Why I am a former SDA

[Bravus]

Yes. You will be disagreed with! Being disagreed with does not curtail the right of freedom of speech. In fact, there can be no freedom of speech *without* disagreement.

Just make your case, rather than going to this meta level.

You disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality. That's OK. I understand that most Christians who read the Bible literally do. I'm OK with that disagreement, and I'm OK with it being stated.

It's a genuine disagreement, and I remind you that it is one of the reasons I felt it was appropriate to no longer be a member of the church. I *know* that I am not in line with official church policy.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

I don't think I understand the comments concerning "defend the church", I'm not sure what that means...

Perhaps framing it differently might help. What is more important, people or the church? People or doctrine? People or rules? People or the law? People or the Sabbath?

Jesus answered that last one rather clearly, by both word and deed. Man before Sabbath! And the people who thought the Sabbath more important didn't like what he did or said. So they plotted how to kill him. And they decided to kill one man was better than the "danger" of what he did and said. But they made sure that they murdered him in time so they could keep the Sabbath. They considered that an absolute.

Since we are talking about what is more important.

The most important thing in each human life is God. What does God say to you and how do you respond to God.

It is personal, it is individual, it is unique for each.

After that it is all jibberish.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Discussion of this post at Adventist Today: http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=921

In that post Taylor says

Quote:

believing is not the most important element in an identification with a particular faith tradition, including the Adventist version

"Big Tent-ism" is more concerned with plurality than with the actual beliefs of any given group. Its goal is "the bigger party" not "the Truth" as it is in Jesus who IS "the Way the Truth and the Life".

If Adventism were willing to sell its soul for popular votes - "big-tentism" would be the classic solution and "the only Faith" of the group would be "anything goes - because you're ok I'm ok". It is a view that states in effect "Nothing much is said in the Bible more important than everyone having fun together in the biggest party possible".

Matt 7 does not allow for that when speaking of "the MANY".

in Christ,

Bob

If the truth be told the SDA Church is a "big tent-ism" Church. It puts more emphasis on getting the numbers up than on anything else. That is why administrators that cannot demonstrate "progress by the numbers" are gone in less than two seconds.

It does this while at the same time clinging to the strict doctrines in all their narrowness.

You don't have to actually live by those doctrines and/or believe in them as long as you do not try and change them publicly------like Des Ford. Thus embarrassing the Church.

This schitzo dual personality of the SDA Church has been its hallmark for over the last one hundred years.

Thus the SDA Church can claim absolute purity (the 28 doctrines) while at the same practicing every foul and evil deed within its organization as long as such practices do not embarrass the Church either as a giant whole on down to its smallest local affiliate.

Especially at the top (not that there is not enough evil at the bottom as well) where the evil and corruption is unbounded in regard to power, money, and self gratification.

Oh how naive/blind thou art if thou thinkest differently.

[Bravus]

(side note: given how fond you seem to be of the term, it mightn't be a bad idea to learn to spell 'gibberish'...)

[miz3]

(side note: given how fond you seem to be of the term, it mightn't be a bad idea to learn to spell 'gibberish'...)

Thank you Bravus. Once again you kindly come to my aid.

Since I never really learned to spell except by the seat of my pants (that in and of itself tells where my spelling comes from) it seems that I have formed a language all my own.

In that light it appears that by spelling "jibberish" this way is actually "gibberish". LOL

[Bravus]

[John317]

...

You disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality. That's OK. I understand that most Christians who read the Bible literally do. I'm OK with that disagreement, and I'm OK with it being stated.

It's a genuine disagreement, and I remind you that it is one of the reasons I felt it was appropriate to no longer be a member of the church. I *know* that I am not in line with official church policy.

The Bible itself teaches that the practice of homosexuality is wrong. God's plan is for a man and a woman to be married, not two men or two women to be in sexual relationships. This is the position of the SDA Church, and you are right to leave the SDA church if you believe the church is wrong.

The main issue is not only disagreeing with the church but teaching against the church's position. If a person merely has questions or has a private disagreement with the church, one could continue as a church member, but if his disagreement causes disunity, then it's better to leave the church.

As far as the practice of homosexuality is concerned, I think the more important issue here is why you believe God condones it, and why you believe the SDA church should accept practicing gays as members.

Is this a postion you take on the basis of your study of Scripture and of prayer? Or is it based on something else?

I know you have written about this before, but I'm asking you to briefly summarize your reasons for your position in regard to the practice of homosexuality.

[dialoguewithus]

Bravus-

I would have very little disagreement with you on the points you've mentioned.

As for homosexuality, it's certainly understandable (and easily defensible Biblically) to claim that such behavior is contrary to God's plan. However, I think we need to maintain a church/state separation. As long as the state confers certain benefits to those who are married, then they must afford such benefits to any two adults who choose to participate- gender discrimination is not in accord with Constitutional principles. Nor is the "unnatural" claim convincing since so many animal species demonstrate homosexual behaviors.

Regarding creationism and the young earth question, it seems that Chinese and Egyptian history also poses problems for the 6,000 year point of view- correct me if I'm wrong.

Another major reason I'm a former SDA is that Christ said, "And I, if I should be exalted out of the earth, shall be drawing all to Myself." Jn. 12:32. I don't believe that someone who dies without ever hearing of the Bible or Christ has been drawn to Him during their mortal life. Their salvation is assured, although distant. Col. 1:20; Ro. 5:18,19. "And they shall be reigning for the eons of the eons." Rev, 22:5. I find the term eons of the eons to be quite similar to the term King of kings and Lord of lords. The coming eon is the millennium, and the final eon is the new earth. Those two comprise the eons of the eons, after which all will be reconciled to God. I can't accept annihilationism as Biblical.

“Turn toward Me and be saved, all the limits of the earth,

For I am El, and there is no other.

By Myself have I sworn;

From My mouth has gone forth righteousness,

A word, and it shall not turn back:

For to Me shall bow every knee,

And every tongue shall swear fealty.”

Isaiah 45:22, 23

“Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father. Phil 2:9-11. Notice that this will occur in the context of grace, in the name of Jesus (meaning “Yahweh saves” –Matt. 1:21). This acclamation on the part of every intelligent creature will be for the glory of the Father, for His family will include each one, without exception, for no purpose of His can be thwarted.

[CoAspen]

Here we go again...and again...and again...and again!

(nothing seems to grab attention like sex...homosex)

(Do we really need to go there again? Does he have to prove why he disagrees? Why not just accept that is his belief? This subject has been 'cused forever and forever, year in and year out. Yes, it is my right to say it's a tiresome subject!)

By the way, Bravus isn't teaching against anything here, just stateing his differences.

I can accept his statements as being his position, can you?

[ClubV12]

dialoguewithus says,

"...discrimination is not in accord with Constitutional principles."

Neither are Sunday laws, but we still must oppose them. No man, no law, can force another to abandon the principles of Gods kingdom. Those who opposed the State Constitutional principles in favor of Gods Constitutional principles were put to death during the dark ages. So it will be again. Jesus didn't bring a flower to offer to believers, He brought a sword, the sword of truth.

"....(and easily defensible Biblically)..." I disagree. A gay lifestyle is clearly and without question condemed, to eternal death, by the bible.

I accept their opinion that gay life is acceptable to God. I don't believe it is true, I believe it is a serious lie, a grievious mistake, but I accept their opinion.

[dialoguewithus]

ClubV12

It's interesting that there is no word in the Bible that could accurately be translated "eternal". The word usually so "translated" is "eonian", which comes from "eon". An eon is the longest period of time mentioned in the Bible. Each eon has a beginning, as well as an end, so something which is eonian, is not being referred to as eternal.

[ClubV12]

The eternal, final ending of the wicked forever and ever, their denial of entry into the New Jerusalem and subsrquent ultimate destruction, eternal life for all the Saints, these things are as sure as the sun rise tommorow.

But I fear we may be off topic on these issues so I will let it go at that.

[dialoguewithus]

God commands us to conquer evil with good. Romans 12:21. We err greatly if we assume that He is unable to do the same. God is love, so we know He’s willing. He gives repentance to whomever he chooses, when it will best suit His loving purpose. Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2Tim. 2:25. Being that God subjected the creation to vanity (Romans 8:20), we cannot doubt that He will bring good out of all that which afflicts and perplexes us presently.

Prayers for the dead were universal in the early church, which would be absurd, if their condition is unalterably fixed at the grave.

[Gibs]

ClubV12

It's interesting that there is no word in the Bible that could accurately be translated "eternal". The word usually so "translated" is "eonian", which comes from "eon". An eon is the longest period of time mentioned in the Bible. Each eon has a beginning, as well as an end, so something which is eonian, is not being referred to as eternal.

The finite cannot see or understand the infinite one.

De 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

"eternal" there means as far as man can speak it as below,

qedem keh'-dem

or qedmah {kayd'-maw}; from 6923; the front, of place (absolutely, the fore part, relatively the East) or time (antiquity); often used adverbially (before, anciently, eastward):--aforetime, ancient (time), before, east (end, part, side, -ward), eternal, X ever(-lasting), forward, old, past. Compare 6926.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Bravus]

I share CoAspen's frustration that any discussion seems to fix on the homosexuality issue - the one at AToday did too, for a while.

So let me be as brief as I can: it's necessary to understand my beliefs as a coherent framework, not in isolation. I've said, in regard to the Bible, that it contains something of Eden and something of the Fall. It reveals God in his great goodness, and it reveals fallible, fallen man too.

My belief is that the texts used to establish the doctrine that homosexual acts are wrong (a) mostly apply to specific practices such as temple prostitution dedicated to other gods and ( represent human prejudices of the time rather than God's revealed will.

That belief certainly relates to the belief that homosexual people are born the way they are, and that belief is bolstered both by growing up with people who later came out and by the best research evidence available.

I have seen the terrible consequences for both husband and wife when a gay man is forced by church pressure to marry a woman to whom he is not attracted (no more than a straight man would be attracted if he was forced to marry a man).

So my stance on this is related to experience, evidence, research and justice: the presumption that homosexual behaviour is sinful, and then a range of different approaches to 'managing' that sin, is (to me) fatally flawed. Recognising, rather, that people have a particular sexual orientation and ought to simply be loved like every other person is a more humane approach. And yeah, that does not fit with certain interpretations of a few certain Bible verses. I'm afraid that my response to that is 'so much the worse for those inhumane interpretations'.

[Dr. Shane]

Here we go again...and again...and again...and again!

(nothing seems to grab attention like sex...homosex)

(Do we really need to go there again?

Bravus brings the subject up as much as anyone. Perhaps more than most members here. This thread is an example. Bravus is the one that introduced the topic in the first post.

[Bravus]

...as one of 6 points: poverty and the environment have had less attention.

Anyway, hope we've wrapped it up now, in an agree-to-disagree sense.

My perspective is internally consistent.

[John317]

It's interesting that there is no word in the Bible that could accurately be translated "eternal". The word usually so "translated" is "eonian", which comes from "eon". An eon is the longest period of time mentioned in the Bible. Each eon has a beginning, as well as an end, so something which is eonian, is not being referred to as eternal.

"Eternal" in reference to mankind has a beginning and an ending since mankind is mortal.

But when used in reference to God, who is immortal, it means "without beginning and without ending." That's the meaning of "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

Jesus Christ the man had a beginning (birth) and an ending (death), yet as God, He is without either beginning or ending. All three divine Persons of the Godhead are eternal, i.e., without beginning and without ending.

[John317]

I share CoAspen's frustration that any discussion seems to fix on the homosexuality issue - the one at AToday did too, for a while.

On an Adventist forum, you can expect to be asked about it when it is argued or implied that there's nothing wrong or sinful about its practice.

[John317]

My belief is that the texts used to establish the doctrine that homosexual acts are wrong (a) mostly apply to specific practices such as temple prostitution dedicated to other gods and ( represent human prejudices of the time rather than God's revealed will.

This argument is false because it means that homosexual practices are OK when not in a religious/prostitution context. There's no evidence of this in the Bible. It completely avoids the fact that the Bible plainly teaches that God's plan is for a man to be with a woman.

Does ( have reference to Paul's statements about homosexuality? If not, which verses do you understand to represent human prejudices?

Originally Posted By: Bravus

That belief certainly relates to the belief that homosexual people are born the way they are, and that belief is bolstered both by growing up with people who later came out and by the best research evidence available.

It doesn't matter if homosexuals are born that way. All people are born with tendencies to sin, but that fact doesn't make sin OK. I believe I was born gay, but we have a choice to make, whether to obey God or obey our natural desires to sin. The same goes for people who are born with various other sinful tendencies.

God's grace has the power to help us resist and overcome those tendencies, including homosexuality.

Without God's grace and power, I would still be the way I was 7 years ago. That was shortly before I began to post on Adventist Forum:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/165910/12.html

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I have seen the terrible consequences for both husband and wife when a gay man is forced by church pressure to marry a woman to whom he is not attracted (no more than a straight man would be attracted if he was forced to marry a man).

No gay man should marry a woman if he doesn't love her and want to be married to her. The church can't force someone to marry someone else. That would be wrong, but it's a separate issue. It has nothing to do with whether homosexual practices are sinful or not.

[Bravus]

Quote:

...which verses do you understand to represent human prejudices?

All of them. I believe homosexuality is natural and normal, albeit a minority orientation, and that all of the texts in the Bible used to claim it is sinful reflect human prejudice rather than God's will.

It's as stark and simple as that.

[John317]

That means you choose to follow your own reasoning and feelings rather than the teachings of the Scriptures.

By that reasoning, it would be OK to follow any of our sinful tendencies which we are born with.

Here's the question we all have to answer: Do we choose to deny self in order to obey God's commandments?

Is it better to die than sin? Jesus' example shows that it is.

Or is it better to indulge our sinful nature than to do what God has revealed in the Scriptures?

[Bravus]

Nope, you've missed it completely. Your fundamental assumption is that it is sin, and then you think of it in that light.

Try thinking differently.

Or else just accept our differences. I've been very, very clear and consistent on this. It's as though you seem shocked by it, when my position has been clear for years.

[Dr. Shane]

My perspective is internally consistent.

In your mind it is. There is always the possibility that you really don't understand all the complexities in the issue and are actually wrong in the position you have taken.

[Bravus]

'Internally consistent' and 'true/correct' are not the same thing.

Logically, my position is internally consistent. If you believe it's not, you would need to show that, not just assert it.