News-Record.com

It's a crying shame that for some folks, religion is a reason to avoid even talking with those they see as aliens. As if just talking with a gay person "shows support for" their sexual identity. These are the same people who will quote Jesus (when circumstances are favorable) in saying "judge not"! Pathetic.

Eric, I've encountered these people openly since 1996-97. The ones that will not talk are not worth the effort to share.

I believe that I have done my part when I do speak. It is not up to any one individual, myself included, to change another. Change is a personal thing. Others may become involved in the change, however, it is entirely up to the individual to make the change occur.

Shalom

Perhaps, but in reading this story in greater detail, this occurs to me: the actual students in these campuses were not the hostile ones. It appears that the school administrators were the ones who wanted to forbid any communication between the visitors and the school. Among the school students, there were at least a few who were willing to talk with the visitors, and that's important to remember.

Change is indeed a personal thing, something that can't be forced on others. But it sure looks like the administrations at these schools think that it is a good thing to try by force to keep their students from even hearing something that might change their minds.

For a freethinker like myself, I consider that to be nothing short of a crime.

While it was not the students, per se, who were the hostile ones; I can only wonder how many students at these campus's suffer from the same lack of thought as the leaders? I attended a supposedly "moderate" seminary. However, once my sexuality became known, I was surprised at the number of fellow students (supposedly friends) who no longer spoke to me. Trust me, that can be devastating after a hospital release. While I still remember those, I prefer to remember the ones who did the little things to help me move forward. Those are the one's for whom I am thankful!

For a good read on what it can be like to attend one of these institutions, visit www.meetmarcadams.com. He was once a student at one of these institutions.

Shalom

"While it was not the students, per se, who were the hostile ones; I can only wonder how many students at these campus's suffer from the same lack of thought as the leaders?"

Oh, I feel sure it is a lot. I have noticed that when it comes to religion, an awful lot of people tend to treat their leaders as conduits of God's will. This tends to translate into the attitude that whatever the leaders say, they will follow without question. It's sad, but that's a very common part of human psychology.

But this "Soulforce" effort has the right aim, I believe. They are trying to circumvent the efforts of administrators by communicating directly with students that still have some modicum of freedom in their thoughts. And there's even some hope in the events at Liberty and Robertson's place. Students on campus saw peaceful people, who only wished to talk, treated like terrorists. I expect that will have a good effect on many minds. Perhaps one day, a lot of these students will start to wonder what need could there possibly be for armed resistance to just talking.

"I attended a supposedly "moderate" seminary. However, once my sexuality became known, I was surprised at the number of fellow students (supposedly friends) who no longer spoke to me."

Dude, I'm very sorry to hear that. I have been very fortunate, living here in the South, that when I've come out of my atheist "closet," that I've had very few rejections. I hope that you will continue to find friends who won't let old prejudices foul up a perfectly good friendship.

Aloha!

The armed protection course was probably not the best one. A specially set-up forum environment, with debate and counter argument elements would have been better. But knowledge of the tactics of the demonstrators could also have affected their response.

Nevertheless, they are private institutions which, thank God, still have the right to admit whomever they will onto their premises. No doubt, there have been opportunites within the academic structure of the institutions for considering the issue. There is also a difference between personal relationships and public policy. The latter is often more general and heavy-handed, the latter more sensitive and pliable. When Jesus taught turning the other cheek, he was referring to personal encounters, not national defense in the face of lethal attack on the populace. Turning the other cheek on Hitler or the terrorist machine could be fatal to a national entity.

The Gospel demands that individuals be addressed with the message of God's love and redemption; public law should reflect broader moral standards for the protection and well being of the population (incarceration for the offender, but oportunities of rehab for the individual). The universtiy's broad public policies may reflect thier clear moral boundaries, but the personal contacts of indidivuals within that community would certainly be more open and dialogical.

So, I support the universities' choice to not grant entry of a group advancing a moral agenda foreign to their spiritual convictions. However, it could have provided a more open forum for dialog, softening a media image of over-reation and force.

"Nikos", what would your fellow theonomists do with gay people. I bet I know. Want some website links to prove the point?

No thanks. The more important question is what GOD thinks of deviant sexual expression in His Word. I think I'll let Him speak for Himself. You probably know the passages.

I believe all sexual deviancy (beastiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, prostitution, etc.)should have legal sanctions against them, depending on the dgree of offense. They should not have pubic approbation or encouragement either; but what people do in the privacy of thier homes is strictly their business - public displays or offenses are a different story.

As long as people are good citizens and contribute their abilities and talents to society, they should not be oppressed or abused in any way. But neither should they be free to publicly promote or practice their sin either.

God loves all in Christ - but repentance of sinful thought and behavior is necessary before the relationship can go forward. This is the universal testimony of Bible and saints across the ages. Nothing new. We just don't want to do so today. We want our cake and eat it too. That will never happen when it comoes to sin; the wages of which are always death. Life springs from love and obedience to God and His life-giving ways.

"I believe all sexual deviancy (beastiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, prostitution, etc.)should have legal sanctions against them, depending on the dgree of offense."

There is no reason for making any law against consentual sex between unmarried adults. Who is harmed by such a thing? I mean, beyond the imagined offense to a deity who has never actually in fact spoken for itself... The point being that in an enlightened society, laws need to be limited to sanctioning actions that harm individuals or the community. The only sexual limitations any adult should be expected to honor is that of marriage, which has a major component of sexual exclusivity. Beyond that, it's none of your business, nor the state's.

BTW, I know where you get the idea that gay sex is "sinful." Did you know that the very same book that condemns that also says it's no big problem to rape unmarried girls? Look it up. I can provide references if you're unable to read Exodus, Leviticus and Dueteronomy on your own.

"God loves all in Christ - but repentance of sinful thought and behavior is necessary before the relationship can go forward."

See, this is why I consider Christianity harmful. It attempts to limit even your thoughts, not just your actions. If it wasn't so prevalent, it would be seen as a cult... and often a pretty unpleasant one at that, what with the burning of books and the encouragement to break apart families. But that's fodder for other threads...

"No thanks. The more important question is what GOD thinks of deviant sexual expression in His Word. I think I'll let Him speak for Himself. You probably know the passages. "

Interpretation: Put them to death!

The American Taliban has spoken.

By the way, started any new churches lately? What denomination this week?

I believe that God, through Jesus the Christ, REDEEMS. So, with that thought in mind; who are we as humans to take on the mind of God and say who/what are/are not deviant, etc.?

Nikos, what say you?

Shalom

Darryl,

You are certainly right in saying that Christ came to redeem. The question is, from what? And the consistent answer, OT and NT, is - from sin: which is anything contrary to God’s intended purpose and life for human beings. Even if you don’t take Genesis 2 literally and see it as teaching imagery (I see as literal, myself), but truth, nevertheless; it clearly portrays God’s intention for the marriage (sexual) relationship to be between one man and one woman. Not only is the plumbing perfectly aligned and fitted, but the mental and emotional natures complimentary – for the purpose of maximum happiness and bliss. Throughout the Scriptures nothing is deemed God’s perfect will and intention other than this model. Polygamy was tolerated for a time, but was never God’s original model.

So, redemption is the goal of the cross (atonement) and Resurrection. The hold of sin on the mind and body is so powerful that only a powerful redemption could break its sway. That was accomplished. But God’s interaction with people is not forced; it is a genuine relationship; so people are called to repent (turn from sin to God’s righteousness) and receive the grace of atonement. But not only is the sin debt removed, but there is given to the redeemed the power of the Spirit to resist its power - and the bonus of “joy unspeakable and full of glory” – man’s rightful state of life, as God originally created them.

But you are also right that human beings have no right to say who or what is deviant. God alone can determine that; which He has done in His authoritative Word. As a Christian, I am duty-bound to declare His truth – in love. And that I do. But this is adult stuff, and the stakes are great, so it can sometimes sound rather heavy. But the greatest act of God in loving mankind was to suffer the agonies of sins penalty on the cross and to never soft-pedal the seriousness of it. Sin destroys lives and bodies, marriages, nations, and hearts – and robs people of the supreme happiness of knowing God and glorifying Him in righteousness.

Our society is heading down the path to sure and certain destruction if we continue to affirm sin rather than God’s revealed truth. All societies that have gone before us have known the same plight. The Proverb declares: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.” Many who have come to Christ finally, did so after years of painful indulgence in sins deceptive pleasures (Matthew, Augustine, John Newton, and many others). And so it has been with nations and societies as well. God’s call, in the Gospel, to all of us has ever been to turn from the path of death and embrace his holy ways of life and joy and peace.

So, far be it from me, to judge anyone personally; but as St. Paul declared, “Woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel.” I do so as a sinner saved by grace. We are all of us beggars at the foot of the cross; no one better than the other. Shalom in the

Nikos, I feel that far too much stress is placed upon scripture as a final authorative end. Were that the case, then God is finished.

I see a continuing revelation. Therefore, to say that scripture is final would give the human the mind of God; knowing good from evil.

I believe that is what doomed the first couple. I do not want to find myself in that situation. I hope you enjoy your stay there.

Shalom

Darryl, I understand what you are saying, but the case for a completed canon of scripture is made in terms of revelation history, not just human opinion or caprice. In the OT you had Moses (or the Mosaic tradition) in the giving of the Law, and in the prophetic period those who were specially equiped and anointed by God to reveal his judgments and will, and in Yeahua we see the culmination of a long and systematic prophetic process continuing through John the Baptist; culminating in Jesus and his direct apostolic successors (or thier direct disciples).

The Reformed Church (and the early Church) always affirmed this truth. There have been no other divinely appointed revealers (including popes) since the canon was closed. And I am aware of the issues surrounding the forming of the canon.

Nevertheless, there is a divine thread of truth that pervades all the different modes and persons used in revealing the mind of God over the millennia. Jesus quoted the OT profusely and affirmed the Mosaic Law, for example - as did Paul. Any "further revelation" would have to conform to that holy tradition; which is fully adequate for today and always.

If revleation continues, with all the many and varied voices of today, chaos would ensue - which is already the case. The so-called "new revelation" of today is out of sync with the Scriptural tradition, and so must be rejected. And the Scriptures themselves attest to the finality of revelation.

When one's heart is transformed by the Gospel and has the witness of the Spirit, the Scirptures make perfect sense as the authoritative Word of God. There is an inner synchronicity. It is the widespread desire of unregenerate modern activists to DO things that are contrary to that revelation that is leading us into moral and ecclesiastical chaos - a la John Spong and co.

The rebel spirit of sinful man has always sought any way at its disposal to circumvent and break God's Law/Word. Again, there is a way that leads to life and a way that leads to death. The moral departures of our day SEEM right, but are in fact the paths to ultimate ruin and misery. Christians can only express God's love by pointing to the precipice ahead. But sin is a hard task master and blinds people to the truth of the Gospel. I join the song writer who declared: "I once was blind but now I see." I was an atheist, a hippie, into Zen, Yoga, Hare Krishna et al. - until the glorious light of the risen Christ shined into my heart and mind, illuminating my darkness. Now God's Word is my constant spiritual Bread, and the light that leads me forward to greater life and peace. I desire only to share the Truth that sets the captives free with others - Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Eric, the idea that what people do in private, consensual sexual relations does not affect the society at large is naive at best. Nothing at all is done in total isolation from the human "ecosystem." (When I said earlier that what people do in the privacy of thier homes is their business, I meant from a legal point of view. It simply cannot be prosecuted.)
All somehow fits into the big picture. A time of serious and concentrated reflection should make this clear. A person may do something in the privacy of his or her home but will carry the attitude into their work place and social life, making comments and perhaps seeking encounters with others. This is just life. A married man may have a "private" affairs with another woman, but he can't really "hide" it from his wife for long. All outs in the end, as they say. "Free" sex (done consensually and in private) has spread STD's, broken homes and marriages, and seriously weakened the idea of committed relationships in society at large.

The compartmentalization of sexual expression is a total illusion. The affects of approving deviant thinking and behavior has already opened up a push to legalize polygamy and polyandry. Once the cesspool of immorality is opened up it spills over into every area of life. Again, God's ways always work; man's bring misery and death in the end. This applies to politics, religion, the arts - everything.

Nikos, as politely as I know; I feel you should get your head out of right-wing fundamentalism and get in touch with the real world.

Stop quoting what someone has told you somewhere along the way and form a clear and viable thought for your own self. Use the mind that God has given you.

I would rather die tring to bring about change than live a life of mediocrity always following along. Think along the lines of Pascal's Wager in this view.

And remember, you are the one to have MANY MANY changing Christian/Theological views. As it is you who moves church affiliation every time something does not go your own way. So, I would be careful telling someone else what God actually says. The way you change, who could/would believe you?

Shalom

Really now, Darryl. How about some real arguments - like how sin (hate, lust, stealing, drug use, etc) produces real and lasting happiness in people's lives. Or how fathers aren't important in the lives of children. Is your belief system dependent on YOUR your career and life history? No, of course not. You have formed your opinions upon reading, thought and conversation. We are dealing here with the world of ideas. Let's keep in on that high ground.

Nikos, I am not stooping to the level that I feel is desired for me to go to communicate. I state myself relatively clear. It seems that only you are the one who does not understand my posts.

Trust me Nikos, I too was one a "card-carrying" Christian Fundamentalist. I know the error of that way. I also know the quotable rhetoric and the sources of same. I even know the scriptures for it as well. So you see, I am not a "novice" in that realm. Find someone else who will believe as you speak.

The issue is communication with folks where there are differing opinons/views. Seeking to prevent that only shows a total fear of understanding taking place. However, for communication to take place each party in the communicative process needs to be able to present it's view without fear. Neither side should just spout off on the rightness or wrongness of either side. Communication involves LISTENING, not just hearing.

In the issue of homosexuality, preconceived ideas and thoughts need to be "erased" from one's memory BEFORE entering into the aforementioned communication dialogue. If not, communication does not take place. That is like these blogs.

Now, after the differing views are presented by the party's involved, if no form of agreement is found...at least attempts are made. Yet, that does not mean that something will not happen in the future. Change is rarely instantaneous. That is why I keep blogging with you Nikos. As long as each of us is still breathing, there is hope!

Shalom

Great! Thanks for the civil and resonable reply. As long as we can discuss the issues as gentlemen, it will work. Forgive me for getting a little passionate and forceful at times. The subject at hand is a highly controversial one and raises many tangential issues as well. Perhaps it would be better to approach it from a more pragmatic angle. All for now. Soli Deo Gloria!