreigners. The Equality Riders are neither of the two. They are not foreigners, the answer why is pretty clear. Also they are not strangers for several reasons. Namely this is the parallel in the narrative they angelic visitors did nothing except come to visit, in this case the Equality Ride come with the expressed mission to change our beliefs thought force, abet nonviolent force. Secondly they are not our guests as they come to us in a hostile manner, as they are being perceived by the school administration and a most of the student body and faculty, once again I refer to Dr Andersons address.

Since you chose to quote scripture to me to show how our rejection of the Equality Ride is unchristian let us consider; 2 Corinthians 10:3-4

3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5

14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.(Matthew quoted)

Now looking at that what is the Christian response? Refusing to allow a forum for a person, or group of people, who though words appear as a threat. Or a group of people who don’t listen to what Jesus speaks to in regards to reaching a community but rather chooses tactics of the world?

Keltic, the issue of love is not at stake here. In fact my self and several students bought several umbrellas and other things for the Equality Riders as rain is in the forecast for tomorrow... pretty much we are going to do what we can to make their visit to NCU as comfortable as possible. But, at this time, the school will not entertain a discussion on the issue or further interaction with them… that is until we perceive their tactics to be truly wanting to talk and not trying to force change.

So I ask is that being Jesus, trying to meet the needs of people who are our "enemies." Or is being Jesus coming to a community and forcing your self upon them?

-Venari

Venari

04-16-2006, 09:00 AM

Venari,

Maybe I missed something along the way- perhaps this it's more evident in other threads- but I don't have a clear sense of your own perspective in regards to the comments of this Mr. Anderson etc and how these matters affect you as a student. What you present here is a defense of sorts. What I don't get is which side of the fence you fall on. I'm curious to know why you are defending his actions.

Another thing. Don't you mean to say 'on the defense of his inhospitality' in the quoted sentence above? From my point of view, his actions speak for themselves. Anything else is splitting hairs.

Daniel,

No I do believe Dr Anderson is acting in the best hospitality this situation allows him to act. What many people fail to see is the position he is in. His decisions are not his alone they come with the pressures of the Assemblies of God, the History of the school, the board of regents... and I can go on and on. When it comes down to the majority in all of these groups felt the Equality Ride is not coming on honest terms and represent a threat to the school rather then an chance for an open dialogue.

I defend Dr Anderson for I know the man is one of the most honest, sincere, kind, caring, compassionate... I can go on again... person I have ever met. I trust his words and actions are taken to sincerely meet the best interest of the first the students, second the school and finally his self. Also he asks the students to limit interaction with the Riders as we have seen the generation of media spectacle when that has happened so far. Yet he will not stop us from reaching out to meet the needs of the Riders. That is why I defend his actions.

I have often stated I strive for the same goals as Soulforce, but within the Assemblies of God. When it comes down to it I, like many others, are being forced where to stand. The fact of not listening to their message has nothing to do with it, what comes down to it is the manner in which each is going to and has conducted themselves. We refuse to welcome them because we view their actions as hostile and dishonest. Yet there is the refusal to follow the basic teaching of Jesus of when a community refuses to listen/accept you move on as a testimony against them, not to trespass onto private property... pretty much the disciples preached their message with out "civil disobedience" but the Equality Ride chooses to use that tactic.

From my position I see the most Christ-like actions coming from the school not from the Equality Ride. I know many of you will disagree. But I will freely say I see "unchristian" behavior from everyone involved. From how the Equality Ride is conducting themselves to Dr Anderson stance of the arresting of the trespassers onto our school. It was a tough decision to make but sadly it was one that had to be made.

-Venari

Daniel

04-16-2006, 09:04 AM

In fact my self and several students bought several umbrellas and other things for the Equality Riders as rain is in the forecast for tomorrow... pretty much we are going to do what we can to make their visit to NCU as comfortable as possible. But, at this time, the school will not entertain a discussion on the issue or further interaction with them… that is until we perceive their tactics to be truly wanting to talk and not trying to force change.

Well, this is very generous of you, certainly. Your actions speak for themselves.

Now a sentence here confuses me. On the one hand you tell us that you are being generous in your actions and then "the school" and "we" need to know that you are not being forced to change.

Talk is talk- and sometimes very cheap. No is ever forced to change. A good long relationship (I've been in one with a man for 14 years now) teaches one that. Retationships are a dance- that is- if they work. No one changes anyone. We only change ourselves. How you can perceive that you are being forced to change is beyond me.

Perhaps there is another tension at play here which is often behind many a defensive postion:

Love the sinner and hate the sin.

If you and your school see the Riders as inherently sinful- and therefore unworthy of your hospitality- well that's certainly an issue worth looking at. But please don't blame the riders for an unexamined 'projection'. It just reduces the interaction- the dance- to a one footed hop.

Venari

04-16-2006, 09:13 AM

Love the sinner and hate the sin.

If you and your school see the Riders as inherently sinful- and therefore unworthy of your hospitality- well that's certainly an issue worth looking at. But please don't blame the riders for an unexamined 'projection'. It just reduces the interaction- the dance- to a one footed hop.

No it is not that they are views as inherently sinful- and therefore unworthy of your hospitality. The school is maintaining a stance that homosexual activity is a sin. The rejection of the Equality Ride rests in their stated goal to "change school policies." That is one of the key places of tension and why there is a refusal. The school sees an attempt to force change verses having a discussion. This is where the view of hostility comes in and why there is a refusal to allow them onto campus.

-Venari

Daniel

04-16-2006, 09:23 AM

Daniel,

No I do believe Dr Anderson is acting in the best hospitality this situation allows him to act. What many people fail to see is the position he is in. His decisions are not his alone they come with the pressures of the Assemblies of God, the History of the school, the board of regents... and I can go on and on.

I defend Dr Anderson for I know the man is one of the most honest, sincere, kind, caring, compassionate... I can go on again... person I have ever met.

That is why I defend his actions.

I have often stated I strive for the same goals as Soulforce, but within the Assemblies of God. When it comes down to it I, like many others, are being forced where to stand.

We refuse to welcome them because we view their actions as hostile and dishonest. Yet there is the refusal to follow the basic teaching of Jesus of when a community refuses to listen/accept you move on as a testimony against them, not to trespass onto private property... pretty much the disciples preached their message with out "civil disobedience" but the Equality Ride chooses to use that tactic.

From my position I see the most Christ-like actions coming from the school not from the Equality Ride.i

You posted your message to me just as I posted a message to you. In the crosshairs it seems! Sorry I did not see it earlier. I would have modulated my response accordingly.

Ok. I get it. You're 'working from within' and question the intergrity and motivation of the Riders.

What's at play here I wonder besides all this talk about who is being more Christlike? A fear that you and the school will be branded in the media as being intorlerant? If you really have the higher moral ground here, what do you care? You will have the satisfaction of your moral clarity. And why does there need to be this higher moral ground- which is how this whole discussion seems to be playing out?

Again- talk is talk- annd often cheap.

I understand your allegiance to those whom you respect. However, I do not see why you must defend he actions jsut because the man is in a pickle as far as the denomination is concerned. You seem quick to point of the differences in percieved motivations between your school and the Riders. Why not within your school itself?

I can think of many reasons, nonetheleast being that you aren't, can't and dont' want to be out- doing so would lead to that as a matter of course- at least if done publically- would it not. That's the pickle perhaps. And if so- you have may compassion and love.

I was once an AG student and Evangel College and well remember my growing- and feared- selfknowledge. It's wasn't any fun.

What is it you fear my friend?

Daniel

04-16-2006, 09:26 AM

The rejection of the Equality Ride rests in their stated goal to "change school policies." That is one of the key places of tension and why there is a refusal. The school sees an attempt to force change verses having a discussion. This is where the view of hostility comes in and why there is a refusal to allow them onto campus.

So- What's your goal? Do you want to bring change to your school? Would you like to be 'out' if you could be?

Why bite the hand that is trying to feed you?

Venari

04-16-2006, 10:28 AM

So- What's your goal? Do you want to bring change to your school? Would you like to be 'out' if you could be?

Why bite the hand that is trying to feed you?
What is it you fear my friend?

My goal? Well, I guess that generates a confusing response so here goes;

I am working with several other pastors to increase awareness and sensitivity to and understanding of homosexual people. I fight against the view the homosexuality is a "uniquely grave" sin that incurs the wrath of God and other such foolishness. As I stated to my advisor my goal is to create a day when a GLBQ youth in the AG can openly talk to their youth pastor about their sexuality without the fear of bigotry. If people want to think homosexuality is a sin then that is their free choice but I will remind them it is no greater or less then the white lie they told their spouse.

In summary there it is. If you want to know more I could post my senior thesis, but I don’t think Jamie would like me posting 100 something pages of text.

But my goal is not to change policies but to change minds about what the policies mean. I fully agree with the stance NCU has because of the abuses of the rules that have occurred in the past. Regardless of sexual orientation I firmly believe sexual activity has its place in a committed, "married", relationship which is what the rules are in place to up hold, not to single out and discriminate against homosexual people.

What do I fear? Well, I am pretty open with my sexuality on campus. Many student do not know for the fact unless they are a friend I really do not think it is any of their business. But above that all the people who would make the decision to dismiss me from the university do know. So I guess my fear comes down to the simple fact of the backlashes I am now seeing within the AG and other denominations. But I fear what the Equality Ride represents to academic freedom

''If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate." Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., 1928.

Part of freedom is the ability to dissent and disagree with what other say. It is the foundation of academic freedom. I feel the Equality Ride represents a rejection of this principle. NCU from its history teaches one thing and the UofM teaches another. But if you want to attend NCU there is the expectation you will abide by the rules they lay forth, it is part of the academic system there. So, while I am here I can be gay, but I cannot enter into a same-sex relationship while I am a student. It is what I freely give to earn the education I desire. I could attend Augsburg just a few miles away and earn a similar degree and be free to have a relationship, but it comes back to I choose to attend NCU and as such I am expected to choose to abide by the rules they put forth.

So I guess my fear is the loss of academic freedom.

-Venari

Daniel

04-16-2006, 12:00 PM

I am working with several other pastors to increase awareness and sensitivity to and understanding of homosexual people. I fight against the view the homosexuality is a "uniquely grave" sin that incurs the wrath of God and other such foolishness.

Well good for you brother. That's saying something.

In summary there it is. If you want to know more I could post my senior thesis, but I don’t think Jamie would like me posting 100 something pages of text.

Yes. I doubt that he would.

So I guess my fear comes down to the simple fact of the backlashes I am now seeing within the AG and other denominations. But I fear what the Equality Ride represents to academic freedom..

So I guess my fear is the loss of academic freedom.

Backlash. Freedom.

Those are very real things. As for the former: could you lose your semi-outed-ness and be thrust into the spotlight where you don't wish to be? Possibly. I can see why you would fear that. That's what they call a reasonable fear.

It looks like- from what your relate-that you've been able to carve out something of a niche where you can, if you don't engage in any sexual activity, attend your school and get your degree. The Ride is at odds with your personal trajectory. You don't want anyone messing with it. Fair enough.

To degress a minute. I wouldn't put my hopes in your thesis if I were you. I am open to another view, but if long experience is any indication, these matters are rarely sorted out through the head and intellectual positioning, no matter how asute. No one 'learns' to be a bigot or a homophobe any more than one 'unlearns' it. Did someone sit you done and say "ok- we're going to learn how bad gay people are today." I rather doubt it. We get our cue from others in thes matters in a far more insidious manner. We get the feeling first- the thought comes later. Reason, while valuable, only goes so far. That said, there is a minority of people who 'get it' when presented with 'evidence'. That's not, however, how most people 'get over' their phobia. They only do so, it seems, with contact with gay people.

Now, if you want to write your thesis as a declaration of your own freedom- that's another matter entirely.

Freedom. It's a big topic, but I disagree with you that the Riders don't respect that. They just don't have so a narrow view of it. There seems to be two things at play here: your clear and rightly understood interest in getting your degree as well as the goal of the Riders. What is at odds is the perception wherein the latter interfers with the former. My 'take' here is that hiding behind the fig leaf of academic freedom doesn't further anything and is only a sign of your fear. By focusing on the riders- it could be said- you keep the attention off of you.

Understandable.

You may well be between a rock and a hard place. Change is never easy. And it may seem to come at your personal expense. There is another way to deal with this. And that is to face your fear for what it is. Your ememy, in the end, may not seem so- but prove to be your friend.

Daniel

04-16-2006, 12:15 PM

But my goal is not to change policies but to change minds about what the policies mean. I fully agree with the stance NCU has because of the abuses of the rules that have occurred in the past. Regardless of sexual orientation I firmly believe sexual activity has its place in a committed, "married", relationship which is what the rules are in place to up hold, not to single out and discriminate against homosexual people.i

Hmmm... missed this first time around.

You really like the policies huh? Ok. I can go with that. But would these policies allow gay people to have relationships if they were married? I rather doubt that seeing that the present state of affairs within the AG is far from such a position. In sum then, why are you defending these polices? It would seem that you are fighting for precious little wiggle room. And room to wiggle where? That's what I don't get here.

It seems to me that you only want the cage to be a little bigger. This doesn't fly.

Venari

04-16-2006, 12:55 PM

To degress a minute. I wouldn't put my hopes in your thesis if I were you. I am open to another view, but if long experience is any indication, these matters are rarely sorted out through the head and intellectual positioning, no matter how asute. No one 'learns' to be a bigot or a homophobe any more than one 'unlearns' it. Did someone sit you done and say "ok- we're going to learn how bad gay people are today." I rather doubt it. We get our cue from others in thes matters in a far more insidious manner. We get the feeling first- the thought comes later. Reason, while valuable, only goes so far. That said, there is a minority of people who 'get it' when presented with 'evidence'. That's not, however, how most people 'get over' their phobia. They only do so, it seems, with contact with gay people.

Now, if you want to write your thesis as a declaration of your own freedom- that's another matter entirely.

Well I would say it is. At the risk of sounding prideful, a close friend who is pretty high in the hierarchy of the AG described what I wrote as "Writing similar to Martin Luther's 95 Theses for the struggle of homosexual people in Assemblies of God churches." That is where I disagree with you people are rash and impulsive by nature. When offered a rational response/explanation of something they are against more often then not the will listen and that opens the door for further understanding.

I do agree many people need to see more gay people to understand they are just as normal as them. What I disagree is seeing a bunch of gay people for a day to tell them how wrong they are then moving on, heck Christians have done that for years and look where it has gotten us ... seriously when is the last time you actually listened to someone who told you how you needed to repent and tried to hand you a Bible tract? So I circle back to where I was, I strongly agree with the message of Soulforce I just don’t agree with how it is being carried out.

Freedom. It's a big topic, but I disagree with you that the Riders don't respect that. They just don't have so a narrow view of it. There seems to be two things at play here: your clear and rightly understood interest in getting your degree as well as the goal of the Riders. What is at odds is the perception wherein the latter interfers with the former. My 'take' here is that hiding behind the fig leaf of academic freedom doesn't further anything and is only a sign of your fear. By focusing on the riders- it could be said- you keep the attention off of you.

...

You may well be between a rock and a hard place. Change is never easy. And it may seem to come at your personal expense. There is another way to deal with this. And that is to face your fear for what it is. Your ememy, in the end, may not seem so- but prove to be your friend.

I use the term enemy for lack of a better one and to reflect the views of many of my fellow students. I do not consider Jacob or Herrin to be enemies, in fact I would love to sit down with them over dinner with a few other students, no cameras or media, and just talk heart to heart about what they think and feel and what we think and feel.

It is not they are going against what I am seeking. Rather it comes down to their approach, while well intentioned, is beginning to cause more problems then it is solving. Frankly what worked in the 60's probably isn’t going to work in to 00's, or not nearly as effectively.

Also in the case of NCU to other schools, we are an urban campus, right down town Minneapolis, and right on the edge of one of the worse neighborhoods in the city. Pretty much we have 24 hour security and all doors are locked to prevent just anyone from gaining access, also because the students are housed there. So the issue of trespassing is a hot one. Not only is it private grounds its secure for the safety of the students. So if the equality ride chooses to attempt to enter the campus it shows disregard for the security of the students in favour of their message.

Do you see why NCU is taking such a strong stance? Well, if not... consider the area around NCU has a pretty high crime rate, several students a year are mugged and in my time there have been several murders within a few blocks. Now do the security concerns of the students take a little more precedent?

I don’t really want to be in the spot light, I have been it often enough as it is. But paired with that the ability to believe in something you disagree with and your freedom to believe in something I disagree with is an extremely important value to me... not as you say a narrow one. To me the Equality Ride represents the narrow view of academic freedom ... that is freedom only as far as everyone feels "ok" with what is being said.

I want to close with a quote from a favourite speech of mine;
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.
Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861
Paragraph 35

I don’t view anyone as an enemy. I see the value in all the view points presented here, I know my stance from when I first posted to no has changed as I began to understand things from different perspectives. What it boils down to is it possible to maintain the "common ground" between us that enables us to engage in fruitful dialogue or are we going to demand the other surrenders ground because of our assurance of how right we are.

-Venari

Venari

04-16-2006, 01:00 PM

It seems to me that you only what the cage to be a little bigger. This doesn't fly.

It’s best to say it doesn’t fly for you, but it is what I want.

I see the Assemblies of God as the best denomination in the history of the Church, please don’t argue with me on this caus' it’s just my opinion. As such I am willing to surrender my personal freedoms to fight for a better day.

So if I wiggle and make the cage a little bigger the only means it is bigger for the next person who makes it bigger for the person after them.

-Venari

Daniel

04-16-2006, 02:29 PM

At the risk of sounding prideful, a close friend who is pretty high in the hierarchy of the AG described what I wrote as "Writing similar to Martin Luther's 95 Theses for the struggle of homosexual people in Assemblies of God churches." That is where I disagree with you people are rash and impulsive by nature.

I never said people were rash or impulsive by nature. Rather, I made the point that 'understanding' isn't always- and in the matter of homosexuality especially- a matter of the 'head' only.

What I disagree is seeing a bunch of gay people for a day to tell them how wrong they are then moving on, heck Christians have done that for years and look where it has gotten us ... seriously when is the last time you actually listened to someone who told you how you needed to repent and tried to hand you a Bible tract?

No one's being evangelistic in this matter. I think the word 'dialogue' has been used in this area by many. You seem into on pushing away - in bodily form- any real chance at that. It's all so easy to have 'dialogue' in a forum like this where the rubber doesn't really meet the road.

I use the term enemy for lack of a better one and to reflect the views of many of my fellow students. I do not consider Jacob or Herrin to be enemies, in fact I would love to sit down with them over dinner with a few other students, no cameras or media, and just talk heart to heart about what they think and feel and what we think and feel.

Well... Why dont' you?

It is not they are going against what I am seeking. Rather it comes down to their approach, while well intentioned, is beginning to cause more problems then it is solving.

For you that is...I get that.

Do you see why NCU is taking such a strong stance?

A very lawyerly approach if there ever was one- which often advises that nothing can be 'extended' because of matters of liability.

I don’t really want to be in the spot light, I have been it often enough as it is.

Ok. Got that. Now what happens when you want to have a relationship, hold hands with that guy (assuming you are male), want to get 'married' or any other sundry things that straight christians take as divine right? What then? Sure. Undoubtedly, you may think you have the moral superiority at the moment as far as your milieu is concerned, being more holy than anyone else around you: gay and not acting on it. But all that will change once those pesky desires rear their ugly head- if they haven't already.

So the AG is the best denomination? I really don't care to engage you on that level. Not being AG for many years, and having gone down many others paths, I really don't see the point of pride in such things. It would be like me telling you why a certain car was THE best car and everyone should have one. A car is a car is a car. A vehicle. Nothing more. Nothing less. Bottom line is: does it get you where you want to go?

Where are you going with all this?

Every gonna have a relationship? Want one? Or do you just want to stay in the ivory tower?

That's where the rubber meets the road.

Venari

04-16-2006, 03:08 PM

No one's being evangelistic in this matter. I think the word 'dialogue' has been used in this area by many. You seem into on pushing away - in bodily form- any real chance at that. It's all so easy to have 'dialogue' in a forum like this where the rubber doesn't really meet the road.

I am not sure if you have read the entirety of my posts. I had attempted to facilitate a "neutral" forum between the Equality Ride and NCU but the terms could not be agreed upon. So if anything I am doing the exact opposite of what you think I am doing. I am here partly to dialogue with people like you, keltic, Nathan etc to gain a better perspective. I know from were my life is I cannot see the vistas you can see. So I hope you will also better understand my position and views as well. I think the rubber is meeting the road here, except its more like bicycle wheels.

A very lawyerly approach if there ever was one- which often advises that nothing can be 'extended' because of matters of liability.

Well, law if my first degree. Also when I can walk a few blocks from the campus doors and score some crack or meth safety really needs to be considered for the students. (I am serious about this.)

Ok. Got that. Now what happens when you want to have a relationship, hold hands with that guy (assuming you are male), want to get 'married' or any other sundry things that straight christians take as divine right? What then? Sure. Undoubtedly, you may think you have the moral superiority at the moment as far as your milieu is concerned, being more holy than anyone else around you: gay and not acting on it. But all that will change once those pesky desires rear their ugly head- if they haven't already.

So the AG is the best denomination? I really don't care to engage you on that level. Not being AG for many years, and having gone down many others paths, I really don't see the point of pride in such things. It would be like me telling you why a certain car was THE best car and everyone should have one. A car is a car is a car. A vehicle. Nothing more. Nothing less. Bottom line is: does it get you where you want to go?

Where are you going with all this?

Every gonna have a relationship? Want one? Or do you just want to stay in the ivory tower?

That's where the rubber meets the road.

I am not sure what to make of this section. It seems you are making rather sweeping judgments of my thoughts in relation to my actions. I don’t think I have come across as "holier then thou." My point is as I said before my decisions are mine and the ones I live by, I have never once claimed moral superiority I have only claimed to make the decision what I thought was best for me and if asked I would say; try it may be right for you.

As I said about the AG its my opinion, did I say everyone should be AG? I really love the people and family I have here and I wish everyone could have had as loving of an experience I have had... but I know the sad fact is I an a very rare exception to what people face when coming out to the AG. But I guess that is why I know what it can be like and why I am here fighting for what I feel is right.

I will say the Ivory Tower reference is rather insulting. I may be detached in your view, but it can equally be said from my perspective you are just as detached. Maybe were each in our Ivory Towers peering at the other through our little spyglasses wondering "why are they over there don’t they get it?"

But then that would come down to a difference in perspective and not a claim to moral superiority.

-Venari

pnggrad79

04-16-2006, 04:47 PM

I wish people would realize (gay and straight) that the sin in Sodom was NOT merely inhospitality to strangers.

From the outset, the fall of Adam and Eve, God has relentlessly pursued mankind. He loved what He created. With that premise in mind, throughout the OT, the message is replete with repeated acts of God making Himself known, pursuing people and letting them know He is the one who created them, and wanting a relationship with them. He carved out a whole nation of people, the Israelites, to make them an example of a holy nation, one that is consecrated to Him and to be a blessing to all of mankind.

The sin of Sodom was not merely inhospitality-the sin was turning away from the grace of God; rejection of God's grace to us. Sodom was always a wicked city(full of idol worship, and pagan rituals) and was spared destruction once before. When God sent the angels to the city, it was one last ditch effort by Abraham to save Lot. (Remember when Abraham bargained with God-will you spare Sodom for 10 righteous people? and God said He would) Sodom was destroyed because it refused to embrace the grace of God, which He showed them repeatedly. Ezekiel refers to this. Finally, Jesus follows this sentiment when he commissions the disciples to go to the cities to proclaim his message. He tells them to tell people the good news, and if they refuse God's gift of grace, then wipe their feet of the dust of that place because it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on that day of judgment. So Jesus was NOT saying that S & G were destroyed because of their homosexuality ( which has been shown it wasn't homosexuality, it was idol worship and the act of humiliation), the sin was rejection of God's gift of salvation. Furthermore, isn't the unpardonable sin repeatedly rejecting the Holy Spirit's call upon our hearts to accept Christ as Savior? This theme runs through the whole Bible- God creates man, man falls, God makes a plan to save us from ourselves, pursues us since creation, and offers up a perfect sacrifice for us-himself, made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. All we have to do is accept His atonement for our sin and make Him Lord of our lives. If we don't-if we reject Him, our fate is like that of Sodom and Gomorrah. At least that is how I understand it. It simply doesn't make sense that Jesus made this statement to refer to homosexuals, he was referring to the rejection of his saving message. Jesus' message has always been about John 3:16. He came to save the world. He didn't single out anyone to be exempt from this-this is Jesus' main agenda-save the world. His theme, his message, his purpose, was to save the world. That is what God is all about-reconciling his creation to Himself.

It is humanity that makes this simplistic message so complicated. We thumb our noses at grace because it is so radical and so unfair. We think we have to "do" something to merit God's salvation, but God made this available to everyone, regardless of stature, intelligence, sexual orientation, color of skin, etc. God made the provision for us-we don't have to do anything. God made no limitations to his grace, we do. We think it is unfair that we can live a good life and strive to please God all our lives, so we will deserve heaven when we die, yet the person who lives their life doing crime, or living a life that shuns God, can make a deathbed confession and still enjoy a life in heaven afterwards. We say "How is that fair?". God simply says-my salvation is for the person who lives a good life, it is for the person who comes in last minute, it is for the good son who stays on the farm and doesn't squander the family fortune, it is for the prodigal who lives with pigs and realizes he needs his father.

Sorry to preach (or ramble). This is so simple. I love the commercial UCC has that says, "God didn't reject people, neither do we" That is great and completely encompasses the message of God. God made the provision, Jesus did the work, we need to simply rest in the grace and mercy God has shown us.:)

Daniel

04-16-2006, 06:09 PM

I will say the Ivory Tower reference is rather insulting. I may be detached in your view, but it can equally be said from my perspective you are just as detached. Maybe were each in our Ivory Towers peering at the other through our little spyglasses wondering "why are they over there don’t they get it?"

But then that would come down to a difference in perspective and not a claim to moral superiority.

Sorry. Did not mean to insult you. Ask you into think about things? You bet.

Let me rephrase my thought: seeing that you have no (one assumes) any real experience from which to judge- that is- you've had no experience in relationship- sexual or particuarly affectional- where your love for the other person is given freely and returned freely without the onus of condemnation- this hardly gives you a point of view to be judgmental. As it were, you inhabit the ivory tower of purity. How? Because you have the luxury of being gay identified (love the sinner) but not acting gay (but hate the sin). That's a very 'powerful' position for someone in you position to be in. I make no judgment about that, other than the observation that you must be able to get a lot of 'juice' out of it. Were you to act on your feelings- well....that would be leaving the 'ivory tower' as I see it. That's the moral superiority you are laying claim to, and as I see it, is the heart- or rather- head- of all your arguments.

This is not simply a matter of perspective, but how we choose to live our lives.

I chose to be happy, have a partner and experience love in my life. You, by contrast, seem to be caught in the netherworld of being gay identified but never being able to act on it. Have I got that right?

What an uncomfortable situation to be in.

Zerbie

04-16-2006, 06:31 PM

Why am I always the one jumping into the fray shouting, "He's right. AND he's right." You're both right.

Daniel makes an incredibly important point, Venari. I too was thinking this and nearly posted about it: from your current position, you stand to lose or gain nothing if your school policy changes/remains the same, because you are not currently in a position to have to contemplate breaking it. But let's say tomorrow you walk into a room somewhere on campus and meet the man (assuming you're a guy, which I do assume) who is so captivating, so wonderful, so caring and inspiring a human being that you enter into a relationship with him and decide you want that relationship recognized and even celebrated. You do not have that option freely. Yes you could choose to be openly in relationship, but then your school has that policy, and what if they choose to enforce it and you are outta there? Some credits don't transfer, whatever, you lose both money and time in the pursuit of your education and that puts obstacles in your career path. That, I think is what Daniel is getting at. That such things can and do happen, and at the present moment, things are set up such that it *could* happen to you. Theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. Realistically, it may or may not.

Those of us like Daniel and Nathan, the Riders, myself, who advocate so strongly for the removal of such policies are doing so precisely because we can imagine ourselves in such a situation as was described above, and because we want to prevent others from going through pain, suffering, sorrow, and loss of educational/career/life opportunities.

The point, Venari, is: you should have a free choice to live as you do. Right now, all you have is a constrained choice. That is to say, it's merely convenient for you that you do not currently have a romantic relationship and that this policy is working for you. A slight change in your situation, and it would no longer work for you. And THAT is not right. You should always have the choice, freely, without constraint to express your life, love, and relationships in the way that you are meant to, whether that means celibacy or romantic attachment. Right now, you happen only by chance to be comfortable in the only possible permutation of events that would ever work for you. We want you to have the whole psycho-social-affectional freedom right there for you to take when/if you decide you want it. We don't demand that you want it. Only that it be available to you should a time come when you are unhappy or in emotional pain without it.

I gotta go - I had wanted to thank you for some words of wisdom that you bring - but have to leave it at that for a while. I'll come back.

Venari, I wish you the best. :love:

Daniel

04-16-2006, 06:56 PM

Those of us like Daniel and Nathan, the Riders, myself, who advocate so strongly for the removal of such policies are doing so precisely because we can imagine ourselves in such a situation as was described above, and because we want to prevent others from going through pain, suffering, sorrow, and loss of educational/career/life opportunities.

La verita.

Emproph

04-16-2006, 10:29 PM

I think you’ve got the experience to answer some of this. Just so you know I’m not trying to be confrontational. From what I’ve read of your posts you always seem pretty reasonable and fair, and for the most part so did Dr. Gordon's articulation of his/the schools position.

(I have more questions than this, but too much for one post.)

Obviously he’s convinced that homosexuality is a sin. Based on his beliefs/the School’s etc., most everything he said was consistent with that. My problem is with what he didn’t say, and it's my standard complaint regarding the issue no matter who espouses the attitude, rarely is this articulated.

He didn’t even acknowledge that we even “think” we were born this way, or that we are convinced we didn't choose this.

By saying we’re picking and choosing “whatever we want” from the Bible, he implies that we are being dishonest with our selves, without coming out and actually saying so. I find that dishonest and non-Christ like. If he’s going to believe things like that, I think as a Christian he has an obligation to articulate precisely how he knows we’re picking and choosing from the Bible as opposed to us just being very sick and/or confused people who can’t see how sick we really are, But he didn’t clarify.

So I am left to wonder. If we are THAT sick and confused, he has the obligation to explain that as clearly as possible so as not to cause us to confuse his message as being hateful, a likely outcome when communicating with/to those who are confused. And if I am that sick and confused, how can I be sinning if I don’t know it?

If we are evil lying unrepentant sinners, he has the obligation to use strong words like that, again, so as not to confuse us and others as to his reasoning and to warn the world of our malicious intent to harm others.

Which of those two scenarios is the position? Is it a combination of both? Is it even considered important to know the answers to those two questions, or is “because the Bible says so” ample reason to consider something sinful?

I'm just asking, not looking for a debate. :)

Venari

04-17-2006, 02:07 AM

Let me rephrase my thought: seeing that you have no (one assumes) any real experience from which to judge- that is- you've had no experience in relationship- sexual or particuarly affectional- where your love for the other person is given freely and returned freely without the onus of condemnation- this hardly gives you a point of view to be judgmental. As it were, you inhabit the ivory tower of purity. How? Because you have the luxury of being gay identified (love the sinner) but not acting gay (but hate the sin). That's a very 'powerful' position for someone in you position to be in. I make no judgment about that, other than the observation that you must be able to get a lot of 'juice' out of it. Were you to act on your feelings- well....that would be leaving the 'ivory tower' as I see it. That's the moral superiority you are laying claim to, and as I see it, is the heart- or rather- head- of all your arguments.

Well, let my tell you more about my self. I was in a long term relationship from when I was 15 until I was 23 and another two year relationship after that ... The reason we broke up is inconsequential now. My identifying as gay has cost me my family and made my homeless for a period of time. It has been over 6 years and none of my family will acknowledge I am alive ... I still send holiday and birthday cards and most of them are returned. In all honesty I have had a very hard life but it is what makes me who I am today and if I had to live though it again I would just to be who I am.

I say these things because I have lived though much. I stand by my school and the AG because it was an AG pastor and family they gave a home to a "homeless fag." How I live now is how I feel God wants me to live.

When it comes down to it I am exploring ex-gay treatment, by my own choice... most people in my real life don’t know. I am fully aware now that there is a guy I want to be with... but I feel now I need to live my life as I am, with out getting "flakey" I honestly feel God this is how God wants me to live. Will this ever change? I don’t know all I know is right now I am living in a way that makes me happy.

-Venari

Daniel

04-17-2006, 10:58 AM

I was in a long term relationship from when I was 15 until I was 23 and another two year relationship after that ... The reason we broke up is inconsequential now. My identifying as gay has cost me my family and made my homeless for a period of time.

Well now. Thanks for the disclosure. The cat is out of the bag. Why did you wait so long to drop this information on your fellow forumites? It certainly adds a new twist to the story- that's for sure.

Of course, no one here needs to know the reasons for why your 7 years of relationship broke up, but I doubt very much that it was inconsequential at the time, was it? If the man was taking care of you- ie you had not means to support youself, and dumped you- well- that a very serious thing. Two stories of my own here:

My husband left home at 18 (West Coast) and came to New York because his mother said she wanted him 'out of the house'. Well he went. He packed up two bags and took the bus to New York. When he got here he had a bag and most of his money stolen- and found himself on the street for about 3 months before he got a job and saved enough money to get a roommate- a very kind older gay man who became his mentor. He didn't speak with his mother for about 10 years after that.

My own story is somewhat different. My first major relationship was with a professor at the school where I did graduate work (he was not one of my instructors). I was 26. For all the good that my parents did for me- sending me to school etc, they really didn't help me much in terms of learning how to make it in the world- that is- as a fully functioning adult in every sense of the word. I really was a lamb. Hiding the fact that I was gay hid a lot of things from me. Long story short: Mr. Boyfriend dumped me after 4 years- I didn't know what hit me. I had moved with him about 6 months earlier, had no job, no way to support myself. It took my a while to get back on my feet. I was blessed. Things worked out. I finally was able to stand on my own two feet. That was liberating- I can tell you. I stopped feeling like a broken wheel that needed propping up. My relationships improved dramatically after that.

I mention all this because life can have many twists and turns. Each of the stories I mention have something in common: the people we thought loved us treated us very badly. This can be- and often is- devastating. I am very sorry that you do not have the love of your family.

I say these things because I have lived though much. I stand by my school and the AG because it was an AG pastor and family they gave a home to a "homeless fag." How I live now is how I feel God wants me to live.

Of course, I'm now playing armchair psycho-man here, but I can only wonder if your motivations for being ex-gay could be to win the love of your family back. That's my projection on the situation, of course. It just seems darn peculiar that you were in a long relationship- and then- boom- now ex-gay.

I am fully aware now that there is a guy I want to be with... but I feel now I need to live my life as I am, with out getting "flakey" I honestly feel God this is how God wants me to live. Will this ever change? I don’t know all I know is right now I am living in a way that makes me happy.

Well..."Here's a Howdy-Do" to quote Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado. I do not wish to make light of your situation, but it would seem, to this casual observer, that you are in quite a pickle.

You're gay identified, want to be 'ex-gay', are attracted to another man, have allegiance to those who have helped you (probably with school) and treat you like family and have a strained relationship with your biological family which you want to win back. Have I got it all? This is what I glean from your words.

Could you possibly have more tension in your life? If you are 'happy' with this state of things, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. Your situation warrants a response that is compassionate. Obviously, those who have helped you have been compassionate towards you. Their compassion, however, doesn't mean that they know what it is like to be gay and christian. I would gather that they do not believe the two words can go together. And I can only wonder what would happen if you were to make your peace with your sexuality. Would those being helpful to you now turn on you?

I would hope not. That is the situation Soulforce endeavors to change.

Zerbie

04-17-2006, 12:50 PM

:(

Oh. My. Word. What a situation, Venari. All too many people are mistreated - including so many of us on this forum. I was thrown out of an apartment by a homophobic landlord who got away with breaking his lease agreement because he didn't want a queer on his property. It was terrifying, and I read all sorts of things into it. Basically the equation: I need a safe place to live and it has just been taken from me because I'm queer. If God wanted me to survive then I would still have the apartment. I do not. Therefore, God does not want queerfolk to survive = God wants *me* destroyed. Scariest thought I ever had.

Took me a while to separate the actions of one nasty landlord from the will of God and stop spinning it in a downward spiral like that.

Not sure why I tell that story - not sure it's relevant to yours.

But it IS true that not enough people are compassionate with those who are different. It is a horrendous shame that your family rejects you.
Please do not give up hope on them. With the coming years, that may change. I hope so. You don't know how sad it makes me to read your story.

You are of course free to explore whatever you wish. I hope you will have a greater freedom to explore the possibility of loving, mutual relationships again, should you want to, without fear of all kinds of reprisals. I pray that you will not suffer unnecessarily in your exploration of ex-gay programs. The little understanding I have of them makes them sound horrendously suspect, even creepy, even dangerous. (Read Wayne Besen's book, "Anything but Straight." You can order it online, tho I bought mine at Borders. Please. Please read it - it's an advocacy piece against ex-gay programs, that will immediately be obvious, but do please read and consider the information in it. Please!)

My great fear for you is that the loving kindness you are receiving from people in your life may be, tacitly, implicitly, conditional upon you being ex-gay. I hope not. I hope I am wrong. I hope that they will embrace you with open arms regardless of how you identify - gay, ex-gay, in-between, whatever. Human beings are social animals. Throughout history, our survival has depended on one another. Losing the love of your community, being outcast, has through long history meant death. It can be terrifying to be rejected and outcast. I hope you will always feel welcome, included, and loved by your community. If God forbid that ever changes, you can always come to us, at any time.

Thanks for sharing with us. It helps a great deal to know where you're coming from when we get into these discussions.

pixeltarian

04-17-2006, 03:14 PM

First off - love people. you love me. I love you. We love God. let's remain happy about that fact durring disscussion, ok guys?

So someone explain this one away for me:

1st corinthians 6:9-11 (NAS)
"8On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. "

I use the new american standard translation because the consensus is that it is the most accurate. it seems pretty cut and dry to me. I am interested to see what is said about this...

~ Jeffrey James

pixeltarian

04-17-2006, 03:17 PM

P.S. the footnote for the word homosexuals is "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts"

tdogg

04-17-2006, 03:31 PM

Pixeltarian, for personal growth and an expansion of knowledge and understanding issues dealing with homosexuality on a historical and spiritual level, I highly recommend the book Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. I can't think of the author at the moment, but I'm sure you won't have any problem finding it.

The time for debate is over, the fight for equality is just beginning....
:weee:

tdogg

04-17-2006, 03:35 PM

...just wanted to say that I'm glad you're here, no matter what you state your current personal opinion on homosexuality to be, you are among friends :love: , and don't think I'm alone when I say that you are on my heart and in my prayers. :pray:

themattperry

04-17-2006, 03:39 PM

Hiya,

Venari has, in other places, been open about his situation to some extent. But this is the first time I've heard the whole story. All I can say is that it sounds incredibly rough .... all God's peace to you Venari!

I'm Lutheran, so I can't resist: one thing that comes tom mind about Venari's statement about the 95 theses and his own senior thesis (which I actually wouldn't mind reading personally) is that Martin Luther ended up leaving the Church (he was excommunicated and then there was a war.)

Maybe we are all just at different points along the same road.

themattperry

04-17-2006, 03:41 PM

Steven E. Webster

04-17-2006, 03:47 PM

Well, so much for the supposed accuracy of this translation!

The two Greek words which they seem to find so easy to define have no such definition. One word means literally "soft" and the other means something like "male F_ _ _ er." The second term is a rather crude term in Greek, and it seems to be a word coined by Paul. As such, we are not sure what he was referring to--something having to do with men and sex of which Paul did not approve.

How the authors of the note in your translation determined that these two words refer specifically to the active and passive partners in consensual homosexual sex is totally impossible to imagine. For one thing the word for or idea of "consent" is no where in the text--they just made that up. Other scholars make just as good (or bad) an argument that the words refer to male prostitutes and their clients. The idea that the two words refer specifically to the acitve and passive partners in male homosexual sex is pure speculation not based on any real knowledge of the Greek text.

Since neither the word nor the concept of "homosexuality" existed in Paul's time, there are no words in Greek or Hebrew that can simply be translated as "homosexual" in the sense that we mean it.

No where does the Bible condemn two persons of the same sex having an adult, consensual, loving, committed relationship including sexual intercourse.

Steven Webster