Leaderboard

I would venture farther than that and say that God's love is the means of coming to purity and holiness for anyone who sins. Why? Because it transforms the heart. There is power in the love of God. I don't know how we can expect change from anyone otherwise. But changes are secondary. The miracle that God's love accomplishes is a vision of His character to the soul. His love brings peace and acceptance which heals and transforms. It has a drawing power that counteracts the emptiness of the World.

It seems that most of the new theological thoughts and concepts that people come up with bring new errors and distractions, rather than bringing us closer to the truth.

No, we don't have to give up proof texts as a principle. However we need to make sure that we are using it in one of 3 correct ways: 1. That we use it to talk about what the text is actually talking about. 2. We are using it in an analogy where it is appropriate to apply the principles from the context . 3. We can use the words, even if out of context, if they have a nice phrasing that we can apply to something that is Biblical. But we cannot take it out of context to use its words to attack others, or to misapply the text to a different problem than the text is discussing. As best I can tell, the Bible is condemning heterosexuals using homosexual activity in worship services to try to help out the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death, and basically condemning orgies. Heterosexuals raping another man in hopes of stealing his life force so that his garden will grow more food, his animals have more babies and for his wife to bear more babies. And that it condemns pedophilia. Now this is NOT to say that there are things in the modern homosexual community that does not fit under these condemnations, such as all the promiscuity that they tend to have. But that we have to be careful that we do not read more into these passages than the text is actually saying.

I don't think the author of the article was correct that the apparent change in the translation occurred "in the Middle Ages, apparently before the ninth century"... Here's my reason: It was not only the Archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysotum (345-407), who wrote of Junia as a woman, but that fact was also written into the 12th century and beyond. The writings of Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107), Greek Archbishop of Bulgaria, noted for the appositeness, sobriety, accuracy and judiciousness of his scriptural commentaries, also stated that Junia was a female apostle. Furthermore, as late at 1611, in the Hexapla of Romans, written by Andrew Willet, influential Church of England theologian, (whose son, Thomas, was the 1st mayor of New York City), it is also noted that Junia was considered to be a female.

Gerry, the problem with proof texts is the possibility of taking them out of context or mixing them together in a way for a message different from what the Bible is actually teaching. It is like when Sunday Keepers use the text "One man may esteem one day..." against the Sabbath. We know that they are reading more into the text than what the text is actually talking about. They end up missing what the Bible is actually saying and using the words against Sabbath keepers. Despite what they believe the text is saying, it is not attacking us for keeping the Sabbath. Are you suggesting that we should give up keeping the Sabbath because there are Sunday keepers who take that text out of context and use it against our practice of keeping the Sabbath? If it is problematic for them to use their proof texts against us. And if we are using our proof texts in the same way against those people. What guideline should be go by than to seriously study the Bible and read the texts in their context.

The church has deemed that the NO-WOs have no theological basis for their belief and I agree.

He is merciful to more than just repenting sinners. Jesus said he sends the rain for the just and the unjust. Mercy is more than merely forgiveness of sin. Mercy also implies understanding of the whole circumstance and forbearance even in the face of rebellion and rejection. We can extend mercy to anyone without regard to their attitude toward us or God. It's that turning the other cheek thing, going the second mile, any random act of kindness to strangers.

In the interest of getting back to the actual topic I would like to respond to a couple earlier posts that i believe misrepresent aspects of this whole topic. First this: First of all, the 1990 and 1995 votes were not precisely and definitely "voting down women's ordination." Both times the request was as it will be next summer, whether there will be permitted divergence among the Divisions on the practice of ordaining women to the goes ministry. Will each Division be permitted to decide for its own designated territory on the issue. Neither time, 1990 and 1995, in this matter was there a definitive vote on the theology of the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. Both views for and against were recognized, acknowledged and explained. The reality of each vote was that the majority of the world was not ready. And once again the question next summer will be the same, again prefaced by reports of the divergent conclusions of TOSC that there is no definitive consensus among those tasked to give thorough study to the WO question. Will the world church see fit this time to permit each Divison to decide within its own territory whether to ordain women to the gospel ministry? That is the question. But I do think it is important to note that there was more support for allowing each Division to decide for its own territory indicated in 1995 than in 1990. And the most recent indications in this whole process, by the Division reports given to TOSC that there is now even more support now. There are also more Divisions that are in full support and ready to ordain women within there territory. In 1990 and 1995 it was mainly a request of NAD, with some support from a couple other Divisions. Now there there are clearly 5 Divisions ready to move forward to ordain women. And a clear majority of the Divsions report a willingness, based on their TOSC reports, to allow each Division to decide for themselves, even if their own Divison is not ready. Only 3 are firmly opposed to WO in any Division. I am not aware of widespread declarations that "all hell will break loose." And certainly not from those in favor of WO. Sure there may be a few. But realize in the face of more than 40 years of pressing for this change, that has not happened. Those against seem to be more likely to be making such predictions of splitting the church, disunity, and all manner of fearful things happening if the door is opned to WO. But history has shown that such dire predictions are very unlikely. Those fears are unfounded. And it is no surprise that those fearful predictions from those opposed are also combined with the plea to once and for all accept the results of the vote, hoping for of course a denial of WO. Why else would they not! But in the face of growing support, why should the movement stop? If progress is being made in turning the tide against WO, why give up now? But more to the heart of the matter, for many of us this is not just some novelty or modern trend. It is a matter of conscientious conviction that it is the right thing to do. Should consciences be denied, and stifled?

This is a public forum. Anyone who posts here can expect a robust dialogue. For whatever reason, and I do not intend to imply a specific reason, several who post here write in a manner that one can not be certain as to what they are saying. I simply do not know what they are saying.. Some, I do not say all, when asked as to what they meant refuse to explain. That is their right. They do not have to explain. But, if they do not explain, they leave themselves open to whatever people think that they said and they should not complain if they are misunderstood. People often stop reading the posts of those who do that on a continual basis. Bert, I do not understand what you said in some of your posts. You certainly have the right not to explain yourself to me. But, do not be offended if I ask you what you meant to say and you refuse to clarify your intent. also do not expect the Holy Spirit to explain your intent to me if you refuse to do so. Why do you post if you have no interest in people understanding you?

I would suggest that humans to not have original ideas, thought, etc., is a slap in the face of the Creator.

Cheers, https://www.facebook.com/paravistasda/photos/a.428756177263199.1073741827.428748890597261/459466107525539/?type=1&theater

just because there is "nothing new under the sun" doesn't mean that it's all been discovered or revealed or thought of yet... the first idea of hitting a piñata originated with someone... the discovery of xrays was the discovery of something that was already in existence, but the use of xray for medical purposes was very much an original idea... there're lots of examples of originality

I have not viewed the video, so I cannot comment on it. Many years ago the Seventh-day Adventist Biblical Research Institute published a book by a professor, as I remember, Ronald M. Springett, titled: HOMOSEXUALITY IN HISTORY AND SCRIPTURE. It may be purchased today for $8. I consider that book to be a classic and very valuable. That book points out that homosexuality is defined (at the time it was written, which in my thinking carries over into today) in two (2) different ways. One way is to define homosexuality by behavior. If one practices the behavior, one is homosexual and if one ceases to practice the behavior, one is no longer a homosexual. The other definition is based upon orientation and desire. My personal position is that homosexuality should be defined by orientation and desire. Behavior can be changed. Based upon that definition, homosexuality can be "cured." However, orientation and desire has not been demonstrated to be changeable in any major manor. The claims of such are few and far between. They can probably be explained by the reality that sexuality exists on a line that goes from point A to point B. Sexuality is not a fully either or. There are gradations between A & B. The demonstration of this lies with people who are bi-sexual. and asexual. So, now the first question that may be asked is: What is the basis for Matthew saying that he was a homosexual? Is his claim made on the basis of behavior, or on the basis of orientation and desire? That should be followed up by the question as to where he was on the line between A & B. Once that question has been answered, Tom's point is well taken: It remains to be seen. The SDA Church has a history of people demonstrating that their claims of release from homosexuality were unfounded. NOTE: I think that Springett was a professor at Southern Adventist University in the Religion department.