# Ask the Seminary Student **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825 "2006-02-10T05:46:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/181 "2006-02-17T18:10:35Z")
I’m reminded of a conversation between Adler and Popper, who had presented the case of a child who did not seem to fit Adler’s theories. But from the scant information Popper gave him, Adler launched a tour-de-force analysis of the boy, explaining why the boy did indeed fit his theories. “But you haven’t even met the boy,” Popper said. “How can you know so much about him?” “Because of my thousand-fold experience in these matters,” Adler replied. “And I suppose this,” Popper said, “makes your experience a thousand-and-one fold.” Lots of archeologists are religious people, especially archaeologists in that region of the world. And as you say, their religion does not qualify them as experts, but as you don’t say, their degrees and expertise in archaeology do. But for expertise on the alledged time-frame of the alleged Exodus, it is not the alleged archaeologist whose alleged expertise is helpful. It is the alleged Biblical scholar. In every instance that you have made these sweeping declarations, when I have brought to your attention an opposing view, you have never — not once — responded to it in any way other than to dismiss it summarily, claim no other view exists, and reference whatever source you find amenable to your own view. You cannot know anything about what other people think, people who are at least as expert as yourself — I’m assuming you’re an archaeologist — without actually, you know, reading them. Even if your experience has found points to support your own view a thousand times. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/182 "2006-02-17T18:35:38Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > And if we accept the copout that reference is being made to later, unnamed children of Adam and Eve, that implies that Cain is shagging his sister. Well, and even worse, since Eve was made out of Adam’s rib, Adam shagged his almost clone. 🙂 But, yeah, what **Tomndebb** said. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/183 "2006-02-17T20:55:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m reminded of a conversation between Adler and Popper, who had presented the case of a child who did not seem to fit Adler’s theories. But from the scant information Popper gave him, Adler launched a tour-de-force analysis of the boy, explaining why the boy did indeed fit his theories. > > “But you haven’t even met the boy,” Popper said. “How can you know so much about him?” > > “Because of my thousand-fold experience in these matters,” Adler replied. > > “And I suppose this,” Popper said, “makes your experience a thousand-and-one fold.” > > Lots of archeologists are religious people, especially archaeologists in that region of the world. And as you say, their religion does not qualify them as experts, but as you don’t say, their degrees and expertise in archaeology do. But for expertise on the alledged time-frame of the alleged Exodus, it is not the alleged archaeologist whose alleged expertise is helpful. It is the alleged Biblical scholar. > > In every instance that you have made these sweeping declarations, when I have brought to your attention an opposing view, you have never — not once — responded to it in any way other than to dismiss it summarily, claim no other view exists, and reference whatever source you find amenable to your own view. > > You cannot know anything about what other people think, people who are at least as expert as yourself — I’m assuming you’re an archaeologist — without actually, you know, reading them. Even if your experience has found points to support your own view a thousand times. I’m not even really sure what you’re objecting to. I’m not dismissing any other archaeologists or archaeological evidence or archaeological arguments for the Exodus. I’m saying they don’t exist at all. There AREN’T any archeologists who argue for the Exodus just like there aren’t any geologists who argue for a global flood. There is no other side. There isn’t ant dissent. There isn’t any controversy. It is a settled conclusion of ME archaeology that the Biblical Exodus is an ahistorical event. There are archaeologists and historians who argue about whether the Exodus has its roots in meories of the Hyksos expulsion, their own flight to Canaan and their subsequent pursuit and routing by the Pharaoh Ahmose I. The Hyksos were not Israelites but they were Canaanites and their story bears some superficial similarities with elements of the Joseph story. It is now believed that the Sinai story was originally a separate tradition from the Exodus story and represents the origin of a tribal Yahweh cult (a God associated with a mountain, perhaps a volcano) from the Transjordan (which was eventually syncretized with the proto-Israelite worship of the Canaanite god named El). Arguments for a Biblica Exodus of formerly enslaved Israelies from Egypt do not come from archaeologists but from non-credentialed evangelicals (or flat out con-artists like like Ron Wyatt) who publish nothing in peer-reviewed journals and mostly seek to sell popular books to the converted. The time frame for the Exodus is not an issue. There is no time frame that works. It’s not a question of being narrow about when we look. There is no support at _any_ time for the Exodus. Like I said, the strongest (but far from the only) evidence against the Exodus is the fact that the Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt to begin with (not at _any time in history_) , They couldn’t have escaped from place they never went to. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/184 "2006-02-17T20:59:41Z")
It is now believed? Well, clearly nothing is ever going to get you to back down from these sweeping pronouncements that you make from time to time, and so as I said with the last one, I’ll just keep providing the counter-viewpoint materials when I see this happen, and people can just read them and decide for themselves. That okay by you? ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/185 "2006-02-17T22:10:23Z")
> [@Mines Mystique](#): > > As long as the two people are a married, heterosexual couple, absolutely not. Just look at the Song of Solomon. > > And to address **thePCapeman’s** question, the Bible is silent on masturbation, and I would say it is one of those gray areas. If you are convicted because of it, then I would say it is a sin for you. If, however, you are not convicted of it, there is no reason to regard it as a sin. However, you **must** be careful of your state of heart. If you were convicted of it in the past, but no longer feel convicted, it could be because your circumstances changed, or your heart has hardened. All that to say it depends on your personal circumstance. > > As for the rest of your list, if the couple is a unmarried heterosexual couple, my advice, and what I practice, would be abstinence from any type of sexual activity. This includes mutual masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, fondling, or anything you could think of that involves genitalia. This is not to say that I do not show affection to my fiancee. I hug her, hold her hand, kiss her, and show her affection without involving sexual activity. In other words, until we are married, there are boundaries in the physical part of our lives. And I would say, once we are married, anything goes between the two of us, as long as both of us are comfortable. > > Also, regarding your question about hugging, I hug my mom, my dad, my sister, my youth pastor, anyone that I feel needs one, without fear of sinning. I will also share a bed with another guy if we are on a business trip or what have you. > > As for the homosexual couple, whether guy-guy or girl-girl, I would say that even being in the relationship with the intention of committing sexual acts would be wrong. Let me know if I can clarify any further. > > Mines Mystique I see this thread has changed quite a bit since I left. **Mines Mystique** , if you are still around, I was wondering if you’d allow me to pursue this a little more. Do you view marriage, as defined in your religion, to be potentially different than marriages performed by governments? And maybe even different from other religions as to what is required and what is acceptable? I imagine it is quite possible for there to be some marriages that are perfectly valid in these other contexts but not in yours and perhaps vice versa. If so, then aren’t these otherwise married people committing sins every time they unrepentantly have sexual relations? Of course there are some jurisdictions that do not prohibit same sex marriage but for the sake of simplicity, let’s start with heterosexual couples. If this is your view, I assume you would not go about uninvitedly expressing it to such couples. But what is your view on marriage when it comes to washing the sin out of sexual activity? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/186 "2006-02-17T22:18:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is now believed? Well, clearly nothing is ever going to get you to back down from these sweeping pronouncements that you make from time to time, and so as I said with the last one, I’ll just keep providing the counter-viewpoint materials when I see this happen, and people can just read them and decide for themselves. That okay by you? What counter-viewpoint? ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/187 "2006-02-17T23:08:10Z")
> [@Joey Jo Jo](#): > > I think that Christian morality is all about “mutual love relationships”. Anything that aides loving relationships is good, and anything that destroys them is bad. Since then morality is about love, then I think you are right in that you have to take into account the heart of the person. Christianity is not just a heap of rules that you have to follow. It is really all about being in a loving relationship with God and with God’s people. > > That being said I disagree that the bible only contains “some general moral principles”. While morality is all about love I think it is also true to say that there are some things that are always unloving. Adultery, for instance, is always destructive of loving relationships, and therefore always wrong. The bible mentions many of these things and I think we should pay attention when it talks about them. > … **Joey Jo Jo** , I agree with you on adultery. We’d probably agree on promiscuity too. It’s easy to make the rational argument against such things. I also think increasing the number of stable relationships is a benefit to everyone. So where’s the corresponding argument against homosexuality? As an experiment, try to imagine a world that is exactly like this one in every way except that there is no god or religion. Things that aid loving relationships are still good and things that destroy them are still bad. What would be the rationale for not supporting the loving relationship of two men or two women who are attracted to each other in every way, including sexually? What would be “unloving” about a homosexual couple that truly love, support, honor, cherish, etc. each other? Wouldn’t barring such relationships be “destructive”? If you’re still with me at this point, add god and religion back into the world and tell me why things need to change. > [@](#): > > … > Part of the problem is with the term “love”. In English, love is such a broad term that it is very unhelpful, yet it is in many ways the best world that we have. I can validly say that “I love my wife”, “I love my sister” and “I love ice-cream”, yet I mean very different things by the term “love” in each case. So in talking about “love” we have to be careful that we are talking about love in the same way that the bible would talk about love, becuase we use love in a much broader context then the bible writers would > > In the case of homosexuality, while we may quite validly talk of homosexuality being about “love”, I don’t think that the bible writers would use “love” to describe that sort of relationship. One of the reasons I think this is that in the NT the original Greek uses three or more words that are commonly translated as “love”. The one most commonly used (agapae I think, although no doubt Diogenes will come and correct me) does not include in its meaning a sexual dimension. Those sort of relationships are described with a different words. Therefore just because we can apply the word “love” to something, does not necessarily mean that it is included in what the bible would call love. And the passages in the bible that either state or imply that God’s people are not intended to live in homosexual relationships would imply that these relationships are not “loving” ones, at least in the biblical concept of love. > … The English word _love_ is certainly used to describe a wide range of situations. Do you think that there is a definition of love that cannot possibly be used to describe a relationship between two people of the same gender? I trust you understand that homosexuality isn’t about sex any more or less than is heterosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/188 "2006-02-17T23:16:28Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What counter-viewpoint? You have asserted that everything about the Exodus has to be literary invention because none of it happened. The linked article points out that there are events in Egypt that parallel some of the biblical stories, except that they occurred 1,000 years earlier–a time when there is archeological evidence for some habitation in the Sinai. That article toys with the idea that the Exodus story is a recounting of ancient tales in a way that could be used by the authors of the biblical books. To simply declare that “it cannot have happened” is to ignore the evidence presented. Neither **Liberal** nor the linked article makea claim that “this is what really happened,” but your declarations are based on the assumption that the Exodus story is bound to both the events and the time period found in the bible. If, as people speculate, Plato’s Atlantis might be based on a memory of tales told about the destruction of Thera/Santorini, why do you insist that there can be no possible event, tales of which might have been collated into a story of the Exodus? This is not a claim that Exodus “happened.” It is an exploration of various events that might have provided the framework on which to hang a new tale giving mythical status to the origin of a people. When you declare > [@](#): > > I’m not dismissing any other archaeologists or archaeological evidence or archaeological arguments for the Exodus. I’m saying they don’t exist at all. you are arguing a strawman position (since no one has claimed that the events “are” Exodus) as well as imposing your belief on other information. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/189 "2006-02-18T05:44:08Z")
How seriously are you going to take the upcoming season of Lent? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/190 "2006-02-18T12:59:35Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > The penalty for _sin_ is damnation. One essential aspect of Christianity is the fact we’re all sinful, we all _deserve_ to be condemned by God. However, if we sincerely repent of our sins - “following God”, if you like - we can be forgiven. > > The main issue on which I, and **cosmosdan** , and **Liberal** would (presumably) disagree with **Mines** and **Joey** is whether or not “following God” requires an explicit commitment to the Christian faith, or if it can be achieved by other routes. > > (Apologies if the above statement does not accurately reflect the views of any of the named individuals.) > A better analogy would be a prison rather than a country. The choice is being offered to Death Row inmates - “If you admit what you’ve done is wrong, turn away from it, and try and be guided in your lives by my laws and my example, you can go free. If you don’t, if you continue to claim that you’re innocent despite all the evidence against you, if you continue to deny that what you did was wrong - you’ll go to the chair.” > > I think, by human standards, such a ruler would be considered unduly _merciful_. > Who indeed? But people (and angels) do. > > \ **ARE YOU GOING TO BE ONE OF THEM?** \ 🙂 The Genesis chapter I read said that now that Adam and Eve had sinned they would die because they knew evil from good; there was no mention of loss of soul or eternal Damnation. God was supposed to have stopped them from getting back into paradise. The idea that one had a soul and suffered eternal damnation or earned paradise came much later. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/191 "2006-02-18T14:53:42Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The Genesis chapter I read said that now that Adam and Eve had sinned they would die because they knew evil from good; there was no mention of loss of soul or eternal Damnation. God was supposed to have stopped them from getting back into paradise. The idea that one had a soul and suffered eternal damnation or earned paradise came much later. True, an examination of the development of Christian doctrine on this issue does require an historical study of the Bible, and the interaction of the various beliefs and philosophies over the millennia between Moses and Luther. The concept of “soul” as distinct from “life” is basically a Greek concept, which, as you say, is not to be found in the earlier books of the Old Testament - one of the many problems in attempting to read the entire Bible uncritically and coming up with a coherent and non-contradictory set of beliefs from the text on its own. That being said, Jesus regularly speaks about the subject (Matthew 7:21-23, for starters), and we’re discussing Christian, rather than Jewish, doctrine here. Genesis 3:22 has God preventing Adam and Eve from _becoming_ immortal by eating of “the tree of life” after the Fall, implying that they were mortal in their unfallen states. I’m not sure how this is relevant to the issue at hand, though. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/192 "2006-02-18T16:31:06Z")
Just want to say I’m still following this thread closely, and thank the posters for their very informative discussion. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/193 "2006-02-19T12:02:07Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > True, an examination of the development of Christian doctrine on this issue does require an historical study of the Bible, and the interaction of the various beliefs and philosophies over the millennia between Moses and Luther. The concept of “soul” as distinct from “life” is basically a Greek concept, which, as you say, is not to be found in the earlier books of the Old Testament - one of the many problems in attempting to read the entire Bible uncritically and coming up with a coherent and non-contradictory set of beliefs from the text on its own. That being said, Jesus regularly speaks about the subject (Matthew 7:21-23, for starters), and we’re discussing Christian, rather than Jewish, doctrine here. > > Genesis 3:22 has God preventing Adam and Eve from _becoming_ immortal by eating of “the tree of life” after the Fall, implying that they were mortal in their unfallen states. I’m not sure how this is relevant to the issue at hand, though. I believe that idea came later, as I read it it was said, now you know good from evil you must die. The idea that a person was just a soul in a body came later, and the word soul came from the word anima meaning life. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/194 "2006-02-19T13:07:24Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I believe that idea came later, as I read it it was said, now you know good from evil you must die. Genesis 2:16-17 > [@](#): > > And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Note that this is a warning, a threat, from God, about what _will_ happen _if_ Adam eats the forbidden fruit. Genesis 3:4-5 > [@](#): > > And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. The serpent tells Eve the truth. Genesis 3:22-23, emphasis mine > [@](#): > > And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, **lest** he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and **live for ever** : Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. This is God’s actual punishment. Adam and Eve are prevented from becoming immortal, not _made_ mortal from a previously immortal state. And not killed on the spot, as Genesis 2:17 would imply. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/195 "2006-02-20T03:18:10Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Genesis 3:22-23, emphasis mine > > . > [@](#): > > And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Hey!!?? Who’s the _us_ that ,man has become one as one of?? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/196 "2006-02-20T11:23:57Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Genesis 2:16-17 > > Note that this is a warning, a threat, from God, about what _will_ happen _if_ Adam eats the forbidden fruit. > > Genesis 3:4-5 > > The serpent tells Eve the truth. > > Genesis 3:22-23, emphasis mine > > This is God’s actual punishment. Adam and Eve are prevented from becoming immortal, not _made_ mortal from a previously immortal state. And not killed on the spot, as Genesis 2:17 would imply. To me this means death of the body that would have lived forever not loss of soul.If man was made in God’s image he would be invisible, except for the fact that the Psalmist says: Don’t you know you are Gods, sons of the most high. Jesus used this Psalm to prove his divinity when accused of Blasphmey. I did not read Genesis to mean killed on the spot, but now their life would end. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/197 "2006-02-20T13:36:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Hey!!?? Who’s the **us** that ,man has become one as one of?? For that matter, who is God talking to? It’s very difficult to extract a consistent, absolute monotheism from much of the Old Testament. > [@monavis](#): > > To me this means death of the body that would have lived forever not loss of soul. Yes, I agree. I’m not trying to argue that the (universal) penalty for sin is the _same_ as Adam and Eve’s penalty for the Fall. We can bring out analogies and similarities between them, of course, but I don’t think that anyone claims that the two are _identical_. > [@](#): > > I did not read Genesis to mean killed on the spot, but now their life would end. “In the day that thou eatest thereof” - which is a literal translation of the Hebrew, the NIV’s “when” is a paraphrase. I suppose that if we give “day” an allegorical interpretation in Genesis 1, we can do the same in Genesis 2. However, the standard YEC objection to this is that the “days” of Genesis 1 are delimited by morning and evening, and are therefore 24-hour days. If one is committed to a literal interpretation, then one has to accept that God told Adam he would die on _the same day_ that he ate the fruit; which didn’t happen. So, either God lied, or we have to abandon a literal interpretation of either “day” or “die” or both. And if we have to abandon a literal interpretation here, right at the beginning of the text, why bother hanging on to it elsewhere? ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/198 "2006-02-20T19:19:00Z")
**Mines Mystique** , Here is an example of why I think the discussion here is important. After reading today’s [Ask Amy column](http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20060220ctnaa-a.txt&catid=1843&code=ctnaa)… > [@](#): > > Dear Amy: My husband and I have lived in our quiet suburban Denver neighborhood for six years. About two years ago two young gay men moved in across the street. They’ve taken the ugliest, most run-down property in the neighborhood and remodeled and transformed it into the pride of the street. When it snows, they shovel out my car and are friendly, yet they mostly keep to themselves. Last month I went out to retrieve my newspaper and watched them kiss each other goodbye and embrace as they each left for work. I was appalled that they would do something like that in plain view of everyone. I was so disturbed that I spoke to my pastor. He encouraged me to draft a letter telling them how much we appreciate their help but asking them to refrain from that behavior in our neighborhood. I did so and asked a few of our neighbors to sign it. Since I delivered it, I’ve not been able to get them to even engage me in conversation. I offer greetings but they’ve chosen to ignore me. They have made it so uncomfortable for the other neighbors and me by not even acknowledging our presence. How would you suggest we open communications with them and explain to them that we value their contributions to the neighborhood but will not tolerate watching unnatural and disturbing behavior. - Wondering …I was wondering how you, as a future pastor, would have counseled such a parishioner. You will be in a position to influence your congregation’s behavior as well as how your church is viewed by others. How important are the outsider’s view to you? Do you have any trepidation of accepting this responsibility? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/199 "2006-02-20T22:36:35Z")
> [@ThePCapeman](#): > > **Mines Mystique** , Here is an example of why I think the discussion here is important. After reading today’s [Ask Amy column](http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20060220ctnaa-a.txt&catid=1843&code=ctnaa)… > …I was wondering how you, as a future pastor, would have counseled such a parishioner. You will be in a position to influence your congregation’s behavior as well as how your church is viewed by others. How important are the outsider’s view to you? Do you have any trepidation of accepting this responsibility? I agree with your sentiment, but that letter really smells like Yale. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825/200 "2006-02-21T00:00:51Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > …that letter really smells like Yale. I don’t follow your meaning. Care to fight my ignorace? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-seminary-student/343825.md?page=11)