To the person committed to the Bible as the word of God, this is a little bit like taking a textualist and telling them that the constitution just isn’t that important.

One thing that I do think (among many) that is a serious issues is that sometimes in the Christian community homosexuality is such a bigger concern than it ought to be. The vast majority of the people in the congregation probably struggle with something completely different, and sadly some (although I don’t know how Biblical they are) spend a lot more time complaining about the sinfulness of homosexuals when they have plenty of their own sins they haven’t um…sorted out. This creates the frustration that you see here in this thread by people who say that Christians love to pick at the sin they’re not committing (like homosexuality) while tolerating all sorts of sin. This is a significant issue it’s not right, but it is common (especially among the not genuinely saved, despite claiming to be Christian) to point out how much worse some one else is. See for example in Luke 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.”

There is a song…I love it, it is called There is a fountain. One of my favorite verses is “The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day and there may I though vile as he, wash all my sins away.”

ANY goodness, any claim to “thank goodness I am not like that person engaging in sexual sin X” is a huge issue, I have nothing good of myself to be thankful for, instead, I am just as sinful as any other, and I need God’s mercy and grace completely.

To the Bible believer the Bible is never going to be just another self-help book. For example a quick exegesis for you (Quick), take 2 Peter 1:3, the Bible says “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” then 19-21 say 19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Quickly, the word of God is better than miracles, prophecies, etc it is “more sure” it is the word of God written down. Now, I can’t make you accept that truth claim, in fact, the only thing that can bring you to that truth claim is the word of God itself (Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Romans 10:17). But that’s the truth claim, that I believe, which everything in my life lives in relation to.

If we could all agree on this simple principle, I think it would go a lot further towards respect and tolerance of all people, and a lot of hot air would simply disappear. Concern yourself with your own salvation (if that’s what you believe), and offer it to others certainly, but don’t push it upon another, or suggest that their belief system is wrong, lest you open yourself up to the suggestion that your belief system is wrong.

And it’s pointless to argue about beliefs, like trying to argue whether red, yellow or green is the better color. Green suits trees just fine, until the fall, when red or yellow seems best for them. And even it’s been a bad year, and the leaves turn an ugly brown, they still come back next year anyway.

Nothing. In fact, that’s exactly what I suggest might happen. Apparently, you missed that part in my comment. I’m not at all afraid of it happening because in all my years of college involvement (as a student and after), I’ve never actually seen an attempting take over or hijacking of any student group. In the unlikely event that there is, students can always leave the hijacked group and start a new one.

“I presume what you are depending on to stop this is the greater popularity of the pro-gay viewpoint on campus. That is probably a safe bet, except that it leads to the complete marginalization of any religious or ideological minority.”

No it doesn’t. Any religious group still has 1st amendment freedoms and can spout as much anti-gay rhetoric as they choose. If that marginilizes them in the eyes of the students, that’s their problem.

” As for the “gay lifestyle,” I was using that as a euphemism for engaging in gay sex.” No need for euphenisms. we are adults here and the word sex doesn’t scare people off.

“Or do you believe the coming out process can only go one way?”

Certainly not. I’m highly sceptical of it, but that’s me and I don’t particularly care what another person does with his life.

Gov: ” am curious which two of the Judaic religions think homosexuality is not a sin,.”

Both Reformed and Conservative Jews support same sex marriage, among other things.

“They may be, yet I hope you recognize that the concerns themselves are discussed within the Bible itself, so being fair to a Bible believing Christian, I just ask you to recognize that.”

I try to. Sometimes it’s rather difficult, but I do try.

” I apologize for appearing inconsiderate during this discussion.”

No apologies necessary, and no offense taken. One must have a thick skin when discussing matters that are of a very personal nature, and I certainly have lost my temper on these boards many times. Whenever someone starts lecturing me about the Bible, however, my back gets up, and that’s a whole ‘nother story. (For most gays that’s true, fyi).

But your larger point is exactly why I think it’s actually *important*, at least within a university context, to allow all students membership in any organization. Sometimes, we can actually learn from each other instead of merely shouting out insults. If we don’t learn that in school, where will we learn it? It’s important to respect each other’s viewpoints but also respect each others’ rights. Sometimes that difficult; sometimes they are impossibly conflicted. That’s why we must, as a society, work together to produce solutions that balance these rights. If an evangelical student group cares so much about their message or whatever that they have to take over a gay group, they will have to sit side by side with real gay people for a period of time. I’m sure tempers will flare and fights will break out. But at least they are interacting and realizing that real people are affected by these sorts of decisions.

Tim: “But suggesting that they shouldn’t believe that way or that they can’t because you think so is like me trying to tell Muslims what they ought to believe about their religion.”

In the real world, you are totally correct. In the college world, if you accept mandatory student fees, you should not be able to exclude any student. A Christian group should all Muslims students to join. If the Christian group doesn’t want to play by those rules, they are free to not accept student money. this is currently the system at every public university system in the US that I am aware of, and most private schools as well, and been for many decades.

Randy: Tifutel: “I hope you don’t expect Christians to accept your summary judgment that our views are “bigoted” or your careless attempts to analyze the Bible you don’t really care about.”Sure, So long as you don’t expect gay people accept any summary judgement that gays are immoral, or make careless attempts to inform us what the ‘gay lifestyle’ is, or think that it is something sexual orientation can be changed.Deal?

You’re missing the bigger point. It’s not about defining those things. It’s about saying that their religion prohibits those (and other) things and that those who are unapologetic about engaging in those behaviors are excluded.

It’s not about hatred, changing, or summary judgment at all. It’s about refusing service to those who don’t follow their religious beliefs.

You may think it’s damaging and bigoted, and I might even agree with you. But suggesting that they shouldn’t believe that way or that they can’t because you think so is like me trying to tell Muslims what they ought to believe about their religion.

I love getting thrown down as much as the next, and when the charge is just, I’ll take responsibility for it…let’s go back to the tape…my first more focused comment about “Christianity and the Bible” which, included Islam oddly enough was
Any willing person can go to either’s holy book and see that sexual behavior, including, but not limited to homosexuality, is of a concern to the religion. That’s not really fairly in dispute. That Episcopalians or what ever “interpret” the Bible differently, doesn’t at all change the fact that the Bible fairly read makes sexual conduct a significant issue in the practice of the tenets of the faith.

Randy then responded with:
IF that’s the case, than CLS would have to start off every meeting by asking if anyone has masturbated, or had sex outside of marriage since the last meeting. Only sexual virgins would be allowed to have a leadership position, or they could be a non-virgin so long as they repent and promise to remain celebate until marriage If so, that person has to confess and repent or else they will be expunged. I think that would pretty much put a damper on any chance they get students to attend. And why stop there? There are clear prohitibitions on lots of things in the Bible — eating shellfish, swearing, not honoring your parents — the list goes on. Should anyone who wants to be a leader or a member be required to check off every sin mentioned in the Bible and swear that he or she either has not committed the sin, or has repented for it, and promises to never ever commit any more sins?

Randy additionally made the claim that:
As Loki has explained in another thread, we’ve never encountered students so hell bent on taking over a student group that they go in en masse and take over. If men want to run and operate a women’s group, it’s actually much easier to start up a new group. Then, when they find that no women have actually joined, they will probably disband.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

I interpreted that to mean, that Randy perceived that a Christian’s claim to be concerned for the integrity of their chapter or church to be a false claim motivated by some type of bias.
I pointed out, that long before Randy or any other person commenting on this blog that Christianity has been concerned with the integrity of the church or chapter assemblies.

I also in response to Randy’s comment about Shellfish pointed out how, when, and where the vast majority of dietary restrictions were abolished Biblically.

Let me now turn to a couple points:
And yet, strangely, you claim to know about how much I have counseled with God: “You cannot persuasively say that, until you approach the full counsel of God. Something, I am not sure of, but doubt you have done.”
Other than explicitly saying “I am not sure of” I do not know how I could be more clear that I was making a logical inference based upon what I had observed, but expressly disclaimed to know about how much you have or have not “counseled.” That being said “counseled” was probably a poor choice of words. I was refering to how familiar you are with the entire Bible, but that was my poor choice of words, I apologize for the confusion.

You also say however:
In other words, where you know you are wrong, you are willing to change, and where you know you are right, you are not. And the fact that many other Christian demoninations (not to mention two of the three main Judaic religions), finding nothing wrong with homosexuality, and means that they must be wrong, correct?
First, yes, where I am wrong I am willing to change, you then continue to say, where you know you are right, you are not. There are some areas of Biblical Interpretation where I would say it’s 99.9% chance that I’ve got it right, largely because few disagree on that point, and the Bible is plain spoken, it’s not that I could not be wrong it’s just highly unlikely, but if shown to be wrong I would change. You then continue to say:
And the fact that many other Christian demoninations (not to mention two of the three main Judaic religions), finding nothing wrong with homosexuality
I am curious which two of the Judaic religions think homosexuality is not a sin, because last I checked, Islam, and Christianity, and Orthodox Judaism (although I understand there to be debate within all those circles), and I already responded to the Episcopalian question, which has the same application to certain (but far from all) Presbyterian or other denominations.

Let me close by commenting on the following:
I’m not interested in persuading you on anything. I do know that I indeed struggled with my sexual orientation both religiously and secularly. After much trauma and trying very hard to be straight, I finally realized that God indeed made me gay, and I’ve never been happier. You, of course, are free to disagree and argue that I’m going to hell and all that. I’m free to ignore it.
I did not come here or comment here to “win” you to Christianity, instead, as it related to this thread, I desire that you realize that the concerns of CLS are not “made up” or contrived. They may be, yet I hope you recognize that the concerns themselves are discussed within the Bible itself, so being fair to a Bible believing Christian, I just ask you to recognize that.

In the many years I’ve attended church, I have seen 1 person “one” removed from membership, and it wasn’t for engaging a intercourse with someone of the same sex. It was someone who was engaging in an improper relationship with a woman not his wife, and as far as I know it wasn’t even sexual, it was instead an ongoing and unrepentant lust between him and this other woman, who he continued to see, despite being rebuked. After the removal, the relationship soon thereafter ended and he was restored to membership.

It’s not my goal or place to condemn you to hell. I assume you already know what the Bible says about all sin. We all, myself included have a problem with sin, an eternally large one, there is only one guaranteed way to deal with it (as far as I can see) from the Bible.

By the way, I have attempted to be firm so as to be clear, but not rude. At the same time, I can see how it could be perceived as rudeness. I apologize for appearing inconsiderate during this discussion. For what it is worth, I enjoy talking and discussing with you Randy. You are well thought out and interesting to read.

This is silly. I presume, then, that you are OK with a bunch of evangelical students hijacking an LGBTQ group? I know there was some dismissal of that possibility earlier in the thread, but at Cornell, for instance, a formerly repentant gay student leader recently decided that he could no longer agree with the group’s views (became unrepentant) and when the group asked him to step down, he tried to get it derecognized. What is to stop a Christian gay student group leader who decides that homosexuality is sinful after all from doing that to a gay group under your proposed regime? I presume what you are depending on to stop this is the greater popularity of the pro-gay viewpoint on campus. That is probably a safe bet, except that it leads to the complete marginalization of any religious or ideological minority. Next you will decide that a Democrat student leader who becomes a Republican can’t be booted from the Democrat group. After all, if they are really strong Democrats, they should have “nothing to fear from one or two wayward students in [their] midst,” right? What could possibly go wrong?

By the way, I certainly do not expect gay people to accept summary judgment that they are immoral. As for the “gay lifestyle,” I was using that as a euphemism for engaging in gay sex. I presume that is more or less a usual part of the “gay lifestyle” unless the particular gay person is being chaste for some reason?

Also, the fact is that some people do change their sexual orientation, for all practical purposes, anyway. I don’t tell people I know believed they were straight for decades and then decided they were gay that they aren’t really gay because they had too much heterosexual sex. I would hope that someone who thought he or she was gay for decades and then decided he or she was straight would get the same consideration. Are they “really” gay, straight, or somewhere in between? I don’t know, but I feel like we have no choice but to take their word for it. Or do you believe the coming out process can only go one way?

Sorry you feel that way, the discussion stayed on topic about whether public universities can require that any student group that receives mandatory student fees be open to all students, or can the student group exclude some students. That was the topic until Gov came in and started talking about Christianity and quoting from the Bible. You are probably right, we shouldn’t have taken his bait, but we did.

And if you bothered to read the comments, that already dealt with the exact issue that you raise. The issue isn’t about the Bible or Christianity — it’s about whether a Christian group can accept mandatory student fees and also discriminate against unrepentant gay students by not allowing them to join their group. I say they cannot, just as a gay group cannot discriminate against a Christian who wants to joing their group. If the Christian group cannot accept that, then their other choise is to refuse and funding from student fees and then they can discriminate against whomever they wish.

Does that sound fair to you?

“I hope you don’t expect Christians to accept your summary judgment that our views are “bigoted” or your careless attempts to analyze the Bible you don’t really care about.”

Sure, So long as you don’t expect gay people accept any summary judgement that gays are immoral, or make careless attempts to inform us what the ‘gay lifestyle’ is, or think that it is something sexual orientation can be changed. Deal?

The issue here is simple. Christian leaders, like all Christians, are sinners, but they are expected to be repentant sinners. That means that when they sin, they must be “sorry” for the sin and they must intend not to commit the sin again. This is the reason that those committed to a homosexual lifestyle are such an issue. One person on here is ranting about people masturbating. But I suspect these people would not stand up publicly and say “you know what, I masturbate all the time and I am proud of it and I expect you all to accept my choice about how to live while also accepting my spiritual leadership.” If they did, a Christian group would have every (moral) right to say, “you know what, we can’t have unrepentant people committed to sin leading this group,” and I would hope they would say that.

It would be much easier for many Christians, me included, if gay sex was not a sin, because we know and like gay people. But to most Christian denominations, it is a sin, and we don’t get to pick what is a sin and what is not (if so, politicians would presumably decide adultery is not a sin, thieves would decide theft was not a sin, etc.). Some sort of anti-gay prejudice does not have to be a core tenet of the group, as long as a commitment to trying to avoid sin is (and it always is). The reason there is a controversy over gay people in the Church is that that is the group that is most actively (at this time) attempting to have their beliefs accepted as Christian doctrine, and those who value the old doctrine don’t like it very much.

Also, for those anti-religion folks in this thread, I don’t spend my time telling you how to be an atheist or agnostic or whatever so I hope you don’t expect Christians to accept your summary judgment that our views are “bigoted” or your careless attempts to analyze the Bible you don’t really care about. Some of us are serious about religion and are doing our best here, even if we constantly fail through sin and a lack of the full understanding of God.

And yet, strangely, you claim to know about how much I have counseled with God: “You cannot persuasively say that, until you approach the full counsel of God. Something, I am not sure of, but doubt you have done.”

I’m not interested in persuading you on anything. I do know that I indeed struggled with my sexual orientation both religiously and secularly. After much trauma and trying very hard to be straight, I finally realized that God indeed made me gay, and I’ve never been happier. You, of course, are free to disagree and argue that I’m going to hell and all that. I’m free to ignore it.

“I am confident in my interpretation in the Word, not because I get it all right, but because I am faithful to rightfully interpret it, and when I am wrong, I have changed my interpretation, oftentimes coming from the wisdom of other believers. But if I agree to a precedent that all other interpretations other than my own should be forbidden, then when (or as current when it has already) my interpretation falls out of favor it would be forbidden, would be incredibly wrong and dangerous. I have no such desire to do that.”

In other words, where you know you are wrong, you are willing to change, and where you know you are right, you are not. And the fact that many other Christian demoninations (not to mention two of the three main Judaic religions), finding nothing wrong with homosexuality, and means that they must be wrong, correct?

PUblius: “You still haven’t come up with any evidence that homosexual activity is treated any differently than any other non-marital sexuality in this regard.”

There is a big difference. All people who are gay and out believe that their sexual orientation is normal — normal for them. Those who are religious even say it is a gift from God (as I do). Any openly gay person would, by your own description, disallowed from membership and/or leadership roles in these types of student groups.

Again, I don’t see a problem — all student groups should allow all students to be members. As for leadership roles, I can see it being restricted in some fashion (all have a right to participate, but no one has a right to more that participation). And any religious student who thinks homosexuality is wrong is also entitled to be a member of the gay student group. Tit for tat, as far as I’m concerned. And after all, if your message is a strong one, you have nothing to fear from one or two wayward students in your midst, right?

Randy: Then we shall see if they move to ban people who masturbate.If they do, then I will concede you are correct.And if they move only to ban gays, then hopefully you will do the same.

All I can say is that in my experience with such groups, I’ve never seen a policy that anyone who engages in any type of sin would be banned. And heterosexual fornication and masturbation were discussed much more frequently than homosexual activity, because those issues are simply more relevant to what the members were dealing with. You know, the whole issue of worrying about the speck in your own eye before worrying about the plank in someone else’s. And as Gov98 says, when sin (any sin) is discussed, the issue isn’t: “Have you committed this sin? Then get out of here, we want no part of you!” It’s: “Is this something you are struggling with? Keep up the good fight, and here are some thoughts that should help!” Sinning itself isn’t a problem for membership. It’s refusing to struggle against or even acknowledge sin that creates an issue, because the whole idea is of a group of sinful people supporting each other in working together toward Godliness. Everyone doesn’t need to be at the same point for this idea to be effective, but everyone does need to be moving in the same direction. You still haven’t come up with any evidence that homosexual activity is treated any differently than any other non-marital sexuality in this regard.

Love the way you just through in the “et al.” Leave aside the fact that Peter, James, the Jerusalem Council vs.22a(Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church) decided on that, and wait wait for it…it was supported by a vision already observed by Peter.

Acts 10:9-15 “9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14″Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”"

But I mean really now who needs to be charitable when we can willy nilly distort Christianity.

Randy says:
We should all be thankful for Gov’s perspectives. He obviously believes that his church and reading of the Bible is the one correct way, and everyone else is BS. Of course, if he or she really believes that, it would be their duty to attempt to outlaw all other religions, since we can’t have such heresies allowed, and we can’t have people being damned to hell for their misguided beliefs.

This is called “making stuff up,” you know nothing about the vast majority of what I believe and somehow, based upon a complete lack of evidence you state that the logical extension of what I believe is that we ought to outlaw other interpretations. That, sir, is what the Catholic Church attempted to do in the past, and I have no interest to do. I am confident in my interpretation in the Word, not because I get it all right, but because I am faithful to rightfully interpret it, and when I am wrong, I have changed my interpretation, oftentimes coming from the wisdom of other believers. But if I agree to a precedent that all other interpretations other than my own should be forbidden, then when (or as current when it has already) my interpretation falls out of favor it would be forbidden, would be incredibly wrong and dangerous. I have no such desire to do that.

There is something called “Individual Soul Liberty.” Simply it is the idea, that the individual is accountable to God for what he/she does and is free to choose how he/she responds or not. But I will not deny, in any way the idea that you will be accountable for how you respond to the Word (as I will be too), but that is between you and the Almighty Judge. If you ask my interpretation, I will faithfully give it.

The issue is, that some interpret the Word wrongly or distort it, and then others, like yourself Randy, use that misinterpretation, to say that the interpretation that I and many others share is wrong. You cannot persuasively say that, until you approach the full counsel of God. Something, I am not sure of, but doubt you have done.

Then we shall see if they move to ban people who masturbate. If they do, then I will concede you are correct. And if they move only to ban gays, then hopefully you will do the same.

This is way weird to say I’m sure, but I’ll say it anyway…Sexual immorality is forbidden, but there is only one (that I recollect) story that suggests that masturbation is a sin (done in lust clearly yes, but let’s leave that aside for now). So I don’t know that masturbation is forbidden. But, let’s take another issue, if someone a member of a church or in leadership of a church, is using pornography, refuses to repent of it/continues to engage it, absolutely that person should be removed from membership and leadership (or just membership if not a leader.)

Then we shall see if they move to ban people who masturbate. If they do, then I will concede you are correct. And if they move only to ban gays, then hopefully you will do the same.

Randy: Publius, I also found this article.Should pretty much settle the issue that this is about discriminating against gays.

I don’t see how that settles anything. If a student group has a problem with homosexual activity as one of a number of activities (adultery, fornication, drug use, etc.) that they consider sinful, and the school has a speech code that prohibits discriminatory speech regarding sexual orientation, obviously there’s only one point at which the group’s creed conflicts with the speech code, but that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is any more important to the group than any of the other activities they consider sinful. If the speech code also prohibited discriminatory speech regarding sexual exclusivity, there would be two points of tension with the school (homosexuality and adultery), and so forth. But the school’s speech code doesn’t determine the group’s priorities, just the areas where the school has a problem with them.

We should all be thankful for Gov’s perspectives. He obviously believes that his church and reading of the Bible is the one correct way, and everyone else is BS. Of course, if he or she really believes that, it would be their duty to attempt to outlaw all other religions, since we can’t have such heresies allowed, and we can’t have people being damned to hell for their misguided beliefs.

But the real issue is that our founding fathers knew that everyone thinks they have the one true church, and this is why they didn’t want any church to be supported by the state, and everyone is allowed to worship the church of their choice. In the eyes of the state, all religions and beliefs are equal. Which is why one church that bans gays shouldn’t be given any special rights as opposed to churches that welcome gays.

It has served us well for 200 years, and it is our American tradition. Let’s not fiddle with it.

Because most college age students are not married, so adultery isn’t likely an issue. As for the rest, like masturbation, fornication (sex outside of marriage), I haven’t ever heard of any student religious group that wanted to expel anyone for violating these basic religious rules. However, there are several that have wanted to exclude gays from attending their meetings. Therefore, if past history is any guide, we can expect that their primary goal is to prevent gays from being members and no one else.

Moreover, here is what Mike Dorf from Prawsblawg has to say: “The Hastings opp cert relies on district court findings showing that until a few years ago, CLS had no problem with openly gay and lesbian members. The trouble arose when the national CLS started insisting that its chapters make prospective members take a pledge that, as interpreted by the national organization, required excluding “unrepentant” sexual minorities.”

The phrase “unrepentant sexual minorities” is a euphenism for gays and lesbians.

If that’s the issue (and I admit I may not be reading this correctly), then they should do a similar interrogation of all members or potential leaders to make sure that they conform to all Christian beliefs in their activity.

But the question of which deviations from religious norms are deserving of subjecting a member to discipline and which aren’t is itself an entirely religious question, a matter of faith in which secular concepts of reason or due process need play no part. Serbian Orthodox Church v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976). As that case noted, religious rules can be “ambiguous and semingly inconsistent,” and it’s of no consequence.

Randy: But of course, they anticipate a problem:That at some point they will have a homosexual in their midst, and they will be forced to accept him or her either as a member, or if he runs for leadership and wins the vote, that won’t be able to expel him.If that’s the issue (and I admit I may not be reading this correctly), then they should do a similar interrogation of all members or potential leaders to make sure that they conform to all Christian beliefs in their activity.

What’s your basis for thinking that they anticipate more of a problem there than with adultery, fornication, etc?

Funny. That’s what a lot of people say about you! If there were only one correct interpretation, then there would be only one Christian religion. But we have hundreds — proof, to me at least, that God allows whatever interpretation you wish. Or else he wouldn’t allow so many with so many disparate beliefs. And that’s just the Christian ones!

” The undisputed evidence is that aside from asking all members to sign their Statement of Faith, they made no effort to determine whether any members were actively homosexual.”

In which case, there is no problem. But of course, they anticipate a problem: That at some point they will have a homosexual in their midst, and they will be forced to accept him or her either as a member, or if he runs for leadership and wins the vote, that won’t be able to expel him. If that’s the issue (and I admit I may not be reading this correctly), then they should do a similar interrogation of all members or potential leaders to make sure that they conform to all Christian beliefs in their activity.

troll_dc2:
So Paul et al. did not like the dietary laws and most of the other restrictions, and, hence, simply decided not to require adherence to them. I guess you can do that when you make up your own religion.

Well, of course any religion sounds silly if you assume it’s all made up with no divine component. But obviously few adherents of a religion would agree with that perspective.

Gov98: 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

So Paul et al. did not like the dietary laws and most of the other restrictions, and, hence, simply decided not to require adherence to them. I guess you can do that when you make up your own religion.

It seems clear to me that at least some kinds of student groups could be creatures of the University. Perhaps most — everything from French societies to athletic teams could be characterized set up by the University and run by students, if at all, only because the University so chooses. In that respect, Professor French’s view may well not apply to at least some groups.

However, I don’t believe a state University could, consistent with the Establishment Clause, run its own religious groups as its own creatures and part of its missions, choosing which groups to have and what rules they should have according to its own wishes. To do so would strike at the heart of the Establishment Clause; the University would be establishing religion in a very basic and elemental sense of that word.

I believe the only way to avoid a head-on collision with the Establishment Clause is to regard student religious groups as coming under Professor French’s view: they are creatures of the students, not the University, and are there not because the University wants them, but because they have a right to be there under Supreme Court precedents guaranteeing equal access. They are merely in the University, not of it. For this reason, the University has no right to control them or to regulate their membership or governance, except to restrict members to students (since only students have a right to University facilities.)

Professor French argues for a more expansive view, arguing that viewpoint-oriented groups generally are ‘in the University, but not of it’ under Free Speech caselaw. This may well be so. However, Establishment Clause caselaw provides an independent route to this result where religious groups are concerned.

This is called religious prejudice. I don’t know enough about the Christian religion to know what is and isn’t forbidden based upon the Bible, but they don’t think like I do, therefore they are biased. I mean just for example…show me from scripture where I am required to object to the death penalty…I am not clear what you mean by opulence, but greed is sin, homelessness is a difficult issue…if someone is homeless because they refuse to work then oh well…they should starve. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.” If it is something else yes they should be provided for, but by who? By the government? I disagree from a policy perspective, because I believe the government to provide for the main purpose of creating to itself a feudal power, inappropriate to a republican form of government. As to torture you tell me what the Bible says on torture…I’m interested if you know.

So you show me where the Bible says I have to think like you… you show me.

(b) who died and made them the boss of other Christians?
But who died and made you the boss of the Bible? Look, anyone can do whatever they want with the Word of God, you can accept it, reject it, manipulate it, whatever. But each and every person is individually accountable to God, with what they do with it. I believe that I am accountable to follow it, obey it, and faithfully interpret it. If someone else wants to do something else with it…fine…BUT if you don’t want to follow it, obey it, and faithfully interpret it, then you practice a different religion than I do, and we don’t belong in the same fellowship or church. That simple.

As to another post…

Only sexual virgins would be allowed to have a leadership position, or they could be a non-virgin so long as they repent and promise to remain celebate until marriage

You do know (or don’t you) that in a number of churches you cannot serve in a leadership position if you’ve ever been divorced? Even if you’re currently married. This is because that is what the Bible says…so the point you make is not as far off as you think. In the end it’s mostly moot, because most Christians do not advertise their sin, they privately repent of it, making it something that rarely comes to the attention of the church. However, if sin is flaunted, I’d expect in most fundamental churches this to be an issue.

I’m really glad to see religious folks arguing this, because my experience is that a lot of religious conservatives pretend religion is a status and NOT a belief when they accuse anyone who criticizes or makes fun of religion, or points out how false it is, of being an anti-Christian or anti-religious bigot.

In other words, I am very comfortable with a world where religion is treated as one more idea, which stands or falls on its evidence and is subject to criticism, refutation, insult, and ridicule. But a lot of conservative Christians, in my experience, are NOT in fact interested in living in such a world. They want religion to be treated as a status when that position benefits them and a factual claim when that position benefits them.

28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

troll_dc2: Gov98, I looked up Acts 15 to see how the New Testament did away with the dietary restrictions, and, frankly, I did not see anything that helped me to understand how Leviticus got overruled, except that there was evident unhappiness over circumcision.

Perhaps he meant Acts 21. See in particular verses 20 through 25.

Randy: IF that’s the case, than CLS would have to start off every meeting by asking if anyone has masturbated, or had sex outside of marriage since the last meeting. Only sexual virgins would be allowed to have a leadership position, or they could be a non-virgin so long as they repent and promise to remain celebate until marriageIf so, that person has to confess and repent or else they will be expunged.

Why? They didn’t start off every meeting by asking if anyone had engaged in homosexual acts. The undisputed evidence is that aside from asking all members to sign their Statement of Faith, they made no effort to determine whether any members were actively homosexual.

Randy: Or are you suggesting that only gay people be subjected to a sexual inquisition?

What evidence is there that anyone was subjected to a sexual inquisition?

Is it? Or is it only out of your assumptions that you make this unsupported assertion…look 2 comments down…

Why should anyone accept the assertion that homosexuality is antithetical to Christian beliefs. Do not some Christian churches welcome (and ordain) gays?

This is exactly the problem. People have snuck in and undermined and in fact practice a false gospel and then some throw it back in Christian faces saying see…some Christians don’t practice tenet “X,” I say they’re not genuine Christians…

Look the New Testament is full of references to within 60 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ people trying to distort the Gospel.

1 John 2:19 (They went out from us because they were not of us.”
2 Corinthians 11:3 (Why should anyone accept the assertion that homosexuality is antithetical to Christian beliefs. Do not some Christian churches welcome (and ordain) gays?)
Galatians 1:6 (I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—)

I could go on…So Christian Theology is rife with reference to concern with distorting the Bible and the Gospel…

You say:
And why stop there? There are clear prohitibitions on lots of things in the Bible — eating shellfish, swearing, not honoring your parents — the list goes on. Should anyone who wants to be a leader or a member be required to check off every sin mentioned in the Bible and swear that he or she either has not committed the sin, or has repented for it, and promises to never ever commit any more sins?

Yes, and in fact, as it relate to current new testament commands that is they way it is…Now, there is not to be any continuing sin in any leaders life, and there ought not be…that they fail is normal, but if they choose to continue in it without repenting then yes they ought not be in leadership (as to dietary restrictions I will note that the Bible is clear see Acts 15 that dietary restrictions do not apply to the New Testament Believer.)

Homosexuality offends some Christians, but (a) their objection appears to derive from personal or political preferences instead of theology, at least with respect to those who do not express equal objection to torture, opulence, homelessness, current application of the death penalty, etc. and (b) who died and made them the boss of other Christians?

If someone overlooks fornication, greed, adultery, meanness, gluttony, arrogance, and the like while shunning gays, I see bigotry, not theology.

As Loki has explained in another thread, we’ve never encountered students so hell bent on taking over a student group that they go in en masse and take over. If men want to run and operate a women’s group, it’s actually much easier to start up a new group. Then, when they find that no women have actually joined, they will probably disband.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

“but I find it hard to believe that CLS would prohibit a person who is gay from participating or being a member or even becoming a leader, as long as that person ascribes to the tenets of the faith, which would preclude someone from engaging in proscribed conduct, including, but not limited sexual acts with someone of the same sex, and sexual acts with someone not one’s spouse, or any other continuing, unrepented of sin.”

IF that’s the case, than CLS would have to start off every meeting by asking if anyone has masturbated, or had sex outside of marriage since the last meeting. Only sexual virgins would be allowed to have a leadership position, or they could be a non-virgin so long as they repent and promise to remain celebate until marriage If so, that person has to confess and repent or else they will be expunged. I think that would pretty much put a damper on any chance they get students to attend.

And why stop there? There are clear prohitibitions on lots of things in the Bible — eating shellfish, swearing, not honoring your parents — the list goes on. Should anyone who wants to be a leader or a member be required to check off every sin mentioned in the Bible and swear that he or she either has not committed the sin, or has repented for it, and promises to never ever commit any more sins?

Or are you suggesting that only gay people be subjected to a sexual inquisition?

I think if any student group really wants to accomplish anything and attract anyone other than Pat Robertson’s kids as members, they would apply the same litmus test to everyone or to no one, and really it’s best to test no one. It’s easier, and the one who don’t really like the group will eventually drop out anyway.