Dr Gordon Andersons Statement on the Equality Ride

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by Venari

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.)

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Venari

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]

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.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

[tdogg]

...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 , and don't think I'm alone when I say that you are on my heart and in my prayers.

[themattperry]

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]

Originally Posted by tdogg

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....

Excellent book. By John Boswell.

[Steven E. Webster]

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

[keltic63]

Thank You, Steven Webster! that is an excellent post.