Leaderboard

DD, please specify as to which of the 28 fundamental beliefs is being violated. I do not see this forum category as "promoting" homosexuality. No one has said that sexual behavior between gay people is right in the sight of God. What *has* been said, is that God loves *all* His children, even LGBTs — and they *do* have the right to call themselves Christians — just as much as you or I do. You may not like the name of "GayatfootofCross." But that's his moniker. You aren't being asked to like it....it's not your business. You do not know if Gay is homosexually active, or not. Being gay isn't a sin, just as alcoholism isn't a sin, just as my ability to do Magick isn't a sin. Being tempted isn't a sin, either. It only becomes of concern when the act is done. (I might also say that "ruminating" and daydreaming about doing the act is probably sinful.) Gay posts issues dealing with homosexuality/transgender in connection with Christianity. Why should that make anyone hostile?

If you wish to make a Biblical argument then you will need to do so, rather than assume the Bible agrees with your opinion. Animals and children cannot give free and informed consent, so those slippery slope arguments are fallacious as well as offensive. The Bible seems actually very cool with polygamy, except for deacons/pastors, so if the Bible is the source of your code you shouldn't have issues with it. Believing that someone is made with blue eyes is not an accusation against God. Neither is being made homosexual *unless* you assume already that being homosexual is wrong: something you have not argued or established.

OK, so you're having a bet each way, but either way you win? Nice work if you can get it. There's no gene, but even if there is a gene it means what you think it means. Your statements about a gay gene and heredity just display deep ignorance of heredity and genetics. About 4-10% of the population are gay, and gay people are born to straight parents and vice versa. There's no 'true breeding gay line', but there needn't be. I've actually stipulated further up the thread that there is not a single 'gay gene' that is present in gay people and absent in straight. But there is also no single 'eye color gene': eye color is determined by a complex interaction of up to 15 genes. Sexuality may be similarly complex, and that would be unsurprising. What the twin studies do show is that there is some genetic component. Simply dismissing that based on prejudice is an ignorant response.

Where do all our behaviours come from? There is an enormous range. Some are from Eden and some from the Fall. Heterosexual behaviours can be loving or abusive. It is that dimension - the motivations and the harms - that makes something good or evil. Homosexual behaviours can also be loving or abusive. You assume without evidence that all homosexual behaviours are harmful, immoral or ungodly. There is no harmless rape, incest or paedophilia, but there is harmless - indeed, highly beneficial - homosexual love. Your slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy.

Read More Daily Jesus Scripture: Matthew 28:19-20 Starting Question: Have you ever been asked to be part of something big—a member of something new and exciting? What was it? How did you respond? What effect did it have on your life? Building an Army ** Continued from Being Called yesterday ** Gideon rushed home, cooked a goat, made some special bread and broth and brought it back to the winepress. The visitor stood next to a large rock. Seeing what Gideon had brought, he said, “Place the meat and the unleavened bread on this rock, and pour the broth over it.” Gideon obeyed. Once the offering was on the rock, the visitor touched it with His staff and fire leapt from within the rock and devoured the offering. A thick cloud of smoke billowed from the rock and enveloped Gideon. Moments later, when the smoke had cleared, Gideon, realising he was alone, fell to his knees in fear at what he had just seen. He cried, “Oh, Sovereign Lord, I’m doomed! I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face!” “It is all right!” The voice of the Lord filled the air around him. “Do not be afraid. You will not die.” Gideon built an altar to God on the spot where this amazing event had taken place. He understood this was a special moment in time and he had been chosen for a special work. That night, God spoke to Gideon again. He was commanded to destroy the altars in his father’s front yard—the altars the entire town worshipped—an Asherah pole and an altar to Baal. In the cover of darkness, Gideon and a couple of servants did as God commanded. In the morning the townspeople saw the destruction and were irate. It didn’t take long for them to discover Gideon was responsible. When they demanded that Gideon’s father turn his son over to be punished, Gideon’s father had an inspired comeback, “Does Baal need you to do his dirty work? If he is a God, he can punish Gideon himself!” The people were so impressed with this answer they gave Gideon a new name. They started calling him Jerub-baal, which means “Let Baal deal with him!” The story of Gideon—the god destroyer—spread quickly and the enemies of Israel combined forces and prepared to attack. The very fact that Gideon was alive and well mocked their gods and angered their priests. Gideon must die. The spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon and he blew a ram’s horn—calling the people of Israel to battle. From every corner of Israel an army emerged. Farmers and laborers of all kinds began training to become warriors in the Lord’s army. Plows, pitchforks and metal objects of all sorts were melted down to make swords and shields. When all the Israelites willing to fight had gathered together and stood before Gideon, there were 32,000 men and boys prepared to fight for the Lord and for Gideon. They were tired of being beaten down, mocked and robbed. They had cried out to God in their time of need and God had answered by providing a hero from within their midst—God had called Gideon. And Gideon had called them. The energy in the camp was a physical thing. Gideon could feel the swell of momentum building as men joined together from all over Israel. Things had dramatically changed compared to when he was hiding alone in the bottom of a winepress. God had showed up. Gideon’s father had stood beside him. And now, an army was amassing that would surely accomplish the will of the Lord. It was only a matter of time. And from the signs all around them, time was very short. ** Gideon's Story continues in Too Many Men tomorrow ** Reflection Question: What would it be like if everyone who knew God worked together to accomplish the work Jesus left for us to do? What impact would that unity of purpose have on the world? What effect would it have on the church? On you? Prayer time: Before you pray together, ask: What would you like to say to Jesus today? -x-x-x-x-X-x-x-x-x GET ONE OF DAVE'S BOOKS, FREE! Support this project by clicking here and pledging a small monthly amount. View the full article

Me too. But here - 48 years later I'm on the opposite side of the fence. Back then I was a hippie; and firmly aligned with the protesters. Now I'm NOT on the side of the protesters. But I'm not so sure I'm yet on the side of the Establishment, either. IMHO, the only hope of rescuing the GOP is if one candidate ties up the required number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. If it goes to a brokered convention, there is a risk that the party with splinter into the "Establishment Republican Party" and "The Third Party Who Used To Be Republicans".

this year's Republican Presidential race is reminding me of the Democratic fiasco of 1968.

That's because some people get hung up with dissection of a word someone might use, then the topic gets derailed whilst comments continue that would make Daniel Webster roll his eyes. Okay. "Hostile" does not always mean "mean" or "antagonistic".... it can mean "opposed to" or "disapproving" — which is how I used the word in my original comment to DD. @Waxer — you gave the numbers 7-11 15 19 22. I do not agree that the forum subsection is violating those beliefs by bringing LBGT issues up for discussion. Discussion of a topic and endorsement of that topic are not the same thing. **Back to Topic**

Hch, I see that you chosen to ignore much of what I have put forward which is extremely unfortunate indeed. By simply ranting against the insurmountable weight of historical evidence stacked against the position you have chosen to hold, only makes that position all the more embarrassing. It doesn’t have to be this way. It’s not embarrassing to reverse a position in the face of the evidence, especially since you’ve said that you “follow the evidence where it leads.” That’s what I had to do. But as long as you stay the course it will always remain that way – embarrassing. Why? Because the past doesn’t change. And all of what I presented is historically established, even acknowledged by one of Adventism’s most prestigious scholars Samuele Bacchiocchi who is himself a Professor of Church History. By pretending that there is some other reality, one is living in a fantasy. When all is said and done it really boils down to this simple question (that I have repeated several times, which you are unwilling or unable to address): when did the Roman Empire end and who ended it? Simple really. And none of what you presented proves at all that the Papacy was any part of that – it certainly didn’t bring down and extinguish the Roman Empire, whereas the Islamic Ottoman Empire did. It’s that simple. As for your many assertions, well, that’s all they remain to be – assertions. They simply are not facts, they are simply your misinterpretations of what the Bible has stated, and a skewed revision of historical reality. And again I say, why not accept the historical factual reality? Is it because it doesn’t fit your theory? “My synopsis of the FACTS was never intended to be "proof" of anything. To presume that evidence does not exist because it was not provided at the time of the statement is an unwarranted assumption.” “I am not going to spend hours here "proving" this.” It isn’t an assumption. You simply haven’t put down any evidence. You even say that you don’t want to prove it! Surely if your position is as robust and powerful as you say it is, you could put at least one quote from an independent specialist in the field? But by refusing to do so, are you saying then that your theory must be accepted as fact simply because you say it is? And aren’t you also indirectly revealing that such a position is weak and lacking credibility if you cannot verify it by a single historical reference? If you had followed the principles I highlighted in the first paragraph about what constitutes a fact, you wouldn’t be defending a defenceless position. I understand that you might’ve invested a lot into it, and it might be hard to face the reality that it was wrong. But there certainly is no shame in turning around and following the truth. Truth only leads to life. There’s nothing shameful about that at all. I encourage you to reconsider. I was in the same position. It is certainly a shock to learn that many of the things that we have been taught are not as they were claimed to be. That is an unfortunate reality that we must face, and a chain we must break to be free. But ultimately the rewards are great: freedom, truth, love, life, adventure, spirit, wonder, awe, growth, the list is endless. There are hardships, yes (I’ve faced many as a result), but there is internal gratification, fulfilment, a walk like no other, not a perfect walk, but an adventurous one that breeds growth, understanding, passion, the fullness of life. “The papacy succeeded the Roman Empire: It managed the affairs of state in what had been the Western Roman Empire.” What you missed out was the fact that the Eastern Roman Emperor was still in charge of the existing Roman Empire that was run from its beating heart of Constantinople from 330 AD. In fact, the Pope Vigilius was still under the authority of Emperor Justinian as I’ve shown. Can you say he wasn’t? Moreover, Pope Vigilius died with a legacy of having brought Papal prestige to its lowest ebb, as I have shown also. Doesn’t sound much of a grand succession to the Roman Empire to me. “I do not have to prove EGW.” Let me put it in a way that makes it clearer. Do non-Adventists believe in Ellen White? Obviously not. Therefore how are you to convince them that what she says is true? By simply saying she is? Of course not. To convince them you’d have to refer to independent experts that verify her claims. So yes, you still have to prove what she says is true. Ironically enough, even she states this: “If the Testimonies speak not according to this word of God, reject them.” – Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691. Of testing Adventist beliefs she makes many other statements. I’ll only present a few: “If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it.” - The Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. / Counsels to Writers and Editors, 44 “Our brethren should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy... “ - Gospel Workers, 300. / Counsels to Writers and Editors, 43 “Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible.” - Counsels to Writers and Editors, 36, 37 Finally, some of her words on using evidence and arguments/reasons: “I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance. And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth.” - Counsels to Writers and Editors, 39, 40 “Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny....” - Counsels to Writers and Editors, 40 “This is where your reasoning has become faulty.” Please enlighten me to where exactly my reasoning has “become faulty”. My reasoning is based on (1) number 6 being followed by number 7. That is all. It also based on (2) a similarity of pattern between the empires, which includes (a) conquering the previous empire, and (b) focussing on the Middle/Near East. Another one of those patterns is (c) subjugating Israel/Jerusalem and persecuting Jews and Christians (your variation would call it ‘killing the Manchild’). Islam overwhelmingly fulfils all, whereas the Papacy doesn’t. So what part of my reasoning exactly is faulty? That 7 follows 6? That the 7th empire conquers the 6th empire? That all the empires are focussed on the Middle/Near East? That the 7th empire subjugates Israel/Jerusalem and persecutes Jews and Christians? “Revelation repeats and enlarges.” Where exactly in Revelation does it indicate or tell you that Revelation 12 and 13’s 7 seven heads are different? Please show me somewhere else in the Bible where your principle occurs. Parallels do indicate expansion on details, but they still maintain the original structure, in other words, the original structure of 7 heads that are referring to 7 empire kings. But in ch.13 you’ve decided that they don’t apply to empire kings but to 7 Popes! (Popes aren’t exactly empire kings my friend.) Then in Rev. 17 it says that they are empire kings, and you simply ignore it! Hardly the basis for a robust understanding of the 7 heads. Besides, even if we begin with Rev. 12, we still have to find out when the 6th head (Roman Empire) ended, and who ended it. The Papacy didn’t, the Islamic Ottoman Empire did. Simple. Question: Are you saying that we shouldn’t look for when the Roman Empire ended and who ended it? It will not go away I’m afraid, and the more you fight against it, the more embarrassing your position becomes. “Egypt tried to kill the Manchild by killing all the male Hebrew babies.” What’s more you haven’t explained how by your own criterion of ‘killing the Manchild’ invalidates Islam. Islam has an even larger record of fulfilling your criterion than the Papacy, so what exact reason do you have for now ignoring it? “The Exodus from Egypt is dated by some historians 1200-1300 BCE.” Yes, that’s right, “some historians,” not all. That is because this is such a disputed area. In fact, there is new groundbreaking research to say that it occurred 200 years earlier (David Rohl, A Test of Time), which actually matches not just the Biblical Exodus with the archaeological evidence, it also fits Joshua, David and Solomon (and perhaps others) into the archaeological record, refuting critics of the Bible who said the events described in the Bible never occurred. I would encourage you to purchase the multi-award-winning documentary Patterns of Evidence that reveals this. In other words, this 1260-years before and after Christ doesn’t work. You didn’t even talk about the point I raised about the 1750 or so years after Christ, which totally decimates this loose theorising of Biblical interpretation. “You can have the world but give me Jesus.” Jesus, yes, and Jesus believes in truth my friend. He invented it. He does not speak lies. And what the Adventist tradition/leadership has told you (and told me) is misrepresentation and thus lies. When I put simple historical questions to both my pastor and all the pastors in the London area (I think it was around 50 or so) few replied, and not one wanted to answer them, and couldn’t answer them and even dismissed them. Most were silent. Why silent? Even after 150 years of existence surely there must be facts that validate their position? No, there isn’t. That’s why they were silent, including my old mentor from Adventist Muslim Relations, Petras Bahadur, the now GC President of the Adventist Muslim Relations department. But it doesn’t have to be this way for you. You don’t have to believe it. It may or may not necessarily be your fault, I don’t know, it may just be the way that you have been taught. I was always led to believe that what we were told was absolutely true. I stood for it, and told others. But I made a promise to myself after discovering some simple facts that shattered things I was taught. I said to myself, “if I can’t prove it, I won’t take a stand for it.” Then it evolved into, “if I can’t prove it, I won’t believe it.” This was because I had to answer challenges against all sorts of people: atheists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, non-Adventist Christians, etc. I determined that if I stood for something, I wanted to be sure that what I was standing for was true. I turned from a blindly obedient follower, to a doubting Thomas (hence, the name). And that has led me into another universe that has opened up my eyes, heart and reality to the beyond. Jesus is bigger now to me than he ever was, discovering all manner of things in innumerable areas, including the most important which is Salvation. I encourage you, look again. Take time out. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s even more admirable to do so. The reality is encroaching upon us all. Whether we choose to accept that reality will not change it, but do it before it is too late, and all the walls of falsehood that you/we have surrounded ourselves with will collapse around us. Islam is here to stay. It is taking over. To merely challenge it, particularly here in Europe, is a dangerous prospect indeed. And no one can protect us. Its only God’s power that can sustain us. God bless

A national survey is being conducted of the religious and political views of Seventh-day Adventists. To take the survey, see: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SDApolitics2016. Briefly: Your response will be entirely anonymous. The data will be analyzed by faculty members at Washington Adventist University and Andrews University and compared with the landmark study conducted in 2004 by Edwin Hernandez and Roger Dudley on Adventists and Public Policy.

Hang on, you can't shift ground (even if you're a different person!) The claim is that this thread is not appropriate in this sub-forum because the 28 Fundamentals are not to be challenged in this sub-forum. I asked where the 28 Fundamentals were challenged, and it's clear that they are not. Therefore the issue of whether the topic is appropriate to this sub-forum is resolved. The question of whether it is appropriate to this board is a broader question. Given Jesus' actions in relation to all the hurting and vulnerable people he encountered, my own view is that there is no better place for it. Indeed, if we can't discuss this, we may as well fold up our tents and go home.

I'm NOT SDA, and I am thoroughly convinced that the dead "sleep" until the resurrection at the Second Coming. But AGAIN, please go start another thread, to discuss this issue. PLEASE!

here's one I would love to take a ride in!

I am writing this anonymously only because I don’t want my family to feel like their dirty laundry is being spread all over the internet. I am of mostly European descent. My grandma is racist. She may or may not support that statement by literally saying, “I’m racist”. I have heard her express views about Blacks and Hispanics that make me cringe. But her racism isn’t prejudice. It reaches out to every type of Asian, probably strongest against Indians (here is where my dad would say: “dot, not feather.” I am fairly certain that she has some Cherokee in her blood, but I believe she would probably disown that group too. According to google, racism is: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. I don’t know what attribute she thinks that “white” people have that makes them superior to another race, but it must be something real good. It clearly isn’t poise or reason, lol. I can tell you that because if I compare her diplomatic demeanor with President Obama, she is inferior. She was furious when Obama became president. I found it amusing to watch her rant to the whole family including my stepmom’s family for most of pre-lunch and lunchtime when I was home for a visit a few years ago. (for those of you getting all social justice on me because I wasn’t more angry, please don’t, I do the best I can with my situation). She said that it was because black people got off their lazy butts and voted, in so many words. I explained to her,and everyone egging her on, that black people only make up like 12% of the US population, and that whites are like 65ish. She then started cussing the whites who were “stupid” enough to vote for him. The rest of the family started to join in. I felt like the time had come. I dropped the bomb. “Grandma, I voted for him… he seems to be the most honest fellow I’ve seen in a while.” My grandma started the expletives, “Why you son…” My grandpa began unfolding how Obama was a communist/socialist. I told them that I felt differently, and it was my choice. There was arguing. This all culminated when my grandpa said that Obama was going to take away our choices. He put his fingers in the shape of a gun, and put it against my temple. He yelled BANG! There was a gasp and everyone went silent. My aunt said, “Oh dad.” Now, I have a little problem. It is a personality flaw. Trust me, it is a flaw. I’m working on it. After this all unfolded, I was chuckling. I couldn’t help but notice that the majority of my family, with my mouthy grandma probably the worst, was so racist that they could so easily loose control of their emotions. And so quickly? What the heck. I really love my family, but I really push their boundaries and beliefs to its limits. And when I can, I enjoy demonstrating to them the flaws in their thinking. (I know. Its a problem.). Either way, I can’t tell you the amazingly long list of things my Grandma has said behind closed doors. It would make you cringe. It makes me cringe. I am constantly re-evaluating my own level of racism. It is actually why I love the Kingdom of God so much. It is the only place in this world where there is absolutely no separation based on race. There is total equality. But I digress. On the flip side, if you put my grandma in public, she becomes quite a saintly picture. That might be a little stretch, but there are no comments about Mexicans when she is with Mexicans. I have seen her laugh, joke, and be overly friendly to “Mexicans” of all latino origin. I have seen her act kind and cordial to blacks. I have seen her play the politician with Asians too. She doesn’t call them chinks to their face. I have determined that there are 4 types of racists (probably there is a thesis on the millions of variations somewhere, but this is my list). There are the Blatant Racists who own it completely in public and private. There are the Backdoor Racists who don’t act it in public, but do in private. There the False Front Racists who may have actually convinced themselves that they aren’t racist, but totally act racist, a lot. Then there are the Invisible Racists who just have no interest in engaging with any other races, though you never see any active racism exhibited from them. (I personally believe that there are people who aren’t racist as well, but that doesn’t suit this essay) But this isn’t actually all about Racism. I think this is true about Americanism too. You have Blatant Americans who own what they are completely in public and private. You have Backdoor Americans who fear being known for who they are, False Front Americans who say way too much but act like they aren’t defined by it, and even Invisible Americans who just don’t care to have genuine conversations about anything and just want to believe what they believe. I think that the largest group of people fall into my Backdoor Americans category. I know that is what my grandma is. I think that much of my family is that way as well. They are comfortable talking in private, but when it comes to public, they are afraid in our politically correct society. Donald Trump is of the first category, and he is offering to all of the other categories something that they can’t have themselves. He is offering them his blatant disregard for being PC. “You can support me for president because I… will say the things that you say behind closed doors.” The idea of building a wall isn’t new. My family has been referring to it as long as I can remember. This guy will actually build it. Which is another thing that Trump offers to these Americans: He will actually do what he says that he will do. I believe that he will do what he says whether it is through our political system or without. Politicians in Congress and the Supreme Court will not stand in the way of Donald Trump following through on what he has said if he becomes president. Imagine if all the things you wish you could say were being said by one guy. Imagine if all the things you wanted to happen, you actually believed that one guy could do. Imagine if that man were so rich that you didn’t have to worry about him getting bought out by anyone. Why wouldn’t you vote for him? I know that my grandma probably will. This isn’t just a thought at the end of this essay. This is really the point of what I hope you consider. In the midst of all the crazy politics right now, I am more concerned that my grandma can overcome her struggles and experiences with the disease of racism. I hope that she can find victory in Christ. Her vote for or against Trump is really the least of my worries. My grandma’s relationship with Christ is what I pray for. Sometimes I wonder if we aren’t more concerned about Trump becoming president or Hillary, or Bernie, or Cruz, or Rubio or anyone for that matter than we are about spiritual realities. Are we too caught up in the moment? Is our activity in this political race building or breaking relationships in the kingdom? Ask yourself this question: What can I do today to further Christ’s Eternal Kingdom? (Luke 18:18-29) View the full article

One article in our annual February student-produced issue of OUTLOOK magazine focused on the controversial subject of masturbation. Since God created us as sexual beings, all of us must be good stewards of our sexuality, which is quite a challenge in today’s “sexular” society. A typical young male reportedly views 50 pornographic video clips a week, and females increasingly are consumers as well. Meanwhile, most pastors and teachers seem reluctant to talk about porn and the accompanying masturbation. But as the church is essentially silent on this matter of common morality, the world is not shy about educating our young people, through sex education in schools and popular entertainment in movies and music. How unfortunate. Anything that has potential to trouble a conscience needs to be talked about—appropriately yet with clarity—from a biblical perspective. Granted that this is a sensitive topic. If you find masturbation too disturbing to discuss, you might wish to excuse yourself from reading further. Meanwhile, I’ll proceed for the sake of those whose consciences are guilt-ridden, confused or otherwise tormented on this matter. Prayerfully then, I offer the following observations in hopes that some may find them helpful. From a medical perspective, I’m not qualified to make assessments; but I think it’s fair to conclude that traditional scare tactics regarding masturbation lack credibility. Half a century since the 1960s inaugurated the sexual revolution, we don’t see huge numbers of pornography addicts going blind, needing kidney dialysis or signing up for liver transplants. So let’s be sensible and honest in making the case against masturbation. I will focus my observations on the moral and theological perspective. Let’s begin with the grace of God, which is our only hope of salvation. The Bible says “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:1). Thus, inflicting guilt upon a sexually struggling teen—or an adult, for that matter—is inappropriate. A believer’s standing with God is not dependent upon the amount of success or failure in measuring up to His moral ideal. That said, let’s accept that there is a character ideal to which God calls us–conforming us to the likeness of Christ. Scripture admonishes us to “flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18). Jesus famously warned against staring at a woman [or a man, for that matter] with lust in the heart (Matt. 5:28). Obviously God’s will—His ideal—calls us to pursue purity in thought as well as deed. But we must not confuse the possibilities of victory over sin with the basis of our salvation, which is always and only God’s grace through Christ for repenting sinners. “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins—and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). So, even as we “press toward the mark of God’s high calling in Christ Jesus,” (Phil. 3:14), He comforts the conscience by assuring us that He knows when “the spirit indeed is willing though the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41). God is more compassionate than we can imagine, and struggling believers are recipients of divine grace, not wrath. Jesus in His ministry among us was ever tender toward struggling sinners, even as He condemned their hypocritical accusers. Based on that biblical/theological foundation, I offer for your consideration the following moral applications regarding masturbation. To begin with, masturbation tends to depersonalize and therefore degrade sexuality by focusing on pixelated images versus sexual expression as the ultimate relational and bonding experience in marital union, as God intends it to be. Accordingly, masturbation fosters selfishness, corrupting one’s ability to actually “make love” in the practice of sex within marriage. It is difficult, if not impossible, to flip a switch on one’s wedding night from a “satisfy me” attitude of sexuality to a “sharing with you” mindset. Pursuing one’s own “needs” (i.e. desires, demands) is a sure portend of endless marital conflict. Additionally, sexual selfishness belies God’s creation of us in His loving image when we express our own act of procreation in marriage. Masturbation also tends to desensitize one’s ability to view people as one’s sisters and brothers, no matter what they look like; instead, they may be evaluated on their external appearance. This puts on a pedestal those who are superficially attractive and disrespects those who are homely or even average-looking, even if they are loving and faithful in character. The outcome is a popular culture in which girls in particular tend to suffer huge self-worth issues if they don’t look picture perfect in a swimsuit. (Even attractive females, from schoolgirls to mature women, often lament that they don’t match the standard set by photos of airbrushed models.) OK, then. If pornography and masturbation are unhealthy emotionally and spiritually, how does one deal with the hormonal cravings that begin raging even before teenage years? Does God actually want teenagers and young adults to live in sexual celibacy, with unfulfillable cravings before marriage? What value could there be in self-deprivation? I propose there is value in suffering sexual non-fulfillment as an exercise in self-discipline—which every young man and woman must learn early in life. (This may come as a surprise to those who have imagined that the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness rather than to live for the glory of God and the service of humanity.) Without self-discipline, marriage partners may never survive the temptations that reassert themselves all too soon after the honeymoon. Self-restraint learned as a teen serves one well through the next six decades of life, particularly during the infamous mid-life crisis. So there is purpose behind God’s call for us to be holy in thought, word and deed—but there is also forgiveness when we have given ourselves to God yet find ourselves falling short of His glorious ideal. None of us is perfect (Rom. 3:23). So we may be thankful that with God’s command to sexual purity comes His compassion and grace, which abound even beyond our sinfulness (Rom. 5:20). Much more could be said about immorality and how to overcome it, even as God counts us perfect in Jesus. Meanwhile, even if we may disagree about a moral component regarding masturbation, we certainly can concur that it is better to be compassionate and reasonable than to frighten guilt-ridden souls when they fail in their sincere struggles (e.g., about re-crucifying Jesus or making angels weep). However well intentioned, such graceless warnings are not only legalistic but constitute spiritual abuse. To summarize: If we hope to have any kind of credibility or usefulness in the sensitive yet vital ministry of promoting morality, we need to receive for ourselves and express toward others the same balance of grace and truth that characterized Christ’s own life and teaching. That’s my take on this important yet controversial subject. I hope and pray in Jesus’ name that something here has been helpful. Note: This article has been republished with permission from outlookmag.org. Martin Weber, DMin, served as pastor, editor, author, evangelist and police chaplain across North America and taught pastors on five continents with the General Conference Ministerial Association. He is currently the Seventh-day Adventist product manager for Faithlife/Logos Research Systems in Bellingham, Washington. Visit his website in defense of fundamental Adventist beliefs: www.SDA4me.com View the full article

Isn't it interesting how the Laodiceans are described as acting so much like the Antediluvians? Both groups thought that they had need of nothing until it was too late. They say history repeats [because no body was listening the first time]

DAVID EDGREN IN NOAH'S time the bible says that evil was continual ---- our society of today is almost there dgrimm60

Green: While I have agreement with parts of your post, I think that the issue is a bit more complex than you seem to think it is. No, I will say that there is nothing wrong with the ordination various denominational leaders. But, that word can have various meanings. The Roman Catholic position on ordination may not reflect the Biblical positon on ordination. I am one of many who suggest that ordination, as practiced today in the SDA denomination, sometimes reflects Roman Catholic ideas that are not supported in Scripture. Personally, I would prefer that we (the SDA denomination) continue to ordain, but in a more Biblical sense. But, those who suggest that we no longer ordain anyone are, in part, simply asking that we return to a more Biblical practice. From this perspective I disagree with your assessment that Scandinavia is more concerned with a "man-made issue" than a "God-given mandate."

So Pam, it's really more of a hobby for you?

there's some very cool motorcycles out there, but this would probably be about my speed: