Supreme Court will hear Arguments: Gay Marriage= Sep. of Church N State

[bonnie]

 

​

No one has misquoted you. I know exactly the deflections I see. 

Your desire to sanitize homosexuality and try to imply that we simply don't have the correct understanding is painfully obvious. Very effective for many

Your list of sins here and other topics certainly take the focus off gay marriage.

But I do agree with you that as a denomination we are losing the reason to deny gay marriage.I believe very soon we will have SDA clergy performing gay marriages and married gay teachers in our schools. Love is a word that has been so abused and has come to mean accept everything or you are not a loving christian. To have a firmly held belief is being judgemental. Most of us make judgement calls everyday. Dosent mean someone is less than I am

It simply means there are those that have made choices that I cant condone for my self and family. Nor do I feel compelled to champion gay marriage to be approved of by the do not judge crowd. It will be interesting to watch how you proceed .

 

[GayatfootofCross]

​

No one has misquoted you. I know exactly the deflections I see. 

Your desire to sanitize homosexuality and try to imply that we simply don't have the correct understanding is painfully obvious. Very effective for many

 

 

​Well,on  both of those points .I disagree of your assessments,

esp. the first one (wow you didn't see the one two three punch? )

and esp the second one (not at all)

very much so.

and painfully so

not at all correct.!!!

I don't believe that in its totality.

Sounds like our assessments of what we are saying are in disagreement.

 

 

Uhh.. like we are at an impasse

 

What do we do now, Bonnie?

 

Did I mention I disagree with what you are saying about what I am saying?

Just want to make that clear.

Painfully clear.

God bless you more!

Edited May 4, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[B/W Photodude]

​I believe very soon we will have SDA clergy performing gay marriages and married gay teachers in our schools.

Spectrum magazine has reported that one Adventist pastor perfomed a gay wedding and was promptly relieved of his position.

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/jared-wright/2013/12/10/highland-view-academy-chaplain-dismissed-over-same-sex-wedding

 

[bonnie]

Spectrum magazine has reported that one Adventist pastor perfomed a gay wedding and was promptly relieved of his position.

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/jared-wright/2013/12/10/highland-view-academy-chaplain-dismissed-over-same-sex-wedding

 

Give it time.we will see more of that.

[Gregory Matthews]

For Lyndon and Bonnie, here is the Spectrum citation: 

 

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/jared-wright/2013/12/10/highland-view-academy-chaplain-dismissed-over-same-sex-wedding

Here is an official Church statement on the issue:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/190714833/Highland-View-Academy-Hadley-Letter-Nov-2013

Here are two more posts related to this issue.

http://amorningmuse.com/2013/11/15/the-club-of-christianity/

http://amorningmuse.com/2013/11/22/the-club-of-christianity-part-2/

 

By the way this occurred in November of 2013.  It is not a current issue.  The importance of this date is that this occurred long enough ago that there is no excuse, in my mind, for not reporting the whole story.  As I see it, the whole story has not been told,  Rather a half-story has been told.

Taken from the above official church statement hew is what is give as the reason:

86 97 :96; 0 ;%0$< ;%0(6 6;06 8 95=#(& <#> 6;06 ?(@ A(%66 10BC%<+ 123 A9'C% D%0E;%(FG;0HC095+ ;07 '%%5 HC0E%B #5 05 3B&95976(069$% I%0$% #= 3'7%5E% 05B :9CC 5#6 '% E#5B>E695J ;97 EC077%7 =#( 05 >5B%6%(&95%B H%(9#B #= 69&%@ D;% (%07#5 =#( 6;97 0E69#5 97 '%E0>7% G;0HC095 10BC%< H0(69E9H06%B 95 0 70&%K7%L E%(%&#5<+ 79J5%B 6;% &0((90J% C9E%57% 07 6;% #==9E9056+ 05B &97(%H(%7%56%B ;97 (#C% :;%5 07M%B 0'#>6 96NE0CC95J 956# O>%769#5 ;97 0'9C96< 6# 7%($% 07 6;% 7H9(96>0C C%0B%( #= #>( 7E;##C@

 

Sorry about that.  The statement gives two reasons:  1) He participated in the wedding.  2) He misrepresented his role in the wedding.  This needs further explaination:

1)  One of the women involved was his stepdaughter.

2)  Neither of the women involved were religious.  In actual fact they did not have a religious ceremony.

3) His participation was limited to signing that document that was filed with  the government

4) When asked by the church officials as to any role that he might have had, he misrepresented his role.  In actual fact, it was that lack of candor that played a  major part in his employment being terminated. 

Lyndon, it think that you would have demonstrated more candor if you had reported the additional facts fo this case that are important.  They are all available on the Internet.  You clearly wore aware of more of them.  Instead of reporting these additional facts, you gave a one-sentence summation that a reasonable person would have understood to tell us that this person had a religious ceremony and/'or played a larger role than actually happened.

 

Bonnie, you tell us that we are  likely to see more of this.  O.K.  So, you will have us to believe that in the future we will see more SDA clergy signing a document related to a stepdaughter.

 

NOTE:  I believe that he was properly removed from employment due to his lack of candor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

Let us talk a bit about church discipline and pastors/employees, for  a minute:

I have had friends who were investigated and terminated from their positions.  I have attended congregations that had as a member a former pastor who was so terminated.  I have had such a former pastor attending my congregation.  I have acted as an advocate for women who were sexually molested by SDA pastors.

When serious charges are made against pastors/employees, the church takes them very seriously.  I have known of cases (multiple) where the church spent several thousand dollars to investigate.  One of the issues that they consider is the attitude of the charged person.  Does he  take responsibility?  Does he (the majority of SDA pastors are male) relate with candor to people investigating?  Does he cooperate with the investigation?  In addition the attitude of the accuser is considered.  Does that person exaggerate?  Is that person truthful?    Of course there are other issues.

In the case of a former pastor, attending my congregation, I recommended to the Conference that he not be restored due to his lack of candor in dealing with me.  I told the Conference, that on the basis of that I suspected that he might continue to have the same problem.

In another case the accuser was demonstrated to have     provided false testimony.  When asked about it, that person simply stated that he did not believe that the accused should be a pastor so he knowingly  lied in an effort to get the pastor fired.

Let me be clear:  I do not believe that Lyndon has lied.  He may not have even read the full Spectrum article?  I do not know.  He may only have read the title?  I do not know.  But, there is much more to the case that Lyndon cited and that  should have been posted.

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[B/W Photodude]

Let me be clear:  I Do not believe that Lyndon has lied.  He may not have even read the full Spectrum article?  I do not know.  He may only have read the title?  I do not know.  But, ther is much more to the case that Lyndon cited and that  should have been posted.​

I made no statements on the rationale for the relieving of this pastor of his position. I provided a link for everyone to read and become informed for themselves. For anyone really interested they can find all the other links you provided (which are good).

Edited May 4, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[bonnie]

For Lyndon and Bonnie, here is the Spectrum citation: 

 

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/jared-wright/2013/12/10/highland-view-academy-chaplain-dismissed-over-same-sex-wedding

Here is an official Church statement on the issue:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/190714833/Highland-View-Academy-Hadley-Letter-Nov-2013

Here are two more posts related to this issue.

http://amorningmuse.com/2013/11/15/the-club-of-christianity/

http://amorningmuse.com/2013/11/22/the-club-of-christianity-part-2/

 

By the way this occurred in November of 2013.  It is not a current issue.  The importance of this date is that this occurred long enough ago that there is no excuse, in my mind, for not reporting the whole story.  As I see it, the whole story has not been told,  Rather a half-story has been told.

Taken from the above official church statement hew is what is give as the reason:

 

 

Sorry about that.  The statement gives two reasons:  1) He participated in the wedding.  2) He misrepresented his role in the wedding.  This needs further explaination:

1)  One of the women involved was his stepdaughter.

2)  Neither of the women involved were religious.  In actual fact they did not have a religious ceremony.

3) His participation was limited to signing that document that was filed with  the government

4) When asked by the church officials as to any role that he might have had, he misrepresented his role.  In actual fact, it was that lack of candor that played a  major part in his employment being terminated. 

Lyndon, it think that you would have demonstrated more candor if you had reported the additional facts fo this case that are important.  They are all available on the Internet.  You clearly wore aware of more of them.  Instead of reporting these additional facts, you gave a one-sentence summation that a reasonable person would have understood to tell us that this person had a religious ceremony and/'or played a larger role than actually happened.

 

Bonnie, you tell us that we are  likely to see more of this.  O.K.  So, you will have us to believe that in the future we will see more SDA clergy signing a document related to a stepdaughter.

 

NOTE:  I believe that he was properly removed from employment due to his lack of candor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​I believe you will see more SDA clergy willing to perform gay marriages. Not to long ago there was a topic claiming that the some of the  prohibition against a homosexual lifestyle was misunderstood and taken out of context. That seems to have been accepted by a number of people.

Is a homosexual lifestyle condemned and forbidden by God? Yes or no really quite simple. If it hasn't or it can be winked at because of other sins that some think are worse,the SDA church has no business refusing a request by a gay couple for marriage. If yes should we support it?

I can't recall one other issue that has been treated as the sin of homosexuality. If the topic is alcoholism or fill in the blank,NEVER do you see "Well,that isn't as bad as a homosexual lifestyle. Yet on this topic as soon as it comes up the grading of the importance of other sins is brought into the discussion

Homosexuality has it's own little protected box. All we need is love,right? Regardless of how that love is manifested that is all that is needed. The way love is sometimes used is destructive to the recipient.

The OP in every post turns the blame on those that do not agree with some of you that think gay marriage should be a right protected by law.

All should be treated as the most respected member of the congregation,up and till that exacts from others what is clearly wrong as to their personal beliefs. 

If by not championing the cause of gay marriage makes me or others less christian than those of you that do,So be it.

 

I find this curious as to why it is even worth a mention...2)  Neither of the women involved were religious.  In actual fact they did not have a religious ceremony.

Would you perform as marriage ceremony for two non religious lesbians as long as it wasn't a religious ceremony?

 

 

Edited May 4, 2015 by bonnie

[JoeMo]

And soon will be addressing the Story of Sodom (if I have the strength).. and it will be right from the Holy Bible. That in it self deserves its own thread and looking forward to peoples thoughts

​Look forward to it Gay.  I have some alternative opinions about that myself.

[B/W Photodude]

I am personally of the opinion that the church should get out of the wedding business. Today it really is a civil contract. I think all couple wanting to get married should just go to the justice of the piece (with their lawyers as needed!) and do the civil contract. When they have their license, present it to the pastor and have a dedication like baby dedications where the ceremony is completely religious and with no government involvement. It would be more of a religious blessing on the union.

Then see how the whole debate turns out. But then, marriage would have been quite thoroughly destroyed in the social sense which was the goal anyway! It might result in even more blessings on this union of gay couples as people rationalize that they really haven't done a gay wedding!

Oh! The confusion of this present generation!

Edited May 4, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[GayatfootofCross]

​Look forward to it Gay.  I have some alternative opinions about that myself.

​Hi JoeMo,

GBU

I am glad you are interested in what I have to share regarding the Topic of Sodom. It gives me an incentive to ...

1. Find that ole thing.

2. Dust it off

3. Flesh it out more.

It will show a deeper regard God has for all of us which jazzes my heart.

We really do serve a the Most beautiful Being in the Universe!

I look for the Cross in every story!

"IF I BE LIFTED UP I WILL DRAW ALL including LGBTIQQAA"

uhh.. I dont know where to put it when I'm finished :/

Edited May 4, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie:  I have refused to do non-religious marriage ceremonies.  I only do religious ones.

 

Lyndon:  Your comment as to the place of the Church in marriage has some value which is worth considering.

JoMo:  Some of  the Biblical passages used on this subject, probably should not be used.  Others, probably are properly used.  That has been stated, for many years, by the esteemed Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

Bonnie:  I have refused to do non-religious marriage ceremonies.  I only do religious ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​That really isn't what I asked. I am not sure I understand why this was included. Would it make a difference to SDA clergy  if those requesting gay marriage if they were not religious  and wanted a civil instead of religious ceremony?

 

.2)  Neither of the women involved were religious.  In actual fact they did not have a religious ceremony.

[brotherly love]

i really enjoyed Gregory Matthews looking deeper into the supplied link. Only looking into half a story can give rise to sensationalism, and can ruin reputations. Good job!

The narrative of Sodom is very applicable to homosexuality, but is only one piece of the overall message of Genesis 19. In order to gain the full message, chapter 19 should not be read in isolation-just like the example Gregory Matthews gave with that link.

We need to be interested in the Kingdom. When we are interested in the kingdom, then kingdom practices are yearned to be practiced, but when we are interested in ourselves, then we will want to impose our own ideas onto the kingdom-and the King.

The problem we face on this topic is that we have been in the midst of huge social changes since world war 2. We cant recognize why something is wrong because it happens gradually, one generation changes some ideals, the next generation accepts these as normal and adds to it. The foundations we find ourselves in were laid many generations ago. We just have to research the controversial topics that were lost in years past, and then add them to our current topics

In the Bible, the ancient Israelites as a whole probably did not recognize the condition they found themselves in-because it was normalized.

In this forum, and other facets of Christianity, the hot button question of "can a woman be a Pastor" is often debated. There will be a tug of war of certain verses that support each view. Few ask the question "why" there is support for each side. instead they read the bible WITH their paradigm, instead of asking the right questions.

The hot button topic questions of a woman Pastor, abortion, adultery, divorce, premarital sex and same sex unions are spun with a commona common thread through the fabric of the Bible on this subject. A person will find the answer asking questions of the Bible as a whole on these topics

Edited May 4, 2015 by brotherly love

[JoeMo]

The narrative of Sodom is very applicable to homosexuality.

Maybe, maybe not.

Gen. 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them."

Could the strange flesh mentioned about Sodom and Gomorra possibly refer to the sin of having sex with angels (which was probably a pretty amazing experience), resulting in a hybrid race of powerful, free-willed giants that God never intended? So He HAD to destroy this practice to save humanity - His intended creation - from being totally eliminated by this super-race.  I can't imagine an entire city rioting over being denied gay sex.  They were ready to break down Lot's door just to have sex with these "guys".  Could the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah  have known these "guys" were angels; and were ready for a "party"?

Pretty far out there?  Yup - probably has some gaping theological holes in it, too.  That being said, this is just an alternative interpretation - it is not an integral part of my personal theology.  It's just an example of not locking one's self into what they have been spoon-fed since childhood.

 

I hope I didn't mess up your intended yopic on Sodom and Gomorrah, Gay.

[B/W Photodude]

Gen. 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them."

Could the strange flesh mentioned about Sodom and Gomorra possibly refer to the sin of having sex with angels (which was probably a pretty amazing experience), resulting in a hybrid race of powerful, free-willed giants that God never intended? So He HAD to destroy this practice to save humanity

​THREAD DRIFT ALERT!   ​THREAD DRIFT ALERT!     ​THREAD DRIFT ALERT!     ​THREAD DRIFT ALERT!

I am not really into the belief of angels breeding with humans and think of "sons of God and Daughters of men" as being misunderstood.

Also, my KJV Bible does not use the word Nephilim, but giants. However, an online check of many versions show that there is a split with about half and half using giant or Nefilim.

I tend to believe, and there is some support from EGW, that humans originally were very tall. And they possessed much greater intelligence. So, when you find artifacts left over from them, it is easy to assume that they may have been aliens! We tend to think that this generation is the smartest that there ever was and anything smarter in ancient history had to be from some other world of some superior other type of being. We have no idea how deteriorated the human race is due to the sin and death effects in this world.

The link is to an interesting Facebook group that follows unexplained ancient technologies:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/antedilvian.tech/

Oh. That gay stuff from S & G, very bizarre and no.

Edited May 5, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[GayatfootofCross]

The narrative of Sodom is very applicable to homosexuality.

Maybe, maybe not.

Gen. 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them."

Could the strange flesh mentioned about Sodom and Gomorra possibly refer to the sin of having sex with angels (which was probably a pretty amazing experience), resulting in a hybrid race of powerful, free-willed giants that God never intended? So He HAD to destroy this practice to save humanity - His intended creation - from being totally eliminated by this super-race.  I can't imagine an entire city rioting over being denied gay sex.  They were ready to break down Lot's door just to have sex with these "guys".  Could the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah  have known these "guys" were angels; and were ready for a "party"?

Pretty far out there?  Yup - probably has some gaping theological holes in it, too.  That being said, this is just an alternative interpretation - it is not an integral part of my personal theology.  It's just an example of not locking one's self into what they have been spoon-fed since childhood.

 

I hope I didn't mess up your intended yopic on Sodom and Gomorrah, Gay.

​lol

My buddy is writing a Noah book and exploring ideas gleamed from EGW and other ancient writings and the Bible.. there is alot in the bible we pass over!

Fascinating what he has gleamed on that alone that I didn't see before!

Well anyhoo.. I did have a comment how handsome the Men/Angels were!  Don't worry there is a lot more to gleam!

... And exploring demons mixing their own DNA in the Antediluvian race before the Flood(one of the reasons to wipe out a whole wide world) and Noah's family was pure blood from Eden (untouched in more ways than one) and then after at the Tower of Babel was re introduced thru Nimrod hence Og and other Canaanites of Giants with Six Fingers left over for the Israelite to kill and take over..I dont think the average SDA can take

not even speaking of Goliath and where the hum he come from.

 

Look forward to your comments when I

get that thread started..

I am still looking for it.

GBU!

mums the word

 

Edited May 5, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[Gregory Matthews]

JoMo:  Some of  the Biblical passages used on this subject, probably should not be used.  Others, probably are properly used.  That has been stated, for many years, by the esteemed Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference..

In an earlier post, I said the above.  Upon reflection, and study, I need to comment on the above statement due to the fact that it is subject to misunderstanding and does not best represent the actual, objective facts, probably due in part ot  the length of time that has transpired since I read the following book:

 

Ronald M. Springett, HOMOSEXUALITY IN HISTORY AND THE SCSRIPTURES: SOME HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HOMOSEXUALITY.  Biblical Research Institute, 1988,  173 pages.

At the time he wrote the book, Dr. Springett was a religion professor at Southern, which has never been considered to be a liberal SDA school.  The Biblical Research Institute, which published the book is clearly not a liberal division of the General Conference.  This book cannot be considered to be a liberal book. 

However, in its time, I considered this book to set the "gold standard" for consideration of the historical and Biblical background, as well as introducing me to important concepts that are critical to talking to others ont he subject.

 

E.G.  This book introduced me to the idea that the word "homosexuality" Is defined in two different ways which are critical to communication.  To put this in a brief comment, in one way homosexuality is defined by behavior.  In a second manner homosexuality is defined as a preference.  It is often from the  1st perspective that people are able to say that a homosexual can be changed to straight..  While from the 2nd perspective it can be said that a true homosexual remains a homosexual and that does not change.  NOTE:  I follow the 2nd thinking.

The above book is dated and does not address many of the issues that society and the church faces today.  However, I still consider it to be of great value.  It can be purchased directly from BRI and on the Internet.  I recommend it.

As I stated, Springett does make the point that Biblical verses used in discussions of homosexuality are not always used appropriately.  However, my memory of what he said was incomplete and did not include the total picture as he stated in in the book.  Without counting exactly, he probably devotes more than 50 pages to a discussion of Biblical texts.  I believe that any summation of what he said, at this point in time, would likely be incomplete and a partial truth.  I do not want to get into that situation.  I do not want to misrepresent him.

So, contrary to what I had considered and was implied in my previous post, I am backing down a bit, and I will refrain from  listing  such texts.

I hope that this provides some clarification that is acceptable to those who may have read my previous post.

 

Therefore, at this point in time, I am uncomfortable in listing any of the verses that he  mentioned and  in making any kind of a statement as to what he said about them.

 

 

 

 

 

[brotherly love]

If we connect the narrative of Genesis 6 with demons mating with human beings we will miss the message the text is trying to convey. This reading will not bring the reader any closer to discovering why the Word of God is concerned with same sex relationships.

This reading creates more problems than it tries to answer.

1. We are given redemptive plan for humans, but no plan of salvation for demons. There is also no plan given for a human demon hybrid.

2. A person would have to assume that a demon could produce its own real body with real DNA and fertile sperm. This creates more contradiction

A: Luke 24:39. Jesus answers the questions that He was not a ghost by telling the witnesses “a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have”  This undermines Jesus's own words to be false and even misleading.   The argument could also be claimed that if a demon could produce a real body, then a demon could have masqueraded as the risen Christ to the witnesses. 

B: If demons can produce a real body and have real sex with humans complete with DNA, then demons have creative power that is only attributed with God.     

3. Creation is given the ability to reproduce "after it own kind" This contradicts the clear instruction form God.

4. The bible is clear that the "fallen" happened also after the flood. If this is a mutant demon-human, then they could be among us now. 

A more substantial reading is to read the text as a whole. The major points of Genesis is repeated in the Law of Moses-this is no different. The descendants of the faithful mixed with the descendants of the unfaithful. This is firmly repeated in the Law of Moses. To take a wife just because she is beautiful is also dealt with in the Law of Moses.              

[brotherly love]

The narrative of Sodom is very applicable to homosexuality.

Maybe, maybe not.

Gen. 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them."

Could the strange flesh mentioned about Sodom and Gomorra possibly refer to the sin of having sex with angels (which was probably a pretty amazing experience), resulting in a hybrid race of powerful, free-willed giants that God never intended? So He HAD to destroy this practice to save humanity - His intended creation - from being totally eliminated by this super-race.  I can't imagine an entire city rioting over being denied gay sex.  They were ready to break down Lot's door just to have sex with these "guys".  Could the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah  have known these "guys" were angels; and were ready for a "party"?

Pretty far out there?  Yup - probably has some gaping theological holes in it, too.  That being said, this is just an alternative interpretation - it is not an integral part of my personal theology.  It's just an example of not locking one's self into what they have been spoon-fed since childhood.

 

I hope I didn't mess up your intended yopic on Sodom and Gomorrah, Gay.

​The text is trying to communicate the depravity that the townsfolk resorted to. Read and compare with Judges 19

[JoeMo]

It has been hypothesized that some mythology has a basis in fact.  Could the gods of Greek, Roman, Nordic, and Celtic mythology been Nephillim?  Maybe; maybe not.

Sorry for the off-topic rabbit trail.

 

*Back to Topic*

[brotherly love]

It has been hypothesized that some mythology has a basis in fact.  Could the gods of Greek, Roman, Nordic, and Celtic mythology been Nephillim?  Maybe; maybe not.

Sorry for the off-topic rabbit trail.

 

*Back to Topic*

​Nephillim is the root for "fall" and would be translated the fallen. The gods of the ancients would have been a source for the message of the fallen. In the ancient world there were many stories of the gods mating with mortal humans. The result of these unions were men of great accomplishments and feats-they were heroes, and were like gods themselves.

This is were the text of Genesis 4-6 would pick it up, in order to communicate a message. The text does not borrow, nor does it depend on pagan mythology-it is trying to communicate a spiritual reality and message using tools that were familiar to them-but not embraced by them in their epic of time.

The message being communicated is that people who forsake God will rely on their own acheivements and efforts-relying on themselves as gods instead of the Obe True God.

This is precisely what we see happening in Genesis 4 with the unfaithful descendants of Cain. The attributes of the unfaithful are listed with their own human acheivements-he builds a city in defiance to the curse of God rendering him to be a wanderer. His descendants are attributed with many acheivements to embed themselves in the city. Lamech is boastful, sexually immoral and violent in defiance towards God-he is a god unto himself and his own power. God does not respond to his defiance as He did with Cain-he is past the point of no return.

In chapter 5 the faithful are identified as the children of God. The first verse tells us this with the repeating of the creation blessing given to them. They live long lives, they are identified with family. Instead of sexual immorality and human acheivements. Enoch is identified with walking with God, a nd dying without violence-in contrast with Lamech of chapter 4.

What happens in chapter 6 is the mingling of the descendants of the faithful with the descendants of the unfaithful. Just like the mingling of the gods and mortals in mythology they rely on themselves and their own power and greatness. This is what we read in the text  when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The earth became totally corrupt when the faithful ran with the unfaithful. society will always devolve into corruption when the faithful lose their influence and faith. this would be repeated in Israel, and in extension to the church as well.

It is hard to imagine the Bible condemns "heroes" and 'men of renown" but the emphasis is placed on the acheivements of men outside of God.

This is applicable with the same sex topic-those who are interested in following man will be influenced by the ideas of men-they will follow the ideas of men, instead of following God

 

[JoeMo]

Brotherly,

What you have presented is a legitimate viewpoint taken mostly from human logic and denominational groupthink.  The Bible doesn't explicitly support your view.  It doesn't support mine, either. Your viewpoint is symbolic, mine is literal.  Since Genesis is allegedly an historical book (as opposed to prophectic or poetic), I think a literal interpretation is reasonable.

You mentioned Nephillim after the flood.  Yes, there were. See Numbers13:33.

[LifeHiscost]

This is applicable with the same sex topic-those who are interested in following man will be influenced by the ideas of men-they will follow the ideas of men, instead of following God

​

 

 

​This is the same idea expressed in the SoP that motivates me to deny the possibility of humans being able to find safe territory in relying on original thought without referencing basic divine principles from Divine sources.

 

   No matter what our experience has been, no matter how high our station, we need to watch and pray continually. We must be daily

controlled by the Spirit of God or we are controlled by Satan.—(Testimonies for the Church 5:102.){Pr 179.2} 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

Edited May 5, 2015 by LifeHiscost

[bonnie]

​Well,on  both of those points .I disagree of your assessments,

esp. the first one (wow you didn't see the one two three punch? )

and esp the second one (not at all)

very much so.

and painfully so

not at all correct.!!!

I don't believe that in its totality.

Sounds like our assessments of what we are saying are in disagreement.

 

 

Uhh.. like we are at an impasse

 

What do we do now, Bonnie?

 

Did I mention I disagree with what you are saying about what I am saying?

Just want to make that clear.

Painfully clear.

God bless you more! 

​We don't do anything. I believe living a gay lifestyle is wrong.Not wrong for certain ones under specific circumstances.. Just plain wrong.An abomination,a deviant lifestyle.  I have questioned your motives sine your first post ,more so after reading your flippant answers and trying to deflect responses to "those other sins". Nothing you have said has altered that opinion. A study of Sodom and Gommorah doesn't have any bearing on the Supreme Court decision or whether a gay lifestyle  is just another acceptable lifestyle choice.Nor does it appear to be a sin  Christ will wink at when He returns. 

You will continue to maintain your innocence in any subtle hidden agenda and there will be those that accept that. I don't and can certainly be wrong,

Doesn't mean I hate you or consider you sub human.