Another Adventist Response to the Orlando Mass Shooting

By the Adventist Peace Fellowship, June 16, 2016:
We are devastated by the mass killing of members of the LGBT community in Orlando, Florida. We extend our deepest grief and support to the families, partners and friends of the victims, and we stand in solidarity with individuals and organizations working to combat all forms of hatred, bigotry, violence and intolerance. We also call on church leaders in the Adventist tradition to speak forthrightly to the fact that the slain in Orlando were by every indication targeted not only as an act of terror but also as an act of homophobia by an individual whose hatred was stoked by religious intolerance.
Since 2011, the Adventist Peace Fellowship—a broadly inclusive network that has sought to promote principles of nonviolence and a spirit of dialogue across theological differences—has included on our website a statement about both racial and gender justice. We realize it is a very imperfect document reflecting the fact that we are ourselves an imperfect and often sadly fractured community, but we hope that it might challenge all Adventists to a renewed commitment to the work of peace and justice in a broken world.
The Adventist church emerged at the height of slavery in the United States and was led by a group of young people from New England who embraced the most radical social reforms of their day,[1] including: abolitionism, elimination of class distinctions based upon birth rights, and women’s suffrage. The Adventist pioneers were led by a young woman, Ellen White, who was accepted by the fledgling denomination as possessing a unique prophetic ministry and authority. While the movement was in many ways a hotbed of theological exploration, vigorous debate, and radical thinking, on some questions the pioneers refused to allow for any compromise: White declared that individuals who publically defended slavery should be expelled from the Adventist movement.[2] She also urged Adventists to defy a Federal statute, the Fugitive Slave Law.
Despite these radical beginnings, the Adventist church over time became increasingly socially cautious and disengaged from pressing human rights issues. After an early period in which numerous Adventist women held important leadership roles, male officials increasingly came to marginalize women from leadership positions in the church that was originally led by a woman. During the Civil Rights era in the United States, the movement begun by New England abolitionists remained largely silent in the face of racial injustice. Adventists leaders and members were complicit with apartheid in South Africa and active participants in genocide in Rwanda.[3] Today, many gay and lesbian Adventists[4] are unable to find Adventist congregations where they know they will be treated with full dignity and humanity as persons made in the image of God.
You Are All One in Christ
The APF welcomes actions to repair historical wrongs and to put an end to all forms of violence and discrimination rooted in a refusal to accept the Other at the deepest levels of their personhood. We support women in ministry and at all levels of church leadership. We repent of all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination and seek ways of overcoming divisions based upon injustices of the past. Recognizing the complexity of the theological, scriptural, historical, and cultural questions concerning homosexuality in the Christian tradition—a matter that tragically divides Adventists no less than Catholics, Anglicans, and others—the APF, until such time as we receive greater clarity and consensus: (1) Affirms the dignity and fundamental human rights of all persons regardless of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation; (2) Embraces campaigns and actions aimed at ending all forms of violence, intimidation, harassment, and bullying of persons for their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation; (3) Supports public policies that maintain a clear separation of church (mosque, synagogue, or temple) and state, neither attempting to impose essentially religious or theological understandings upon society as a whole nor penalizing forms of religious expression and association that include their own understandings of sexual ethics; (4) Urges all Adventist churches to serve their communities as places of refuge from threatening, bigoted, and uncompassionate actions and speech; and (5) Encourages respectful, inclusive, and ongoing dialogue between persons with different understandings of what sexual faithfulness within the Body of Christ requires of believers today.
The Adventist Peace Fellowship is an open-membership organization of Adventists who seek to address current issues of war, violence and social justice from the perspective of historic Adventist principles and beliefs. More information about the organization is available at www.adventistpeace.org.
References
[1] https://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2010/04/adventist-pioneers-women-ministry.html
[2] https://www.oakwood.edu/goldmine/hdoc/blacksda/champ/index.html
[3] https://spectrummagazine.org/node/2716
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Seventh-day_Adventism
There are two tragedies included with the Orlando Massacre.
1. The loss of 50 lives.
2. The lifestyle of the victims and possibly the shooter.
Sadly, as I expected, acceptance of the lifestyle of the victims is being framed as an “authentication of sympathy” for the death of these poor souls in Orlando. Adventist Peace Fellowship certainly knows that their proposed phrasology of statement from the SDA church would represent “movement” in the direction of or outright acceptance of homosexuality. What you’re really calling on the church to do is ignore the Bible, or cancel its counsels out by “sanitizing the scriptures” the deal with homosexuality.
Additionally, for those who pledged that the Women’s Ordination movement has no nexus to the Gay Movement, you would have a difficult time making that case based on the construct of this statement from APF. In fact, first we had the WO vote in July, 2015; next we had the Andrews University statement on homosexuality from our “think tank” dated October 9, 2015. This document was said to be “six months in the making”, which would mean that it was being drafted in March/April of 2015. So while opponents of WO were making the case that WO would lead to Gay Acceptance; the Andrews Document was in its formative stages. Had the vote been “yes” at the GC, the Andrews Document would follow in 3 months; taking us immediately to consideration of “the next level”.
Much to comment on in this statement.
Dwayne,
Did not Jesus love the tax collectors and prostitutes, the people scorned by the supposedly righteous? There are many more people who have been directly impacted than the wounded. What about the families of the dead who lost a loved one while disapproving of their lifestyle? Are they not hurting and in need of having God’s sympathies ministered to them?
Jesus was moved with compassion when he saw the suffering of the people. It is those who do not know the transforming love and power of God in their own life who condemn the sins they see in others.
William Noel…
No appeal is needed for me to understand and sympathize with the plight of the families and loved ones of the dead and wounded. I covered that under point #1. Your comments do not address my comments. The question is, is it not enough to just lament and mourn the murder of 49 victims? Why must an acceptance of the gay lifestyle authenticate the heartfelt sympathy anti-homosexual persons have for what those people went through and their families are going through? The media coverage over this massacre has been immense; appropriately fitting the tragedy that it is. However, the slant both in the media, and amongst pro-homosexual Adventists (which proves our system of discipline is kaput) is that people need to accept their lifestyle. It doesn’t matter what people “accept or approve of”, the bible is the ultimate authority. I’ll not let you or APF set the conditions for what constitutes “love.” The truth is if we really “loved” homosexuals, we would encourage them to repent of their sins, because such sins, as well as all other sins, will not enter into heaven. If there is a call for acceptance, as this statement does, then there must be an examination of what is proposed to be accepted. You didn’t condemn APF for calling for acceptance, but instead, my reaction to their call (in a round-about way). APF should be summarily rejected for advocating a lifestyle of sin.
Dwayne,
The clear message in your postings that showing compassion for the victims and their families requires that we immediately condemn their lifestyle. Why do you imagine they would be attracted to our message if we condemned them so quickly? It takes time for people to be drawn to God and learn to trust Him. We must minister His love without condemning because it is when their attraction to Him becomes greater than their attraction to sin that they will repent from their sin. Few modern Christians have any experience with such amazing, persistent love and your repeated statements about telling them about the error of their ways tells me you need more experience with God’s transforming power to learn how to minister redemption to others.
There are far more Adventists who are breaking the 10th commandment than homosexuals. Maybe when there are those who confess their sin of coveting, the homosexual will cease being homosexual?
Who had the temerity to question you when you chose your life partner and mate? Did anyone in the church ask you if you two had been intimate? Is that asked of engaged couples today??? Why would anyone in the church ask a same sex couple in your church such an outrageous and disrespectful question? As the senator asked Joe McCarthy at his infamous inquisition: “At last, sir, do you have no respect”? Do you disrespect the privacy of only certain people? Why is it anyone’s business how two people choose to live? Isn’t it between them and their God?
If we respect the heterosexuals choice and privacy, shouldn’t we extent that to all? Has anyone ever heard a pastor performing a wedding ceremony asking the couple if they are virgins? There’s something about the unusual interest in people’s sex lives that is seen among churches and their members that is not expressed in other areas. Why?
William Noel,
I am sure you are familiar with the term “Straw man argument”. This you have done by assuming what approach I would take towards the gay victims families in a funeral setting. Why do you imagine what my thoughts are? Rather than “imagine”, it would be easier to ask me what my approach would be to the victims families. Of course, it would not be appropriate to speak about the sin of homosexuality in a funeral setting, as it is not the occasion for teaching.
But let me ask you one thing…
You said, “We must minister His love without condemning because it is when their attraction to Him becomes greater than their attraction to sin that they will repent from their sin.”
Are you calling homosexuality a sin? If so, then that would put you at odds with this article. The writers are calling for acceptance of homosexuality. This caused me to write about “how careful” the Orlando Pastors must be, concerning how they address individuals who come to the funeral services. This article is not advocating that gays & their families be merely shown love, in general, in their time of bereavement, and then, over time, “when their attraction to Him becomes greater than their attraction to sin that they will repent from their sin.” This article isn’t even calling “homosexuality” a sin; rather it is calling out those who call homosexuality a sin. And tell me, why isn’t merely comfort and support for the victim’s families the thrust of this…
Elaine,
Gay bars are not exactly private venues. The order today is the law will now respect the most public part of sexual behavior, marriage.
Why don’t we respect the scripture, which cannot be broken. It calls sodomy an abomination.
By the way, covetousness is natural and inevitable. It is the coveting the stuff that belongs to our neighbor that is sin.
Thanks for your well reason and spiritual comment, Dwayne. But you will have little or no impact on this godless group of people in general who support any and all evil in the name of some liberal theology totally and completely outside the biblcial norm.
They embrace a false gospel that attacks the law of with an unrelenting fury and do it all in the name of some kind of “love” that is totally foreign to scripture. None the less, it is the only way Satan can “sell” his agenda of a Universal salvation that is void of any requirement to submit to God’s authority to be saved.
For them, the gospel has totally negated the law as having any relevance to determine who is a Christian, and who is not. In other words, Jesus died and did away with the law. The law at best, is some possible good advice to follow for a better life, but certainly not mandatory to be saved.
I am always glad to see there are still some bible students and Christians who actually do understand the bible and are willing to put their reputation on the line to defend the faith.
Keep the faith.
Bill,
I appreciate your encouragement and your commitment to standing for the right…whether posting on this site or other forums. It is indeed, my goal to stand for the right and also to hold people accountable for positions taken without clear backing from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. Sadly, our conversations do not often include quotes from either inspirational source; but rather “morph” into personal opinion. I have always believed that if one has strongly-held convictions about something, they should have arrived at those convictions based on solid evidence; hence, they should be able to produce that evidence upon demand. On this site you can pose substantive, probative questions to the those on “the other side” of an issue, and sadly, the approach of choice is to pick a statement, half sentence, or minuscule portion of your post and weigh in on that as if it is “larger than life”. I say this to one and all, if what you assert is truth, defend it with fact and not surmising. I promise to do the same. Fear not to acknowledge what you know to be true, rather than ignore it, because you happen to ultimately come down on the opposite side of an issue. When I see comments like Willard Mason’s statement, “she (EGW) held ordination credentials and received the salary of an ordained minister. She repeatedly supported women in ministry in her writings.”, I know there are those who know that such comments have no bearing on the WO debate.
Can sympathy and ethics go together? I say yes. if there be 50 all the way down to 10, asked Abraham of God concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. I feel for one soul that’s killed and much more in this instance. Their perceived sexual orientation doesn’t dilute that. They are human beings. Publicans and sinners flocked to Jesus because of his magnetic spirit of sympathy and compassion, while He was the greatest “ethicist” of His day. I was pondering judgment and justice privately and noticed that God executed judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, nut Lot or some religious zealot. I do not condone what I know about LGBT persons, but would welcome them to my church with public, tactful and open reception and leave punitive judgment to God in His way and in His time.
Every denomination, including Adventism, has sanitized (and continues to sanitize) scripture to one degree or another. Calling for a modernization of attitudes is something Jesus did as well. Most here will claim that he was exercising his authority as god, but modernizing attitudes and interpretations of scripture is something that has been done throughout the history of the church. It was done in the Reformation and, in many ways, by the Pioneers.
Most Christian denominations ignore many of the directives of Jesus and Paul. How many of you go about urging people to remain unmarried, as Paul did? How many of us “take no thought for tomorrow” as we add to our 401(k) Plans and IRA accounts? Who among us have sold all we have and given it to the poor? Sanitizing scripture is what we do.
Not only do we create god in our own image, we fashion our reading of scripture to suit ourselves as well. We all do and we must. We must because scripture does not speak with one voice and with a unity of thought. We pretend it does, but, if you think that, I suggest that you have not read scripture with a clear eye and without presuppositions that presume unity of thought.
An example of “modernizing” Scripture in Adventist heritage is our position on slavery. Early on, Adventists took a position that slavery is sin and refused to baptize slave owners and slave traders. John Byington, the first GC president, operated an Underground Railroad Station on his farm in New York state. That means he broke the Federal law of the time in a kind of civil disobedience. Ellen White wrote that God turned the tide in the first battle of the Civil War against Federal troops because the war was at that time not being fought to free the slaves. Yet, the Bible clearly accepts slavery as OK. Ephesians 6:5 instructs, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters … just as you would obey Christ.” Yet, Adventists supported slaves in running away from their masters. If you read that text in a literal/fundamentalist manner, Adventists were taking an “unbiblical” position. But Ellen White and other leaders saw that it was the right thing.
Additionally,
In Autumn of 2005, the Church of England voted to ordain women as priests. One week later a letter was printed in an Anglican Weekly from the Gay & Lesbian Christian Movement. Addressed towards the Archbishop of Canterbury, it read, “Dear Sir, Please note that all the arguments used for the ordination of women can also be used for the ordination of practising homosexuals.”
If they can see it, why can’t we?
Also, Elizabeth Dias wrote an article for Time Magazine on the increasing acceptance of Homosexuality amongst Evangelicals. She wrote, “So far no Christian tradition has been able to embrace LGBT community without first changing its views about women.”
This is true and this statement by APF should cement the fact that they want the SDA to experience the same metamorphosis.
She also wrote, “In many evangelical communities, the Bible itself is on trial… For many Evangelicals, the marriage debate isn’t really about marriage or families or sex—it is about the Bible itself.”
This too is true and this is why the church must resist all attempts to place people’s personal desires over the Word of God. This statement by APF is yet another fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
Romans 4:3, 4
4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Additionally…. addressed to APF…. whose author is anonymous…
Please write accurately when you write articles. Ellen White did not “lead the pioneers” of the SDA Church. If your going to make a case for women’s ordination, make it based on fact, not grandiose claims. Many of us on this forum, who are totally adept at discussing and parsing the history of the SDA church, just sit back and watch these baseless claims be asserted; simply because it helps to advance the WO argument; whether fact or fiction.
Additionally the APF writer/s wrote, “After an early period in which numerous Adventist women held important leadership roles, male officials increasingly came to marginalize women from leadership positions in the church that was originally led by a woman.”
What does this mean?
What women? What leadership roles? Leadership positions in the church that were originally led by a woman? What leadership positions? Supply the details.
As far as the civil rights movement having kinship with the gay rights movement…. that is comparing apples to oranges. Civil rights are afforded to human beings in general. The recognition of blacks and other minorities as being equally respectable to whites is merely acknowledging that humans of one color are the same as humans of another color. Gay rights go beyond civil rights, in that it demands that non-gays, especially Christians, choose between human freedoms and religious beliefs.
Ellen White “did not lead”??? How can you possibly prove that statement? If anyone provided leadership, certainly she did. And there were people who resisted her testimonies because she was a woman. Read the history carefully and then show us how she “did not lead.”
Monte Sahlin…
I have certainly studied the history of the SDA Church and am well aware of Ellen White’s contribution to the Remnant Church. You’ll find no greater advocate for the writings of Ellen G. White than myself. However, the angle taken in this article and your words about “Ellen White’s leadership” is, as I read it, an attempt to bend her leadership over into Pastoral Ministry territory. She provided spiritual support for God’s church through visions, writings, and counsels, not hands-on, everyday administrative or pastoral leadership. There’s a difference between “providing leadership” and actually being a leader, such as Pastor, Elder, Conference President, Union President etc. She was a conduit through which the Holy Spirit addressed God’s Church as counsels were needed. Hence, she had a spiritual “support role”.
The article said, “Ellen White lead the Adventist Pioneers.”… and you said, “Ellen White provided leadership” But that’s not what the article said. Those are two different statements. Are you willing to support what the article said, “Ellen White lead the Adventist Pioneers”? That statement suggests to me that she was the self-appointed or consensus leader of the Advent movement during its ascendancy, up to organization in 1863.
Ellen White not only was a leader, she was probably the most influential leader in the early SDA church and she held ordination credentials and received the salary of an ordained minister. She repeatedly supported women in ministry in her writings.
There is a difference between “Ellen White lead the pioneers” and “providing leadership”??? Why are you splitting hairs so much over terminology? Does that not indicate a weakness in your logic? Ellen White was clearly a leader in the Adventist Church. She held credentials as an Ordained Minister most of her adult life, voted at GC Sessions again and again. You may say, There was no ceremony of laying on of hands. But, when did James White have a ceremony of laying on of hands? If you think she was not involved in the day-to-day administration of the church, you need to read the letters and documents in the file. She was in on virtually every administrative decision of the time. To say that she was not a leader is simply nonsense. Be honest about this; women exercised leadership in the early days of the Adventist movement. The so-called “headship doctrine” (whether or not it is biblical or God intentions for this time) is a recent invention borrowed from the Southern Baptists. It is not in the history and heritage of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Bro. Sahlin…
Words matter. Saying, “Ellen White lead the pioneers” is different than saying, “She provided leadership”. And what do you mean, “She was in on virtually every administrative decision of the time.” What does “in on” mean, in this context? To describe her involvement that way implies that she acted as an advisor to the GC President, or Counsel to the GC Secretary, or Special attache to the Executive Committee. What does “in on” mean?
Furthermore, I do not deny she was “a leader”; I do deny that she was “the leader”. I asked you previously if you are willing to support APF’s assertions that she was “the leader of the Adventist pioneers”. The offer still stands. To bolster my claims that APF’s claims are absolutely false, I will reiterate what they asserted in a connected statement contained in the following paragraph.
They stated, “After an early period in which numerous Adventist women held important leadership roles, male officials increasingly came to marginalize women from leadership positions in the church that was originally led by a woman.”
Word’s Matter!
Can anyone see this statement as being anything other than a claim that Ellen White originally led the SDA Church? This use of superlatives does a disservice to the argument; quite like the claim that the 1881 GC Session might well have approved women’s ordination by their “referred back to committee” tag placed on the motion.
Did anyone at the 1881 Session speak against the motion? Is anyone on record against the motion? Why does the other original co p y of the minutes not include the referral note? What evidence is there that referral to committee in 1881 meant anything other than implementation? If the 1881 resolution on ordination of women was unbiblical, Why did the Holy Spirit say nothing to EGW? If the resolution was not seen by the delegates as a consensus, Why did they go home and start issuing licensed minister credentials to the women working as clergy in their conferences?
The 1881 resolution was not much of an issue. That is why it disappears down the memory hole and the only reason the advocates of WO can try to resurrect it as a great, barely missed, opportunity. It was more than likely an embarrassment to the deliberating bible literalists. The headship texts are not obscure, they have been universally understood to exclude women from structured leadership of almost everything Christian, certainly the church structure itself, and it gets wearisome listening to the prevarications and delusional speculations of the revisionists about the 1881 non-event.
The notions of radical equality between the sexes were nowhere near emerging as political issues, let alone as bogus theological issues, in 1881. It was a priori that women were relationally subordinate to men. It was a point of law. The some of problems associated with the legal doctrine of coverture was just starting to be discussed.
Monte, if you were a historian, I would warn you about Dante’s lowest circle of hell being reserved for lying revisionists who hijack history and distort it to their own political ends. Let’s just leave it that those historical revisionists are falsifiers in danger of judgment. They have betrayed their profession.
Being a people of peace includes speaking out for minorities and outcasts.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the gays, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not gay.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak up for me.”
As the horrific events in Orlando unfolded this past week, like all Americans of good will, we reacted with horror and dismay. It was a time for expression of total solidarity with the LGBT community and the city of Orlando, as well as yet another moment to ask why military-style assault weapons are so readily available in our country.
We have witnessed a horrendous terrorist attack motivated, in part or in whole, by radical Islamic ideology. The killer was known to the FBI, and made clear his sympathy for Islamic State.
In response, we need to grasp the essential fact that our enemy is a worldwide belief system that views our civilizational values as worthy targets — and uses terrorism to advance its goals.
Thus, gays, Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Baha’i, Muslims, journalists, cartoonists, police officers, soldiers, women, and other symbols of an open, pluralistic, and tolerant society have all been in the crosshairs of the foot soldiers of this warped mindset.
We need to name the foe for what it is, and not dance linguistically around it. It is radical Islamic ideology. No, it is not just “hatred” or “violent extremism,” and its deadly assaults can’t be reduced, as some have sought to do in various instances, to such misguided notions as “workplace violence,” “road rage,” or the “politics of grievance.” The deliberate targeting and killing of innocent people in the name of a belief system cannot be rationalized or contextualized. Terrorism is terrorism.
I don’t plan to attend sabbath services tomorrow.
It seems to me that tomorrow’s services are likely to take one of three paths. 1) Ignore the call to address the subject of immigration 2 Listen to a pastor or conference officer tell the laity what to do in that regard 3) have a discussion on the subject.
In my not-very-humble opinion, the first choice would be the best. I’m not much interested in anyone telling me what to do. I don’t even want to be there if the “discussion” is about politics.
I first jumped into the political arena with both feet in the late 1970s. I have written letters to elected officials every or almost every year from then until last year and have visited elected political officials in their offices and testified before committees of the legislature and one city council meeting. I am NOT opposed to adventists or any other Christians being involved in the political arena.
At the same time, I expect my future participation in “church” activities to be inversely proportional to the extent that meetings in SdA church buildings are about political issues. I don’t think most SdA in North America even know what “religious liberty” is anymore.
As far as I am concerned, to the extent that “Adventist Peace Fellowship” is political, it isn’t even adventist. And that would be just as true if its political goals were the opposite of what they are.
I don’t know much about Adventist Peace Fellowship. I admire radical pacifists who live and speak freely only because of soldiers with guns who fight and have fought to protect the freedom of naive Westerners to denounce the military.
But there are few who have integrity. They seem to speak a very garbled gospeldygook. For example, where in the statement was there a denunciation of religions that advocate execution of those who practice deviant sexuality. Where was
there a denunciation of religions that advocate stoning for adultery? Where was there a denunciation of religions that advocate death for apostasy, or religions that issue fatwas against those who speak
ill of Islam or its prophet? I could go on and on. But you see what I am driving at?
Why does APF suggest that we should be tolerant and loving toward a religion that is a breeding ground for the violence APF purports to abhor? There are at least tens of
millions of Muslims who cheer the Death to
America chants. There is evil in the world. And there are evil people who will fill power vacuums. How does APF suggest that we respond to these realities? And why doesn’t APF raise its voice in condemnation of the primitive theocratic soil which germinates and grows violence?
Is it possible to condemn the actions of the shooter without condoning a lifestyle with which many Adventists disagree with? Absolutely. Was Jesus able to eat and celebrate with ‘sinners and tax collectors’ without condoning actions that broke the Law of Scripture? Absolutely. (See Mark 2:15) Jesus was able to see past actions and lifestyles that were contrary to Scripture and see the intrinsic worth of every human life. This shooting is not an issue of sexual orientation. This is not ultimately an issue of religion or Islamic extremism. This is an issue of sin and brokenness, of evil run rampant in the world and the loss of fifty intrinsically valuable human lives. It doesn’t matter if the victims were LBGTQ or a convent of nuns, a group of world leaders or a homeless community. Every single life on this planet, irregardless of race, religion, creed, socio-economic status or sexual orientation is absolutely precious. Every life lost is a tragedy. If Christians can’t “mourn with those who mourn” (Romans 12:15) because we differ on political, religious or sexual issues, the problem lies with us, not them.
This is an opportunity to show the other-worldly love of Jesus. Let’s lay down our condemnation and judgment towards a segment of society that we typically disagree with and mourn with them. Let’s not be angry at them. Let’s be angry for them. Christians have an opportunity to show love and compassion to two groups of people that we have historically alienated.
I was 100% with you, Sam, until the last sentence. I assume the two groups you reference are the LGBT community and Muslims. By suggesting we (Christians) have historically alienated them, you resurrect the identity group thinking that you sought to transcend in your earlier comments. Besides, I think you are just wrong. What could possibly possess you to think that we (Christians) are responsible for Muslim alienation from Christians? Oh yes, how could I forget? – The Crusades. Perhaps that also explains their alienation from Jews and all other non-Muslims.
Of course, they want to destroy Western Civilization, and impose barbaric punishments for moral wrongs. But why should these be a source of alienation. We just need to dialogue with them and respect their way of life. And then they will be tolerant of us. After all look how well Pesident Obama’s Cairo speech has worked to build mutual trust and respect.
As for alienating the LGBT community…Of course it’s our fault. Why should we object to them commandeering the levers of government to force normalization of their lifestyle and values on our communities and children? If only we would give up our values and morals, I’m sure we’d stop alienating either the LGBT community.
But perhaps you and APF can help me understand how reconciling ourselves to the Muslims is compatible with reconciling ourselves to the LGBT community. I’m having a tough time wrapping my head around that idea.
I posted my earlier comment on this thread because the article at the top of the page seems to be advocating political activism by adventists. By this time of day–It’s 5:30pm in Maine–most of the adventist congregations in the U.S. have ended their worship services. How many of you can tell me which of those three things happened where you attended services? 1) The General Conference “directive” regarding immigration was ignored 2) lay members were told what they should do about it or 3) there was a discussion of the subject. In those places where there was a discussion, did it turn into a political discussion?
I’m a protestant so I’m just wondering whether I need to protest and, if so, what form my protest should take.
I’m all ears, Roger. I didn’t know about any G.C. directive regarding immigration. Tell us about it.
Nathan,
There was an article about it on AT a while back. If you have trouble finding it, I’m not sure how soon, but I might have time to try to figure out which issue.
In January, my wife and I moved over 2,000 mi. from where our membership is. Yesterday I got an email from one of our friends back in Michigan. It seems that yesterday’s service there WASN’T on the subject of immigration.
I think there is some confusion, Roger. The GC asked that Sabbath, June 18, include a focus on refugees, not immigration. I know that there are some who tend to mix the two categories out of a generally negative attitude toward all outsiders, but there is big difference between the issues around immigration policies of governments and rescuing refugees who are fleeing for their lives. The majority of refugees never immigrate, although some are resettled in countries other than where their homes used to be.
I have nothing against this statement from the peace group and can generally support it. But it seems to target the wrong enemy in the first line. The shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS. Now maybe the Peace Fellowship can give us direction on how to handle the terrorism problem. I wrestle with it and don’t come up with any answers. ISIS doesn’t respond to love in any language. We can only help their victims as we can without risking others.How that is done, I don’t know.
EM et al,
Maybe other people understand the ideal of loving our enemies differently than I do but it seems to me that one way to do that is to try to keep in mind the difference between the person (or group of people) whose actions are opposed to our own ideals vis-a-vis that person or those people himself/themselves.
If “the enemy” is an organization dedicated to the overthrow of of those governments that exist to protect our liberty, can we make a distinction between the organization (or its “leaders”) vis-a-vis the people who are being recruited to carry out terrorist attacks and the people who, without being “recruited” per se, are nevertheless inspired by the hate such an organisation is fostering?
I understand the temptation to try to involve members of a religious group in political discussions. I’m tempted to do it myself. For me, however, it is important to keep churches out of the political arena (except with regard to religious liberty issues) and keep politics out of churches.
If we are going to do that–keep politics in one sphere and religious beliefs, religious practices and religious prohibitions in a separate sphere–the “answer” we (as a group–whether you mean adventists as a group or Christians as a group) can offer is the principle that it is inappropriate to use coercion with regard to religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions.
Roger,
This discussion about how to balance faith and fighting hate reminds me of how Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf answered a reporter’s question before launching Operation Desert Storm: their job wasn’t to decide if Muslims would go to heaven or hell, their job was to arrange the meeting.
Sometimes you can love your enemy and sometimes all you can do is destroy them so those who remain will be afraid to attack you.
William,
I thought I knew enough about Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf’s attitudes to be quite confident that he might make such a statement about “our enemies” without including all Muslims in such a statement. Can you provide a reference or were you just paraphrasing from memory?
William Noel writes: “Sometimes you can love your enemy and sometimes all you can do is destroy them so those who remain will be afraid to attack you.”
Your version of Christian theology is an unsurprising perversion of the Biblical principles found in Proverbs 25:21-22 and Matthew 5: 43-46.
I am now convinced that those two texts are prime examples of what ideologues of a certain persuasion call “politically correct.”
First paragraph should have read, “…the actions of the people vis-a-vis the people themselves.”
Roger: as you state, we are individually commanded to Love our enemies; but wrestle powers, principalities, the rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places.
Likewise: the Church belongs to GOD, a place for us to reverence HIM; agreed without our individual ideologies of politics.
But can we keep evil out of politics or churches? Does the sphere not belong to HIM? Are we not on this sphere because of and for HIM; likewise the Body? Can we separate that sphere? Does an organization “dedicated to the overthrow of of those governments that exist to protect our liberty” rate political or religious?
We know we are HIS and the whole world lies in wickedness from 1 John 5:19.
1 Kings 3:
11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;
12 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.
We know what it takes to be a good ruler, like no other; should we not promote such? Does the separation of church and state not infer that the state cannot interfere with the church, not the other way around?
” Does the separation of church and state not infer that the state cannot interfere with the church, not the other way around?”
It works both way, obviously. If the church can interfere with the civil government. then the same is true the other way around.
As individual citizens of the church, and as individual citizens of the state, we can participate in either, or both if we so choose. But they can not interfere with each other on any corporate level. The church can not tell the civil government what to do, and the civil government can not tell the church what to do. And this is the only viable meaning of separation of church and state. You have two independent governing powers that may acknowledge each other and even work together on some level, but neither can state a directive for the other.
I disagree with you conceptually, Bill. The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It gives no power to the government to mute the voice of religion in the civic arena. In fact, it goes on to protect freedom of speech.
Of course the government does indirectly constrain religious freedom by conditioning benefits, such as tax exemption, on religious organizations giving up some civic freedoms – like promoting candidates for public office. Even the much balleyhooed extra- constitutional concept of church- state separation has not been used to silence the church’s voice on political issues. So the First Amendment only limits the power of the government – not the voice of the church.
Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the SDA Church, with a few regrettable lapses (alcohol and tobacco legislation) has wisely concluded that the banner of Christ should not be carried into the political arena. I fully support individual members and groups like APF exercising the political rights guarantees to them under the Constitution. But church members will often find themselves in vigorous disagreement about such issues and I firmly believe that, while it is fine to debate this issues as citizens of earthly kingdoms, when we come together in Kingdom revealing communities of faith and love, our passion and commitment to following Christ is severely compromised by political battles.
Conviction,
We are dealing with several questions here: 1) The role of a Christian in the political arena 2) The role of a Christian organization in the political arena 3) The role of civil government in our personal lives 4) The role of the government in religious organizations.
As already indicated, I am not opposed to Christians, as individuals, participating in the political process. I believe it is best for any Christian ORGANIZATION to be involved in the political arena only on the subject of NOT legislating religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions. My personal political philosophy is that it is best to work to minimize the role of civil government in our personal lives. That philosophy works both ways. If I don’t want the government telling me what I must do and what I must not do, I need to vote against the use of civil laws to tell other people what they must or must not do. The ideal would be for government to impose NO restrictions on religious organizations except those imposed on any other kinds of organizations but that government policy would only be appropriate if religious organizations were to pay the same taxes as other businesses. If I wouldn’t want another religious organization (or consortium of religious organizations) to influence the government in ways I oppose, the Golden Rule prohibits me from using a religious organization to promote my particular political philosophy or religious beliefs, religious practices or religious
Nathan Schilt on June 19, 2016 at 12:07 pm said
“I disagree with you conceptually, Bill. The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It gives no power to the government to mute the voice of religion in the civic arena. In fact, it goes on to protect freedom of speech…Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the SDA Church, with a few regrettable lapses (alcohol and tobacco legislation) has wisely concluded that the banner of Christ should not be carried into the political arena.”
“Regrettable lapses” Please explain, Brother Nathan, what you mean by this very definitive phrase.
Is Pope Francis correct when he says that “A good Catholic Christian meddles in politics”.?
With the 2014 elections around the corner, is it time to commence the meddling?
Thanks, Sam, for your question. Just saw it. I completely agree with Roger’s comments. And I also agree with Pope Francis. As individual citizens of an earthly “we the people” kingdom, with a Christian world, I think we have a responsibility – at least a legitimate interest – to make this kingdom a better place. We are likely to have robust disagreements about how this should be done, and how our values should be prioritized. But the church exists for one purpose – to advance the Kingdom of God. When the church qua church becomes political, it distracts from its mission and divides the body of Christ. It has no business using its voice to politically advance religious positions. And certainly it should not be using its influence to promote general civic well-being.
Do you really want to see the Church pushing for legislation regulating consumption of unhealthful foods and substances? Where would the church stop – human trafficking, child abuse, environment, immigration, marriage and divorce laws?
When I see you in church, I want us to be brothers in Christ, devoted to Kingdom agendas. If you insist on bringing your LGBT values, open borders, sanctuary church agendas into our faith community, I will either leave or ask that you leave. I will wholeheartedly support your right to advance these agendas in your capacity as a fellow citizen, even if I am on the opposite side. But please, let’s leave them outside the door of the corporate church.
That should read “with a Christian world view” – not a “Christian world.”
It always disturbs me when the issue of homosexuality is discussed. I feel bad because it appears that everyone but me has already found the right answers, the right judgment, and the right punishment.
But, much more disturbing is the fact that most people who I see making extremely assertive comments on the issue completely ignore the physiological facts that neuropsychological and psychological research has learned in the past few years about the functioning processes that take place in the gay brains.
I rarely see people focusing on the extremely important difference between “nature” and “nurture.” To be and to do are two very different aspects to be considered when dealing with the homosexual condition.
And, maybe the worst, I rarely see mental health professionals being heard about an issue that they may specialize in. They are just ignored. For example, consider the conference that took place in Cape Town in the beginning of 2015 (if I am not mistaken). How many mental health professionals were heard at that time? Apparently NONE! And, of course, the results of that conference were hijacked and a different report was presented by Ted Wilson later on at the GC meetings.
So, the whole thing appears to be nothing but a farce, an attempt to impose personal biased ideas – at the cost of totally ignoring the real data available in our days. I am not defending homosexual behavior. I am saying that the Church and the “non-experts” who are vomiting
(Continued) judjgement and punishment on the gays should at least get some education on the issue, or listen to those who can speak with expertise on it.
The way it’s been done so far only reveals bias against a large group of human beingcs, created by God, that have a different brain structure and functioning. Everyone appears concerned with volunteering their personal opinions without considering that God’s current creation still includes human beings, and that all aspects of His creation should be acknowledged, and respected. If God creates humans with what we call “gay brains,” who are we to get involved in the discussion that belongs only to the gays and to God?
George Tichy,
This is what’s gone so very wrong for our church… the idea you are advancing advances the notion that “the scientific world” should be an equal, if not dominant player in how we derive our understanding of behavior and/or the mind. God is our Sovereign God and our Creator. Only scientific conclusions that corroborate the Bible should be accepted as fact. Behavioral scientists cannot care two rats about what the Bible says. I’ve had this battle with you and others on the other forum. Though it was not you, someone went so far as to conclude that when science says one thing about an issue, and the Bible says the opposite, science should get the nod.
Now we hear about “gay brains” vs. I guess, “straight brains”…. that’s just utterly ridiculous! I guess, after reading the word of God concerning homosexuality, we should sit down with the latest “neuropsychological and psychological research” and compare the two. If then, we see that there are such things as “gay brains”, then we should just take the verses in God’s Word that speak against homosexuality and chalk it up to God needing ” a little more education on the creatures He created”. I’m obviously being facetious, but I see it as, the height of disrespect to the sources of inspiration God blessed us with, to suggest that organizations that do not confess God as the center of all knowledge, should play an important, if not dominant role in our understanding of behavior.
Continuing….
This is the same kind of rationale advanced by the Psychology professors at PUC, who have resigned in droves because they could not have full latitude (called “Academic Freedom”) to teach their fields’ standards and values.
On April 6th, Fiona Bullock resigned from her post as BSW Program Dir. and Assoc. Prof. of Social Work at PUC, attributing her actions as being a response to “the lack of compatibility between Academic Freedom and my ability to teach the social work values of diversity, compassion, inclusion, and acceptance as outlined by NASW and CSWE is at the heart of it.”
As outlined by NASW and CSWE? What about the word of God? What gives her the impression that the values of NASW and CSWE societies are to be taught at an SDA School? This is just blatant disrespect for God’s remnant church. But, I think I know how she came to that conclusion… the amount of questioning what we believe that goes on today in the church, coupled with the fact that you can live and teach contrary to what the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy teaches, without concern of reprimand or discipline, has lead us to where we are today.
Also, please see the comment section under this article in the Huff Post. It will prove what I was saying about how the “free funeral” offers must be approached cautiously; as homosexuals are looking for endorsements; not just acts of kindness.
Google “Churches Offer To Host Free Funerals For Victims Of Orlando Shooting”
“As outlined by NASW and CSWE? What about the word of God?”
You might want to checkout LLU dept of psychiatry to see what standard of care are they teaching their psychiatric residents regarding homosexuality? Hold on to your chair, then you may confer with Pastor Ted Wilson and register your concerns.
“I’ve had this battle with you and others on the other forum.”
Dwayne Turner,
The good thing is that I do not remember having a “battle” with you, or anyone else, about this issue. Isn’t it great?
It’s obvious that you have your opinions well established, and that you already declared that whatever knowledge that can be obtained by studying the environment or any part of God’s creation is a knowledge that you don’t care about, a knowledge that should be dismissed.
Unfortunately (or, actually, fortunately!) I cannot share the same approach as yours, especially due to professional reasons. I work with people every single day, people who need help to manage their psychological world. If I just dismissed the knowledge about human nature and behavior for poor reasons like those you presented, I would never be able to be a competent professional. When I say “poor reasons,” it has nothing to do with Biblical information – please do not assume I am referring to the Bible.
Fortunately, I am in no need to “battle” you or anybody on this issue. Also, I cannot dismiss and ignore some basic postulates and research results because some people oppose to consider research findings. This would be as absurd as well, it would just be ignorance and arrogance winning again.
Be well.
Nicely put, George. We are held captives to the ignorant prejudices of primitive peoples, because other primitives decided to label those expressions “scripture” and “the Word of God.” We have abandoned vast amounts of their beliefs, but cling stubbornly to others.
Sam, Nathan, et al,
Sam, Nathan, et al,
How wide is the narrow slice of the political spectrum it is appropriate for our denomination to address in the political arena AS AN ORGANISATION?
The “regrettable lapses” Nathan mentioned were related to alcohol and tobacco. Nathan can probably answer the question better than I can. His not having answered it thus far, however, here is how I consider those to be “regrettable lapses”.
Liberty is “indivisible”. All liberty issues are interrelated. To the extent that we (as individuals or as groups) fail to urge the liberty of those whose lifestyles we oppose, the liberties that are important to us are placed in jeopardy. I oppose the use of alcoholic beverages and the use of tobacco AND it is important to oppose the use of government to impose my teetotaling lifestyle on others. “Regrettably”, officers of our denomination have sometimes represented themselves a speaking for all members of our denomination in FAVOR of restrictions or taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.
Those who argue that such issues are “health issues”–not “religious” per se need to remember that, at times, Sunday closing laws have been represented as “health issues”.
“A good Catholic Christian meddles in politics.”
It could easily be argued that Pope Francis meant to imply that adherents of the Roman Church should use the political process to impose the doctrines of the Roman Church on the general population of the countries in which they live.
Is it asking too much to suggest that we should be careful to not impugn the motives of others–not even the pope? He concluded his remarks as follows: “So we give the best of ourselves, our ideas, suggestions, the best, but above all the best is prayer. Let us pray for our leaders, that they might govern well, that they might advance our homeland, might lead our nation and even our world forward, for the sake of peace and of the common good.”
Dwayne Turner advises, “Only scientific conclusions that corroborate the Bible should be accepted as fact”. He charges that some people are putting scientific education on par with, or above the Word of God.
Let me ask: what about situations in which the Bible is silent? How much psychological and neuropsychological guidance can be found in the Bible to assist with our mental and emotional problems?
Kindly read for me the second part of Numbers 5, beginning from verse 11. If a man suspected that his wife was unfaithful to him, and had sexual intercourse with another man, he could take her to the priest, who would administer to her a concoction of dust from the floor of the tabernacle, mixed with holy water and some bitter substance. She had to take a vow and drink the concoction. She was told, if she was innocent, she would be alright; but if she was guilty, her belly would swell, and her legs would rot away.
Was not this a fine way to establish the guilt, or innocence of a suspect;and to satisfy the suspicion and jealousy of a husband? Even an innocent wife would be lucky if the dust laden mixture did not have enough germs in it to make her very sick.But this was applied psychology, theBible way.
There are times when we have to put modern scientific knowledge ahead of the Bible; or do we go back to the time when any sickness or disability was caused by demon-possession? When the Bible said long ago that knowledge would increase, that is what it was talking…
Those who are honestly interested in learning something more about the brain functioning as related to the issues discussed here would benefit significantly from reading this book:
“We Are Our Brains,”/b by D. F. Swaab
(Dr. Swaab is a very knowledgeable neuro-scientist)
Those who already made their mind that they don’t want to learn anything besides their own “expertise” may just ignore the recommendation.
Ok George,
As the “unnamed, but obvious target of your “Those who already made their mind that they don’t want to learn anything besides their own “expertise” may just ignore the recommendation” statement, I have accepted your challenge to read the “learn something more about the brain functioning as related to the issues discussed here” material you recommended, written by Dr. Dick Swaab. I am an ardent researcher and will not stop until I get the most germane answers/evidence to settle a question/issue raised. Not being educated in your field of study, I have to rely upon the conclusions/synopsis of the “experts” as they seek to relay to the “laymen” the importance of their findings. You would agree that no one undertakes lengthy research periods without wanting to relay their findings to all; in and out of their profession. Once they issue their “bottom line”, if they assert that they have reached “conclusive findings”, I will take it from there. The research may be hard to compare with scripture, but the assertions from the conclusions are not. I don’t know that you would expect someone to actually purchase the book you recommended… but that’s where I am more “selective”, as money is involved. But, what I have found relies upon the corroborated online synopsis of those who 1. Have read the book and 2. Are adept to be able to speak to his research. I reiterate that I have read several synopsis of the book.
To be continued…
Nathaniel Moore…
In the brief time that I have been posting on this site I think you might, by now, have a sense that I don’t make nonsensical claims, not backed up by fact. I didn’t “charge” that “some people are putting scientific education on a par with, or above the Word of God”, I participated in a discussion on what can be best described as “the sister site” of this website on the subject of the conflict between our beliefs and science. It was stated to me that, “given a conflict between what we teach and what science says on the same subject, science should get the nod.”
George Tichy…
Why, tell me why must every discussion where there’s disagreement, morph into “straw man arguments”? No where in my comments did I dismiss science altogether. What I have stated is that when there is a conflict between science and the Bible, the Bible must be believed and science must be dismissed. As you very well know, but choose to ignore, is that I am merely dealing with moral questions; questions of right and wrong.
God will not share the “drivers seat” when it comes down to questions of right and wrong, and we have no right, as professed “believers in God”, to suggest that He does. I was commenting on the “gay brain” science you raised. All of us know that, at the end of the day, even if we aren’t equipped to examine the scientific processes used to form conclusions, they will come down on the side of “God made some people that…
Continuing…
Full Statement: “God made some people that way”!
What do you expect from the scientific world that doesn’t acknowledge God as sovereign over all. I believe its an insult to God that His people would make His word as a “starting point” in a discussion and not an “end point”.
Back to Nathaniel Moore…
Numbers 5 has no bearing on anything today as it was a part of the Civil Laws that governed Israel of Old; in the days of God leading by Theocracy.
For a thousand years, officers of the Roman Church used the Bible to “prove” that the world was flat. When scientific evidence was presented, the answer was that the promulgation of any scientific theory “contrary to the Bible” should be prohibited. Why?
Because the Roman Church officers liked to promote the doctrine that hell was a place “under” the earth.
I refer to certain activities as “homosexual”. I don’t refer to PEOPLE as “homosexual”. I don’t subscribe to supposedly “scientific” theories on that subject. At the same time, religion is a way of trying to make sense of the universe and true faith IS the evidence of things not seen–all of the evidence, not just the way I currently understand the Bible.
It is appropriate for ANYONE who is paid–even in part–from tithe funds to be prohibited from teaching certain things (Sunday sacredness or the natural immortality of the soul, for example) but maybe it is way past time for us to make a clear distinction between the clergy (paid from tithe funds) and university professors who shouldn’t be paid from tithe funds.
No institution should be called a “university” that is dedicated to indoctrination–whether theological or supposedly scientific. If a professor in such an institution is under constraints to avoid presenting ANY evidence on ANY subject, that institution is not a university.
Dwayne Turner,
You replied that you did not “charge” that some people are putting scientific education on par with, or above the Word of God.
I’m sorry if “charge” was the wrong word. Let me then use the word,”observed”, or “opined”or “lamented”; if not, then what is the point you are making in your comment,posted on June 21,at 3:41pm? What is obvious to me is that the main point I profferred in my comment has completely eluded you.
Dwayne, I admire how you know the mind of God so well! You know what God likes, and what He dislikes; what He would do and what He would not do; but let me tell you why I think there are situations in which it is safer to trust scientific conclusions than the Bible.
In the Bible, a prophet may claim that he received messages from God: another prophet accuses him of lying. It eventually turned out that one of them is a false prophet. There are more than one examples of this in the Bible . The point is that not everyone who claims to be speaking for God is telling the truth. People can believe God is speaking to them; but that is only their belief. Moses believed that God wanted him to wipe out the nations of Canaan; but what we experience of God does not lead us to think of Him as a blood thirsty monster. With all the evils around us today, God is not asking any of us to destroy any of the nations.
Did Joshua make the sun stand still? If the sun stops, or the earth stops spinning, what will happen to the earth and its…
What will happen to the earth and its contents?
Dwayne’s reply is that” Numbers 5 has no bearing on anything today”.; but it does have a bearing on how people perceive inspiration, and communication between God and humans. Was it really God who dictated that dangerous formula to Moses, in order totest whether a woman is faithful or not to her husband? That is strictly ritualistic, more like magic; the type of prescription we never associate with God. This kind of thinking is in keeping with the level of knowledge of that time.
I don’t think that the Bible intended to instruct us in all areas of our life, and that is why it assures us that knowledge will be increased. And the increase is in both quantity and quality; and that is why at some point we must expect the Bible to take a back seat, in some areas, to more modern and relevant information; and whether we like it or not, that is what is going to happen!
You see, lots of people do not realise that God continues to inspire good and willing people; and that a host of the products of modern technology and wisdom are gifts from Him. These include the TV,the internet and supersonic travel. God provides for His creation, and if man abuses any of His gifts, that is not His fault, nor does it negate that He is the Provider. God’s revelation goes way beyond the Bible. Take it, or leave it.
George Tichy…
Below are some of the salient assessments of Swaab’s research, that are at odds with what the Word of God says. I am drawing heavily from the book review of Dr. Jon Day on telegraph.co.uk.; but have read 5 other reviews which are consistent.
His basic premise on human behavior is:
1. He thinks that everything from gender identity to sexual orientation to a propensity for schizophrenia is neurologically determined in utero.
2. Swaab presents his thesis as a liberating and liberalising doctrine. If people are neurologically “programmed” to be gay or straight then condemning them for their sexual orientation is immoral, and trying to “cure” them is doomed to failure. If people are born good or bad then we should give up on the idea of incarceration as punishment.
3. Swaab argues that free will is an illusion…
4. People are born bad or good, mad or sad, and there’s little we can do to change them.
5. Swaab believes mothers who smoke or take drugs or are stressed during pregnancy are more likely to have gay children.
6. Predictably, for a fan of Dawkins and Dennett, he’s down on religion.
Dr. Day concludes, “Swaab presents himself as a taboo-breaking provocateur and much of what he says is intriguing. But his arguments are ill-served by his strident, schoolboyish contrarianism. They’re also fatally undermined by insufficient evidence. The only scientific studies he cites in We Are Our Brains are his own.”
Comments…
Reviews are alway nice, sure. The best about them is that every reviewer can write reviews acconding to their personal biases and still find a big crowd of followers who will support them (either way).
I don’t care about reviewers. In my profession I have to get the reseach first hand and study it in an unbiased way – not to end as bised as the reviewers and their followers. I can’t just read a review and the same day write my opinions on the reseacher and my conclusions about his/her study. This would be too simplistic if not unprofessional and unethical.
Therefore, since I can only talk about oranges, and you about apples, the obvious conclusion is that we will never speak the same language. Which means that you should stick to your positions and I have to stick to the results of my study.
I literally deal with people’s lives on a daily basis, and cannot afford to compromise their integrity as human beings. It’s unfortunate, though, that some people do that in the name of religion – which is, to say the least, irresponsible, unethical, and immoral.
Don’t slide away George…
That doesn’t answer the points that I raised. I was a stone’s throw away from purchasing the book on Amazon… not because I am so motivated by the challenge… but because such books as Dr. Swaab’s are the books providing the basis for people believing that they were “born gay” and cannot change. Until now, I have only been aware of the concept that’s “out there”, without knowing who the players are that have created the motus operandi. Obviously, the book best speaks for itself… but a collection of 6 reviews, each one drawing mostly the same conclusions… leads me to believe that I have gotten a pretty good overview of the book’s content. It doesn’t take very long to locate the conclusions of one’s research; so sorry if you think that your many years of education in this area must warrant that I spend longer than 1 day to understand a synopsis of one of your admired studies. A synopsis is written for just that purpose: Understanding.
Yet you, who have, I take it, read the book, do not wish to confirm; one way or another as to the accuracy of my findings and the comparisons between its assertions and our faith. Your attitude appears to be… “If you don’t conclude what I conclude, I won’t waste my time with you.” That’s disrespectful; but also your right!
I will take it that your unwillingness to respond is a tacit admission of the truthfulness of my posting… unless proven otherwise.
Continuing…
I started to craft a detailed rebuttal; showing extensively where the Bible is at odds with the conclusions of Dr. Dick Swaab, but I would like to believe that just a tacit overview of our beliefs would be sufficient to deal with his conclusions. I am answering based on my 6 points from my previous post.
Point #1.
This reasoning provides the impetus for claim, “I was born that way”. It is just one step away from, “God made me that way”. Why would God make someone to be something He condemns in His word?
Point #2.
This flies in the face of all we believe about revival, reformation, sanctification, transformation of character etc.. “Paul” would have been doomed to remain “Saul” under Swaab’s theory. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 1 Cor. 5:17
Point #3.
A. Joshua…. choose ye this day whom ye will serve..
B. Moses…. Who is on the Lord’s side?
C. Elijah… How long halt ye between two opinions?
These appeals indicate “Free will”.
Point #4. See #2
Point #5.
With nearly 3 percent of the U.S. population being gay and certainly a much higher percentage of pregnant mothers smoking or taking drugs, it would appear that we should have many more gays in society.
Point #6.
Is that any surprise? What’s more surprising is that any endorsement would be given by a believer to this non-believer’s theories.
God or…
“These appeals indicate “Free will”.”
Cite me one study, outside of church publication, where a homosexual “free-willed” himself from homosexuality to heterosexuality.
This will be interesting, because for years I have been looking for any reliable, honest, reputable source providing such an evidence – but have never found any that could meet the criteria.
Yes, some pastors have been talking about “such cases” but could never – ever – come up with a single one believable evidence or case.
Some places like CA forbid dispensing this kind of so called “therapy*” to minors, because those can be easy, vulnerable victims of charlatans. Minors can also be victims of ignorant parents who would force them into the process, which they can’t do with children 18+.
* AKA “charlatanism.”
Ecupino,.
The appeals outlined have nothing to do with people “free-willing” themselves from one behavior to another; but rather making the choice to choose the Lord’s way vs. the enemies way. The fact that each “appealer” laid before God’s people a choice indicates that –
1. They have the ability (free will) to choose the right way
2. God will empower them and guide them to do what’s right once they have chosen that pathway.
3. God will sustain them as they do His will
The bible tells us…
2 Tim. 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
1. Doctrine – Studies of the Knowledge of God
2. Reproof – Telling us where we are wrong
3. Correction – Showing us how to get right
4. Instruction in Righteousness – Showing us how to stay right
5. That the man of God may be perfect – calling us to live a life free from sin
In these 5 steps a man, if humble, may experience the process of being transformed into the image of God.
Furthermore… you asked me to cite a study..
The studies of man are not done for the purpose of proving that God’s word is true. Most studies “just happen”to conclude just the opposite. If we allow studies to validate God’s word and promises, we can be certain that our faith will be ripped apart. Let God’s Word…
Full Statement…
Let God’s Word Stand Alone!
We accept God’s word by faith… Let God be true, but all men a liar! Higher Criticism says, “let’s check the word of God for its veracity”. Implicit faith in God says, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me!”
Come on Ecupino… do we really want man (via scientific studies), whom God has created, putting himself in the position of determining if God’s word is valid? If he declares, by his research, that areas of scripture are not valid, and then determines what “the truth is” about an issue, is he also able to assume the role of Redeemer and Savior for those he has been successful in syphoning off from believing God’s word? If man seeks to share space with God, with respect to knowledge, what does he offer beyond an alternative look at Scriptures? Isn’t there a clear nexus between research casting dispersions and doubts concerning scripture and offering no alternative paradise? Can’t we just conclude that is is “Satan in disguise”, just trying to “talk us out of making it to the Kingdom”?
That was quite an extensive treatise just to evade addressing my question directly.
Let me rephrase my question to suit your “bent.” Give us a published case study where a homosexual made a “choice to choose the Lord’s way” having “the ability to choose the right way,” being “empowered” by God and being “sustained” by God to refrain from further homosexuality.
The difference between your profession of being a theologian and my profession as a psychiatrist is my profession requires compelling evidence through studies that our interventions be evidenced based and effective. I’m sure you would fire your primary care physician if he were to base his medical interventions solely on the bible. You may prefer “to be a thinker” but once you provide medical care or counseling, your interventions should have been proven to be, at the minimum, effective.
Take your time and think this properly. We’re all waiting for your answer.
ECupino…
I don’t evade questions. My answer may not satisfy you, but you will get an answer from me.
Now as to your question… the question you asked, as it has been worded, is designed to place in the hands of “the scientific arena” the validation of “a gay-gone-straight”. ECupino, it does not, in any way, appear to be the interest of said community to valid such transformations. They are too busy trying to normalize homosexuality. By the same token, when one goes from “gay to straight” in the church, we don’t “make studies out of it”, we just say, “Praise the Lord!”
The Bible says, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” II Cor. 5:17 That’s all the study I need. Don’t you realize by now that, because we are living in the last days, man is not about validating the word of God, but proving it wrong.
The American Psychological Association has said that there is no evidence that it’s possible to change sexual orientation. Are we waiting on the APA or a researcher to validate the Word of God?
The members of ‘Coming Out Ministries’ are walking, testifying, preaching case studies that you can go from gay to straight by the power of God. Do we need APA validation to validate their conversions?
Donnie McClurkin & Antoine Dodson are case studies.
This is a contest between the power of God and the claims of men!
Let me start with your assumption of “Don’t you realize by now that, because we are living in the last days, man is not about validating the word of God, but proving it wrong.” At the core of the issue is not proving the word of God wrong as much as proving man’s interpretation of God’s word as wrong.
There is a medical condition known as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, a heritable disease, (among other conditions) where excessive or deficient production of sex steroids alter the development of sex characteristics, such as ambiguous genitalia among affected females and under masculinized among affected males. Although most women affected by it are heterosexual, the rates of homosexual and bisexual orientation were higher than the public rates. Studies have concluded that “the findings support a sexual-differentiation perspective involving prenatal androgens on the development of sexual orientation.” There are other factors involved in homosexuality but it bears credence to understand that homosexuality is heterogenous in origin. One size does not fit all. I’m not familiar with Donnie McClurkin’s case other that what was mentioned in Wikipedia. He was a victim of sexual abuse as a child but note “there was no evidence of homosexual.” The same goes for Antoine Dodson. If you have more detailed information, I’d like to review the case with you for no other reason than … (to be continued)
(continued…)
For no other reason than I believe you have a misguided notion on this topic and have lumped the homosexuals as one group doing great disservice for others.
So how does a minister ascertain what is homosexual, homosexual behaviors and effeminate behaviors? Do they have their parish members undergo chromosomal studies before pontificating or do they just blindly steam roll over them by the “word of God?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18157628
ECupino,
First of all… I appreciate your “civil-toned” post, as it is not my intentions to argue over the issues. I hope that my passion for what I believe comes forth, rather than a desire to argue.
You said…
Let me start with your assumption of “Don’t you realize by now that, because we are living in the last days, man is not about validating the word of God, but proving it wrong.”
So as it was in the days of Noah…
Very clearly, the Word of God, as given to Noah, was ridiculed, scorned, and (When you read Patriarch & Prophets) was clearly devalued and denounced by dissenters. No different today.
You said…
There are other factors involved in homosexuality but it bears credence to understand that homosexuality is heterogenous in origin.
This would be consistent with what the APA has said. However, taking “choice” off the table really takes the plan of redemption off the table; which is attributable to Christ, and places the responsibility of introducing Homosexuality to individuals squarely on the shoulders of God.
Doesn’t the notion “I was born that way” do just that?
You also stated…
“At the core of the issue is not proving the word of God wrong as much as proving man’s interpretation of God’s word as wrong.”
Give me at least one popular Scriptural interpretation by man today (I’m assuming by “man” you mean believers or churches), germane to our discussion, that represents man’s wrongful interpretation of God’s…
D R Turner:
This is in reply to your last post to me which offered no “reply” button.
You seem so certain with your assumptions on homosexuality that I wish to remind you that even Jesus’ own parents did not understand his own message as in Luke 2:49-50, “He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he said to them.” You may preach your “gospel” but keep it within the walls of your church because for certain the secular world does not share you opinion, much more the SDA professionals of your church who interact with the secular world. I have seen so many of these individuals deal with depressive episodes and engage in substance use for being shunned by those they love, much more by our “christian” church for reasons beyond their control which brings me to your assertion that “taking “choice” off the table really takes the plan of redemption off the table.” Do you ever wake up every day and start your day by making a choice as to what sexual orientation you wish to have?
You have convinced me beyond any doubt that you are in the wrong side of this debate.
The problem is we are too wedded to our professions, instead of our profession of faith. We are mesmerized by Dr. & PHD. and all the other letters. We are energized and vivified by academic societies and circles. The experts in our fields have achieved a status of influence in our lives that God used to, or never had with us. His word is, in fact, overly simplistic when compared to the countless polysyllabic words used to convey intricate concepts derived over many years of research in science.
By contrast, God gives us a few verses to discuss the same subjects as science. But His word was not written to “Wow Academia”, but rather to save our sin sick souls! Imagine, they (experts) need God’s continued sustenance of their lives (breath, health, strength) in order for them to go out, stand before their peers, fix their steel-rimmed glasses, look intelligent, and spend the next two hours disrespecting God with their findings to the contrary of God’s word. Meanwhile, we sit there, armed with Knowledge from the King of the Universe, and go, “Whoa, I never thought of it that way!” Well you can have them and their research.
God used a woman, with just 3 grades of education, to write things that were impossible for her to understand, given her education. Did she need academic prowess to understand God’s revelations? No! She just needed the Holy Spirit; as we do.
Dwayne,
You wrote, ” She just needed the Holy Spirit; as we do.” While I have disagreed with you on other points, on that one I could not agree with you more wholeheartedly. So the great question of our time is this: Are we recognizing the working of the Holy Spirit and following Him? Far too often, the answer is negative. Spiritual transformation comes when we are following Him.
Dwayne,
I believe God the Son is fiat creator of the visible universe and fiat creator of life on this planet. I believe he is redeemer and savior. I subscribe to the doctrines of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers. I rest on the day the Lord rested in creation and in redemption. I believe the word, “hell”, in the King James translation of the Bible is sometimes a reference to the grave and sometimes a reference to an event–I do not think it is a reference to a place.
There are, undoubtedly several doctrines about which you and I would agree but what you describe as “implicit faith” is actually presumption. You presume that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and that anyone who understands it differently than you do is “wrong”. That kind of presumption IS the common definition of faith.
The biblical definition of faith is “the evidence of things not seen”. There is nothing wrong with you “teaching” people what you believe and why but “faith” by your definition inevitably leads to dogma.
I prefer to be a thinker and not merely a reflector of other men’s thoughts. So I’ll go on reading for myself, studying for myself and thinking for myself. It would be a mistake for you to “accept” my understanding of the Bible–the same as it would be a mistake for me to “accept” yours.
Roger,
Why must you join in with the chorus of individuals who resort to characterizations and innuendo, rather than hard, cold discussion of the issues. You have not referenced any statement I have made as a point in which you disagree. It does not seem to be your goal to let the Holy Spirit bring hearts and minds in harmony with God. Clearly, you celebrate individualism above the galvanizing work of the Holy Spirt. His work is not to “lead us and guide us into separate understandings”. Where does “One Lord, One Faith, “One Baptism” come into play based on your thinking?
You wrote, “I prefer to be a thinker and not merely a reflector of other men’s thoughts”, which you took from Ellen White. Ed. pg. 17
She also says…
God is leading a people out from the world upon the exalted platform of eternal truth, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. He will discipline and fit up His people. They will not be at variance, one believing one thing, and another having faith and views entirely opposite, each moving independently of the body. Through the diversity of the gifts and governments that He has placed in the church, they will all come to the unity of the faith. If one man takes his views of Bible truth without regard to the opinions of his brethren, and justifies his course, alleging that he has a right to his own peculiar views, and then presses them upon others, how can he be fulfilling the prayer of Christ?
To be continued.
And if another and still another arises, each asserting his right to believe and talk what he pleases without reference to the faith of the body, where will be that harmony which existed between Christ and His Father, and which Christ prayed might exist among His brethren? 3T 446.3
ECUPINO asked you a simple question which so far you completely evaded, actually ignored in your response. You keep repeating your theological, philosophical positions relating them and applying them to another area of knowledge making statements that have no academic support at all (much biblical!) and talking about it with a big EGO though, and as far as I know, with absolutely no clinical experience in the field.
Well, the only expectation I have from you now is to have Dr. Cupino’s question answered. (Sorry for using the “Dr”, since you despise titles…). Please, no aleatory, vague and unrelated preaching now. Do some research and, please, come up with an answer to his question. Be well.
Correction:
Please, on the post above, read “…have no academic support at all (much less biblical!)…”
George… I don’t wish to argue with you… but did you really just write a post referring to me not answering ECupino’s questions… with my posts addressed to you and your non-responses sitting on the same web page?
This has come down to a central question…
Is the Word of God needing to be validated by scientific research/studies?
If so, then I suggest that we preach all our sermons with APA fact checkers prepared to respond after the service. Maybe we should rename our church ‘The Seventh-day Adventist Church of Scientology.’ Maybe we need to make sure that our bible classes are only conducted with APA members present.
Folks, God is being placed on trial right here on a website of Seventh-day Adventists. Is there not a cause?
Taken directly from APA.org (the copyright icon at the bottom has 2016 for its date)
Introduction
Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being……. This pamphlet is designed to provide “accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation” (emphasis mine) and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.
Further down, under the question “What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?”
Answer:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
So clearly, based on their words, you must choose to believe which scientists validate your beliefs; such as Dr. Dick Swaab.
“http://ex-gaytruth.com/ex-gay-testimonies/” & “http://peoplecanchange.com”
Do we, believers of God’s redemption, choose to ignore the testimonies of those who have become successful overcomers of Homosexuality? Would we rather that they remained that way? They credit God for helping them overcome homosexuality. Under the “Is Change Really Possible” section (a pop-up under the About “Change” tab of the homepage) of peoplecanchange.com there are available “first person testimonials”, non-pcc testimonials, and research papers that are worth exploring.
ECupino,
I fail to see what Jesus telling His parents that He is doing His father’s business, and them not understanding His actions, have to do with this “discussion”, and I place that word in asterisks, because it really isn’t a discussion. I have always been of the opinion that if you really believe what you claim, you should be able to adequately defend it. We are at loggerheads on this subject. It is clear that for you and others in the field of science, research & experts will guide you to your conclusions about life, morality, and even God Himself. This is very sad to me… Enough said.
“and them not understanding His actions, have to do with this “discussion”
Thanks for the discussion, particularly from a theologian.
The point I’m making is even Jesus own parents did not understand what he was speaking yet everyone seems to know exactly what He means, even to the detriment of other believers.
Thanks for the discussion having privileged to discourse with a theologian. Happy sabbath and may the Lord bless you as you preach your sermon today.
Anybody familiar with NARTH? This website has a lot of information about, for lack of a better word “reparative therapy”including a roster of famous people who have at least experimented with homosexuality and found it unfulfilling.
Sad that most SDA mental health professionals have jumped on the gay bandwagon.
“experimented with homosexuality and found it unfulfilling.”
Need someone point out what is so obvious?
I guess so
“I guess so”
Not everyone who “experiment” is sold unlike Dr. Carson’s example of prisoners who go to prison and comes out “homosexual.” You have to be born with a sexual orientation, although I’ve heard some ministers who wake up daily and make a choice of what sexual orientation they wish to have that day.
Go figure.
“reparative therapy”
Rocket science? Of course not!
It’s impossible to repair something that is not damaged. Those people who, “have at least experimented with homosexuality and found it unfulfilling” are people who didn’t have the brain structure of a gay person. They certainly were attracted to the opposite gender. They were never gays, so there was nothing to “repair.”
On the other side, there is no way to “repair” a gay person. Just talking about it is actually offensive to them, because it sounds like accusing them of having chosen to be that way. This accusation is false, and true Christians will never make such an outrageous accusation.
I could go on and on. But I already know that when gender bias is in place, it’s almost foolish to make an effort to expose the discriminative attempt.
George, Some gays can tell you the exact time and place they exercised their free choice to participate in same sex eroticism. There is nothing outrageous or unChristian about holding people accountable for sexual sin, whether it be homosexuality, fornication, or adultery
Hansen,
Those people you mention can’t say they ARE gays, only that their practice homosexual relations. When I refer to gays I am talking about those who never chose to be that way, they just ARE and have been since birth.
Regarding those heteros who decided to maintain homosexual relationships, well, shame on them!
Regarding to those critics that don’t have enough/proper education on the issue, who do not understand the “nature vs nurture” issue, well, shame on them as well.
George, None of us will ever know for sure. I’ve seen young boys so feminine, it is hard to understand how they got that way. Asian guys can be especially feminine from a Western cultural perspective and still not indulge in homosexuality. Matteo Ricci noted the same thing back in the 1600s.
Homophobia is instinctual, like the fear of snakes i.e. nothing to be ashamed of. As far as gay causes go, I’ve already given.
“None of us will ever know for sure.”
This statement must have been made thousands of times throughout the ages regarding all kinds of matters. Is the Earth flat? Is there anything above the atmosphere? Is the Earth the center of the universe? Can infections be controlled. Can man go to the moon? How does the brain work?
Do I need to say more?
Neuropsychology and many other disciplines have made unprecedented progress in mapping the brain and finding how it works. Long ways to go, yes. But there is no room to say, “None of us will ever know for sure.” Actually, regarding to the gay issue, neuroscience already revealed a lot of information related to brain structure – unfortunately, many people just deny it based on their own personal biases.
The major problem is always those people who choose to deny everything that is uncovered by research and scientific studies. Yes, ignorance sometimes prevails, but we don’t have to be in the ignorant crowd. We don’t have to say, “None of us will ever know for sure.” We can CHOOSE to do better than this.
I’m not sure just how solid the scientific evidence is for a homosexual brain, any more than there is solid science behind an alcoholic brain, though given what we know about genetics and epigenetics, it would be difficult to think that there is not significant genetic predisposition to sexual orientation and behavior.
For those of us who believe in original sin, this should not come as news. It doesn’t follow that how humans act on those predispositions has no moral significance. Surely, George, you would not justify all forms of sexual deviancy with neuroscience, would you? Men are by nature not monogamous. Bill Clinton appears to be strongly predisposed toward philandering. Do you put bisexual behavior and transgender “aspirations” in the same category as homosexuality?
Let me hasten to add that homosexuality is and should be a complete red herring in the context of Orlando. Where the victims of the Orlando terrorist attack were, what their sexual orientation or beliefs were, and what they were doing when attacked, are all completely irrelevant to what the Christian love response should be and was. And that reality does not affect one iota how Christians should view LGBT sexual behavior. Tell me, If the target had been a Las Vegas casino where the victims were smoking, drinking and gambling, would anyone be talking about how we need to examine and change our attitudes to be more accepting of smoking, drinking and gambling?
George, You must be aware that kids who torture animals, wet the bed and set fires are more likely to become killers than those who don’t. Does every kid who does those things become a serial murderer? Regardless of nurture, nature, neuroscience, if the human mind has degenerated to that point, sad but still evil. Science proves all kinds of things to the gullible. If you subscribe to their views, that’s your business but to become an advocate for a practice condemned by Scripture, way too far.
The entire issue of marriage and sexuality takes a strange turn in different cultures. In a culture where adultery is normative i.e., men are expected to take mistresses while their wives remain neglected at home, should the marriage relation be respected? Does a marriage even exist when a girl is essentially sold to her husband’s family and he treats her like garbage, neglects, abandons her, commits adultery himself. Must a woman in those circumstances be considered a harlot, burned or stoned, because she wants a bit of happiness herself?
A lot of justification for her acting outside the marriage bond, if such a bond exists. Same with some gays, impelled but not compelled
EGW mentioned people who would have better never been born, whose inherited tendencies are so vicious, they are almost compelled to do evil. Most of us are impelled to do evil, not compelled.
It’s always helpful to keep in mind that great part of the human behavior is the result of people’s right to choose. One can certainly decide to go to Las Vegas, choose to drink, choose to smoke, choose to gamble, etc.
However, the same idea cannot, ever, be applied to gender orientation. We cannot choose our gender, either way. We are whatever we are born like.
The homosexual orientation is not a choice. There is a huge difference between BEING and homosexual and CHOOSING to drink, smoke, gamble, etc.
So far, in my professional journey, I haven’t seen any legit case of an homosexual who CHOSE to change the gender identity in order to become straight.
Do heterosexuals have a choice? Do Christians have a choice? I am sorry, but if it is not a choice; then is it not outside the bounds of psychology? Does it not fall within biological or other disciplines? Does this not remove such professional opinions?
Is the issue in the choice or the thought or action? Is such not the nature of sin? Are we not all born into sin? Can we use this same excuse and say we didn’t have a choice?
“then is it not outside the bounds of psychology? Does it not fall within biological or other disciplines?”
Of course it falls into the hands of the people researching the biology, physiology involved, the study of the human brain from an anatomic perspective.
The knowledge acquired by the neuro scientists is immensely helpful to Psychologists, because then we can work with the patients from a more solid perspective – often helping them to deal with their psychological issues that result from who they “are.”
There is a big difference between working psychologically, for instance, with a gay person who is accused of choosing to be that way, and a gay person that is assured that they were born with a certain peculiar brain structure, that it was not their choice to be who they are. Big difference.
I wish people in church were more educated on the issue; it would be less stressful for those who are often wrongly accused of wrongdoing, and would cause less unnecessary friction between members.
George,
Gender identity is a brand new idea. It didn’t used to exist. You had a sex, period. There has always been sodomy, and sodomites, but never before a homosexual identity.
The young men of Greece often consorted with each other, younger men and older boys in relationships that were both friendship and mentoring and more than sexual. Penetration, especially anal penetration was not the norm, it was considered humiliating. But there was lots of sexual dimension to these relationships, and they were more common than not.
Virtually all these men would go on to take wives and raise families. It was a matter of family honor. They loathed and despised a confused man who found sexual gratification in being penetrated, there were very, very few of those types.
I don’t know anything about your professional journey, but I know a little something about history. The history of every culture and society points to voluntary participation in the sexual norms of that society, with deviancy rarely observed where it is not tolerated. Sociologically, it is a well known fact that homosexuality essentially doesn’t exist among Orthodox Jews, neither in the present nor in the past. It isn’t tolerated and therefore it isn’t practiced.
You can’t observe minds, just behavior. History refutes your hypothesis that sexual orientation is involuntary.
“You can’t observe minds, just behavior. History refutes your hypothesis that sexual orientation is involuntary.”
The only thing “involuntary” is that we are all born in sin by Adam’s choice, and not our own. None the less, God has provided the means by way of the atonement for any and all sinners to escape their doom and destruction by accepting Jesus and the atonement He has made for mankind.
That some may have “Gay” tendencies is not relevant. Homosexuality is sin, period. Like all other sin. And we are all born shackled with a sin nature that rebels against God and His stated norm for the human family. Namely, we are all born liars, murderers, thieves, adulterers, covetous, proud, and prone to any and all evil by virtue of our sinful nature.
To justify any sin with the trite excuse, “Well, I was born this way.” is worthless as an excuse to sin. A man or woman could commit adultery and simply say, “Well, I was born this way and can’t help it.”
We are living in a time of evil that is justifying every type of evil and sin in the name of “I just can’t help myself”.
Paul says, “Yeah, let God be true, and every man a liar.” And boy does this ever fit modern man.
Your first sentence tells me you are clueless–have no idea what you are talking about. You are also discussing the practice only. This is more than a tendency–like saying you have a tendency to like women.
And do you get this self-righteous over adultery? Should there be a law against it and remarriage for the whole nation, including, nonChristians? You see, you make little sense.
Abbott and Sorenson: This history has to do with culture as it did with Sodom; obviously all those men weren’t homosexual. It is an accepted practice in pagan cultures. It is accepted in Muslim countries in spite of their outcry against it. (This probably doesn’t include ISIS only in secret.)
I know this because of knowing those who have lived there and when my husband and I were looking at going to work in Oman years ago. We were given books about their culture and decided against going.
There is a big difference between inborn and learned behavior. Unfortunately Christians are usually ignorant to believe these things out of bias.
EM,
What did Jesus mean when He said, For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
“Gender identity is a brand new idea. It didn’t used (sic) to exist.”
The fact that people didn’t know about something in the past is no proof that it didn’t exist. Of course people didn’t know much about this issue. Just consider what has been learned about the brain functions in the past, let’s say, 50 years, but especially after the development of machines that can actually look into the brain and see something. If one doesn’t follow the latest tools provided by technology and science, one will think that everyone is still living in the stone age.
“I don’t know anything about your professional journey…”
I am a clinical psychologist licensed in California.
“You can’t observe minds, just behavior.”
This may have been true many years ago, due to lack of proper resources. But I wouldn’t dare to make such a statement directed to educated people. It would be extremely embarrassing.
George,
It is embarrassing some educated people think a brain is a mind. Let me ask you the same question I asked EM: What did Jesus Christ mean? “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
I was comparing the modern term, ‘gender identity’ to the older term ‘sex.’ I think that was self-evident and you chose to ignore it. The idea that we involuntarily choose our ‘gender identity’ is definitely a new idea and a very confused idea at that. “But I wouldn’t dare (sic) to make such a statement directed to educated people.”
Now educate me George, why is “used to exist” improper English and “dare to make” proper English?
Your humble student,
Bill
PS – if you can one answer one question – answer the one about Jesus and His gender identity.
“The fact that people didn’t know about something in the past is no proof that it didn’t exist.”. And the fact that people make something up doesn’t mean it exists.
“I am a clinical psychologist licensed in California.”. Then shouldn’t the training and actions represent such?
This discipline serves a very important function and should never be downplayed.
People come with a problem and need help getting through. In many cases we are unable to determine or even speculate on the root cause. We can’t go back in time and fix any of it; we only help them get through, just as HE helps us. This requires heart and compassion for those being helped, only creating personal bias.
“This may have been true many years ago, due to lack of proper resources.” What resources do we need to look into someones mind? The vast majority of the discipline understand that such resources are unavailable or extremely speculative within such biased pools. Most understand that there are many other variables, involving all other disciplines; all creating knowledge, mostly only proving the more we don’t know.
Do we not discriminate against all learned, this and all disciplines, all individuals needing help and all the rest of us within such concepts. It kind of reminds me of the small pool of pediatricians contending not to discipline children. While 80% of the pediatricians agreed that a well structured and disciplined child turned out much better. We have now proven the opposite didn’t work.
We as a Country are over 20 trillion in fully absorbed debt now and can no longer afford any of this or its continuance. We have thrown large amounts of resources at many problems, solving nothing; only perpetuating the problems. Our funds and resources are limited and should be used as such. We can no longer afford these concepts or failures to Love others.
In Truth, is your root contention that GOD does not give these individuals free choice? You will have to take that up with HIM.
George, I’ve dealt with mental health professionals for many years, in and out of Adventism. An SDA psychiatrist once told me I was a psychopath. Not long after that, one of his patients beat his spouse to death in the psychiatrist’s office during a therapy session.
I worked with both psychiatrists and psychologists in the prison system, and HIV field. A lot of them are themselves homosexuals and influential in the “treatment” of incarcerated offenders. I’ve sat in sessions where they tried to counsel homosexuals being consumed by homoerotic lust and petrified of contracting HIV.
In a word. many of them are deeply disturbed individuals themselves. Being a licensed psychologist doesn’t help. Some of the textbooks being studied now were written by homosexuals with an agenda to normalize homosexuality in subtle and not so subtle ways.
A lot of these people are simply liars Whatever they say can’t necessarily be believed. You should know that.
Hansen,
They are all well educated.
Have a heart
“Hansen,
They are all well educated.
Have a heart”
William, we can always talk and converse as long as sarcasm is not used to deteriorate the level of the conversation. Otherwise, don’t expect me to stay in a dialogue at a low level of civility – especially regarding such an important issue that involves the lives of thousands (millions) of people – human beings too!
George,
That was light-hearted sarcasm, not meant to offend. I do agree sarcasm ought to be avoided in these threads; not because it is uncivil but because it is so often not recognized as sarcasm. I’m glad you got it and yes, I do think well-educated people need to take themselves less seriously.
Hansen, you already made your mind, so be it.
But, just because you worked with some psychiatrists and psychologists that according to you did wrong things, please, it does not mean that all in these professions are bad or incompetent people.
I never worked in a prison. I specialized in Domestic Violence treatment (did it for 12 years, graduated ca 1,850 individuals from the 52-week program in California). Then I moved to geriatric psychology, which I now do for about 13 years, in Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) helping Medicare patients.
William,
1) “It is embarrassing some educated people think a brain is a mind.”
Nothing embarrassing, the connection is clear. Whoever wants to understand it, will. Whoever does not want to understand it, will not.
2) “Now educate me George, why is ‘used to exist’ improper English and “dare to make” proper English?”
If you look better at what you wrote, you won’t ask this question. You wrote, “It didn’t used to exist.”
Sure, English is my second language, but if I am not mistaken, “it didn’t used” doesn’t sound right. Well, maybe it’s just me… Correct me if I am wrong though. But I really thought it should be “it didn’t use to …”
Also, please educate me why “I wouldn’t dare to make…” is wrong. I am not saying it is right, since there may be some details in the English language that I may not be aware of, and I used it sure that it was OK. Please clarify.
Errors in language happen often to people whose primary language is English; now imagine how more often it happens to those who speak four languages, and English is not their primary language. It’s not easy, believe me!…
3) Regarding your question, “What did Jesus Christ mean?” I can’t understand what is the question about, since the text is clear. Some eunuchs are born this way, others engage in practices that end up making them eunuchs.
Since I never heard anyone (including myself) saying that ALL “eunuchs” are born this way, I don’t know what are you actually asking. I can’t see what the contention could possibly be about. Same applies to the gays (homosexuals). There are those born this way, there are also those who engaged in the homosexual practice and ended up maintaining this life style. The former are a great majority, the latter are not that common.
The problem of this discussion is actually that there are too many people that deny that “eunuchs” can be born this way… They should explain themselves, as for why they don’t believe in Jesus’ words… (as you quoted above).
George,
You do know what I’m talking about when I say a mind and a brain are not the same thing, don’t you?
As far as the “used to” – mea culpa. I just thought if you were going to go to the trouble of (sic)ing my phrase, I ask for the full explanation. I care about my writing and I know it can be improved, so thank you.
Jesus is speaking about His sexual identity in Matthew 19. He has made himself a Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake and He is inviting other men to do the same thing if they can receive the saying. Jesus did not literally make Himself a eunuch, He lived as though He were a eunuch. Considering what a eunuch is, I assume that meant He, Jesus Christ, stifled all sexual urges as though He had none.
Because this saying arises as answer to the disciples surprise at the strictness of His teaching on divorce: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. We can combine the two adjacent passages as Jesus’ teaching on sexual morality, and they are super-strict. Christ in John 8 uses the most interesting contrivance to not condemn the woman taken in adultery and leave Moses in authority. And Moses is super-strict, but not as strict as Jesus.
Anyway Jesus teaches we all control of our sexual desires and urges, not just our behavior. It is a matter of the mind, not merely the brain.
“Anyway Jesus teaches we all control of our sexual desires and urges, not just our behavior. It is a matter of the mind, not merely the brain.”
Almost every normal person knows that controlling “sexual desires and urges” just with the brain power is not that easy, often not much successful. But, for those struggling too much with it, they can always try to do it by literally controlling their brain. It’s almost 100% guaranteed to work. How? Just taking Prosac daily for a long time and bingo…, it’s* all gone!!!
However, I recommend that people don’t stay on the same antidepressant for too long. Unless they are hiding from their spouses… …. LOL
* The libido.