Leaderboard

I can only speak for myself. Personally I am more interested in people and the joy they have in Jesus. I have a hunch that women may be more connected with emotions, theirs and those of others.

I'm just curious but didn't want to disturb any of the active topics going on right now, but why is it that it is primarily men who are debating the issue of homosexuality here?

Are we much better off with technology? At least bow-and-arrow civilizations didn't create chemical pollution, nuclear waste, and fallout.

To all.. Whether we thinks gay christian men/women (or gay other religion.spiritual) choose or convicted differently on picking a life partner or not to. As Christians we are called to look at their souls the same as ours. Beloved of God! Not lording our own interpretations or understanding over them. Condemning them if they do not hold to same ideas as ours. Looking at our QUEER brothers and sisters equally. Just as starters with strangers. And if in relationship with them..If you find the Spirit leading you to share concerns regarding their Face with God. Do share. But if they don't get you or understand or disagree with you..what are you going to do the next day? And the week after? Keep bringing it up? There must be mutual respect all the way around regarding this issue. Pam brings up conviction. It is God's hands. Both groups of people are in His eyes and have to work on all His Children. Now is what we have. Free to find the commonality. The Foundation of Christ. Rejoice in HIM as the Family of GOD. May the Joy of the LORD be all (Queers included) Strength! . # pssst...the disagreeing understanding that seems to address gay passages are not going to be settled

Not interpreting the Bible, in this case, suggesting a possible reading/interpretation/approach. Not saying it's the One True Way to think about it. If you find it unconvincing, that's entirely fine. I'm not especially convinced by it myself.

This is a point you have consistently not understood. There are some things that are matters of opinion, and some that are not. When I state something that is a matter of opinion, I am very careful to say so. But things like the diagnosis of circular reasoning are not matters of opinion: if someone assumes what they set out to prove, that *is* circular reasoning. It's not a matter of opinion. What I am seeking to do, in this whole discussion, is careful inquiry. If you read carefully, and pay attention, you will notice that I have not, in any of these threads, advanced the opinion that homosexuality - orientation or action - is not sin. I have advanced no opinion on the matter. I have challenged those who claim it is sin to establish that from the Bible, and have seen a lot of misdirection and assumption. The inquiry has barely begun, and it requires patience. Leaping to a conclusion before the investigation is complete leads to weakly supported conclusions.

You can have doctrine without the joy and love for Jesus. You cant have the joy and love for Jesus without doctrines.. Doctrine was not given for punishment or to deprive mankind of something good and beneficial for us. As a mother my main concern for my sons and now grandchildren was to "train them up in the way they should go and not have the depart from that".Any issue that would determine their salvation was important.

Have to admit I didn't: Dr Giem seems incapable of speaking for fewer than 90 min, and ain't nobody got time for that. I do have a pretty decent grasp of the scientific literature around this question, though.

“Hypocrite” “I have lost all respect for him” “I am never going to invite him to a potluck” And many other sentiments were used to express the frustration people felt when Ben Carson, an early favorite of the Republican Party, unreservedly and unapologetically endorsed Donald Trump. Let me say this at the very beginning – I would not endorse a demagogue who has repeatedly discriminated and demonized groups of people for the sake of a misguided ideal for this country. At the same time, I also would not side with another whose political naïveté is unmistakably clear. I could not agree with both of ’em. The endorsement from Carson is troubling for many reasons. My social-media feeds have run amok listing all of them, and I resonate with most of them. But the endorsement is not what is concerning me the most. What’s concerning me the most is the response to Carson from a specific demographic: My Seventh-Day Adventist church family. Yes, we have every reason to feel like he’s let us down. The endorsement seems almost anomalous considering his diatribes against Trump’s ideals. Some, if not most of us, have looked up to him as a man worthy of adoration and emulation – a real life illustration of a rags-to-riches story. So the collective angst we feel is valid. However, I wonder if that’s enough reason to write him off as someone who has “sold his soul” I wonder if that’s enough reason to openly vilify the man in social media through memes and the like which border on cyber-bullying. If we are so quick to write off Carson because he’s endorsing someone who seems diametrically opposed to his personal beliefs, then we should also consider writing off Daniel who worked for Nebuchadnezzar. Sure, Daniel was coerced into his position and never explicitly endorsed the king, but he worked close enough with the political affairs of the king to merit a special sense of favor from him which eventually led to his conversion. If it took an endorsement of a potential threat for us to ostracize Carson, would we include him back if we found out that President Trump (Heaven forbid) is now attending a local SDA church because of Carson’s influence? If God can use individuals who were written off as “pagan”, or “unclean” (Rahab the prostitute, The Syro-Phoenician woman, Wise men from the East, Cornelius etc) to make an impact for His kingdom, why is it so hard to imagine that God can’t use the likes of Carson to do the same? Do we really believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transcend political and theological barriers? “Oh but Kevin, Carson is not in it for theological reasons, but for political ones.” Yes. So was Daniel. But that didn’t turn out to be so bad after all. What if “Carson’s with HIM???” is turned to “Carson’s with him!” Also, Ostracizing one of our own for a theological difference is one thing (that’s another topic for another day). Ostracizing one of our own for an ideological difference is another. While ideology and theology may well overlap, and one may shed light on the other, I’m curious as to what would happen if we can learn to distinguish between ones ideological (or theological) views and ones person. Am I able to distinguish between Carson’s ideological or political leanings from the rest of who he is? Does a single act from an individual many looked up to discredit the many commendable things he has done, and may well continue to do, for broader society? And can I not still accept, and even enjoy, fellowship with a brother or sister in my own church who does not necessarily see things in the same way? I am convinced, more than ever, that it is this mode of thinking that has exacerbated an ethic of acceptance determined by expected beliefs and behaviors in many religious institutions. That is, if you believe what and how I believe, you are now expected to behave in certain ways, and then you get to belong. But we forget that Jesus turned this upside down! He asked a motley crew of disagreeing individuals to follow him (belong), makes them “fishers of men” (behave), and all of whom, like Peter, will eventually confess through their martyrdom that Jesus is the Christ (believe). At the end of the day, while Dr. Carson and I may not see eye-to-eye in issues of politics, I will do well not to overlook three fundamental theological similarities between us: A) both of us are made in the image of God, B) both of us continue to fall short of the glory of God, and C) both of us have access to the redeeming, transcending, wall-breaking, grace of God through Jesus Christ. So this is what I’ll tell Dr. Carson at my place over potluck if he cares enough to come. “I don’t agree with what you did. Not one bit. And I wasn’t planning on voting for you either. But if you need a place to worship, my church is open. And if you’d fancy some rice and curry, our home is open. Our theological similarities trumps our ideological differences…” …and no pun intended.” View the full article

To proclaim God's truths is not the same as doing the convicting. The Holy Spirit convicts, but not before someone receives truth--and how are they to receive it without a preacher? (See Romans 10:8-17.) Switch your terms around and it looks more accurate, i.e. homosexuality is immoral. Not all immorality would involve homosexuality.

not too wise to use the race, religion, gender, or political party as one's basis on voting for the next POTUS, in my opinion. For me, it's going to be based on their work history (including voting record), issue statements history, how they treat other people (past and present), and statements on policies. It's not going to be based on promises they make, or what famous people might endorse them... Even with the above considerations, it's going to be difficult to choose which is the best of what I see are some of the worst candidates we've ever had...

I am not ignoring the other sins....It's just that the gay community denies that their lifestyle is sin. Otherwise we wouldn't be debating this....

Maybe we should just say, Happy Equinox!

And who runs politicians? Lobbyists from large wealthy corporations and special interest groups. The "golden rule" of most politicians is "he who has the gold wins". We have a coin-operated government. I can't say many good things about Trump; but he does know the game; and he's wealthy enough to finance his own campaign independently of anyone. Theoretically, he will be beholden to no one if he becomes President; and is a sufficiently savvy business man to see through the games of Wall Street. That being said, I will have to take anti-nausea medicine and hold my nose to vote for him.

Maybe it has something to do with being a "man's man"?

Read More Daily Jesus Scripture: Isaiah 55:6-9 Starting Question: What is your favourite way to finish this sentence: "The Kingdom of God is like..."? Why? Living Art Imagine you’re living on a painting of a sunset. For years no-one knew it was a painting. It was just life. Then, people started chipping little bits of paint off the ground and anylsing it. These scientists come back after many years of research and declare “It’s pigment, resin, solvent and additives - That’s what the world is made of!" Everyone nods and agrees. Clearly, they are right. Then, one day, someone fastens a little plastic bag to their back and, using a rubber-band found in the easel tray at the bottom of the world, they launch themself off the top. And, look back at the world. “IT’S A SUNSET!” They say when they come back to Earth. “What’s a sunset?” everyone asks. “The painting we are living on,” the parachutist says. “No,” the people say, “What is A SUNSET?” “I don’t know,” he says, “I just read the title above the painting.” This is how the scientific method works. We chip away at the natural world around us and slowly explain it. We think we are reaching deeper knowledge and greater understanding. But, we are just reading the signs. There are questions that can never be answered with paint chips. “What is a sunset, really?” “Who is the artist of the painting in which we live?” John, in his gospel, had a bit to say regarding how the Biblical worldview of the Christians really was very different to the naturalistic worldview all around them. Once we realise how pervasive the Greek culture was becoming, we begin to understand why John wrote what he did. “In the beginning was the Word! The Word was with God! The Word was God!” He’s arguing against the dominant worldview of the day: “Logic is king. Logic explains everything. I think, therefore I am.” John says, in effect, “Not Logic - LOGOS!” “In the beginning was the Logos! The Logos was with God! The Logos was God!” In his usage of the Greek word Logos, John is talking about a “Holy Word,” a “Divine Speaker,” an “Eternal Storyteller.” Logic starts in your mind and ends in your mind. If you trace logical thought back, it goes to the mind of Plato. Then it stops. Not so with the Holy, Divine, Eternal Logos. It is from before time. And, amazingly, John goes on, “The Logos became flesh, and lived here with us!” The supernatural became natural and tented in our campground. He tabernacled among us and then empowered us to tabernacle in the world. We are his Temple and His priesthood. That's epic. That's our God in action through us! Without this amazing Biblical narrative, we have nothing as believers in Jesus. Without His life, death, resurrection and power over creation - over every chip of paint on the canvas - we are just telling stories. But with it - we can change the world - one story at a time. It is saddening and desperately destructive that Aristotelian logical thought has so informed our worldview that we believe such a phrase as “just a story” is a reasonable one. We are a storytelling creature - given the most powerful story in the universe - and empowered to live it. The wonderful thing is that today, a new worldview has emerged - yes it has its issues - which takes stories very seriously. A true Post-Modern thinker hears a story and says, “Is that true? Does it work for you?” If we answer yes that it is true for us it is given a chance to be true for them, as well. I’m ashamed that I used logic to present the past three days thoughts. But, I wanted you to hear it. I wanted you to see it. I want you to shake free from the compulsion to prove truth and embrace the call to proclaim it - through story. If I had written this series using a Biblical worldview, I would have told a story from beginning to end. I think I might have started it, “In the beginning God…” I’ll leave the rest for you to tell. Reflection Question: How will you tell God's story today? 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

No, it is not. The dilemma is real. The point is not to prove up the validity of any one thing in the long laundry list of rules/laws. The point at this stage is not to establish whether any one point of conduct is or is not moral or sin or civil infraction or practical advice. As David has already simply explained there are a whole bunch of rules in that list of Levitical rules. They are Scripture and therefore to be taken seriously, as I think he is doing. It is clear from numerous comments just here, but more widely among Christians as a whole that absolutely nobody is still following all of them. (For a delightful effort to highlight this fact, see the book "Year of Living Biblically") The simple question is which still do apply to us as moral laws and which do not. There are 3 choices - (1) all are still binding, (2) none are, or, (3) some are and some not. It is abundantly clear that #1 is out. And given the discussion here many think at least one is still binding, so #2 is also out. We are left with #3. The dilemma being tested here is how do you decide which are and which are not. If each of us divided the entire list onto two columns, "applies" and "doesn't apply", the serious and important question for each and every distinction is to have a coherent answer to the question "why?" The answer should hopefully give some guidance to helping with deciding on the hard to figure out rules or the disputed rules. Thus far I do not see anyone giving a good answer to that question. Nobody seems to have a logically consistent answer or set of answers. There is a lot of beating around the bush and evasion of the question. One would hope for something helpful that gives some logical guidance to making the hard distinctions.

Dear brother Joe, I am totally gobsmacked that this happened to your son. It is deeply deeply saddening, and I am aghast with disgust. I offer my condolences. This is utterly devastating. I am incensed with you. What you say also about women being abused by pastors is also totally shocking. I had to help a young girl once who was new to the country and was sexually harrassed by an elder of the church. No one helped her, and so me and brother took it on ourselves to confront the person with this. Then we went to the pastor. Response: didn't take it seriously. So I took it to the police. They took it seriously and were willing to press charges. It's an awful state of denial that the church is in. It's disgusting actually. Accountability is definitely not its strong suit. I agree: it sounds no different than RCC or any other organisation for that matter. I am just so so sad for your loss brother. I don't know what I'd do if it happened to my daughter, and that is a fear that is all too real for me. I am so so sorry. Your brother Thomas

Kevin, Well, I guess I am a bit confused. So you don't believe in a Papal Seventh Head? If I had misunderstood you, it was not intentional. However, you do still include the Papacy as part of the Seventh Head ("like the 5th head the 7th head will look very Christian"), so it wasn't totally misunderstood. But my real point is that none of the heads are papal, whether it be 7th or 5th. And the real issue is based on a simple point, that I did explain, to which I'm wondering if you've read or understood. Rev. 17.10 explains that "five [heads/kings/empires] have fallen". Obviously, at the time of Revelation, those five had passed away since they had already "fallen." Do you disagree with this? If so, for what reason? It goes on to say "one is". That "is" refers obviously to that which presently exists, namely the Roman Empire. What reason would you have to dismiss it? Those are my contentions. We'll get to my interpretation later, since I don't know if you understand this part. What's more, I am totally confused about why you would believe that the Papacy is the 5th Head for reasons already explained above. So that I understand you absolutely clearly, who do you say is the 6th Head is? You also say, "That the 7th head is different from the other 5 heads because the other 5 were political conquests, but the 7th head is predicted in the Bible to be the whole world submitting to the corporate and banking cartels/ the merchants of the earth." Well, how is this derived from the text? As far as the Bible says, a Head represents a King and a mountain, and a mountain represents a kingdom/empire, therefore a Head represents a Empire King and its Empire. The banking cartels are not an empire under an empire king. The pattern of 7 heads do not indicate a disimilarity but similarity, and this similarity is obvious, as I say: Empire under an Empire King. Not just 5, but all 7 of them. Where does it indicate otherwise? Those are my questions/challenges, and I hope that you can answer them specifically. God bless

Matt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

I'm a straight man. I have been married to my beloved wife for almost 30 years, and have never had any sexual experience with anyone else in the world, ever. I don't seek to stand up and defend gay people because I am gay, openly or secretly. I stand up and defend gay people from bullying and abuse because they are people. They are people God created and Jesus died for, and they deserve better from those who claim to follow Jesus. In all the debates and discussions, we need to be aware of how they impact on people. These are real sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, members of families, people with jobs and hobbies and lives and interests. It's important to know the truth and to speak the truth, but if we don't have love we don't have anything. I take the point that love does not mean 'anything goes', and that if we love someone and are fully convinced that they are on a dangerous path and we are in a close relationship with them it may be appropriate to privately tell them so. I'm not so sure it's ever appropriate to publicly shame and attack someone. What was Jesus approach to those who accused the woman caught in adultery, and to the woman herself? I hope we'll continue to delve into what the Bible says and means, but I did want to make it clear why I think it's important. It's not because I'm against the Bible: if I was, life would be much simpler, I could just rely on my own opinion to say that I believe homosexual people are people like everyone else with all the same rights and freedoms. I'm seeking to determine what the Bible actually says and means, and trying to do so as carefully as I can.

Christ's 'church' can stand until the end, He is taking care of it. Flawed humans are going to fix it? If something needs 'fixing', I trust God enough to take care of it.

Dear Marri, I am willing to stand up for anything that can or cannot stand up to the test of scripture. That being said, I cannot stand up for all that proceeded from the pen of Ellen White unless it is backed up in scripture. It's not a subject to continue in this topic. I stand on the sovereignty of the Bible alone; and consider the writings of EGW a lesser (and in some areas flawed) light - but that's just me. I'm not saying she did not have a prophetic gift; - she did. I'm saying that IMHO her interpretation of her visions, when filtered through the baggage of her culture and times, was sometimes flawed. You have a way of saying others are wrong and you are right. This is an inflammatory stance. I know from personal experience. Neither of us is the sole repository of the truth. I'm happy with saying that you and I don't see things the same way. I will NOT say you are wrong; I will only say that I don't see things the way you do. I am old enough to know I could be wrong in my views. I have been wrong before; and I reserve the right to be wrong again. But ... you might be wrong, also. We both might be wrong. Prophecy will unfold the way it unfolds. All that being said - I am grateful to you for bringing back the most important point. We must all unconditionally stand for God - just like Moses did - regardless of whether or not satan impersonates Christ, or how/when he does it if he does.

On Carson's endorsement of Trump.... I have lost all faith in Carson's rationality. Trump is someone who will enthusiastically shred the Constitution, and Ben said over and over again that our first job is to protect it. My support for him was based upon his stated views on the Constitution alone. He has now, in all practicality, reversed his position on the Constitution.

I often wonder this as well. I grew up SdA. I was a spiritual child. Prayer and Bible study were part of my daily routine. God was real to me. When I sinned I felt great guilt and felt the hurt I believed I inflicted on Jesus. In my mid-20s I read through the Bible and noted for the first time the plethora of contradictions, internal inconsistencies and pure nonsense. My faith was shaken and it never recovered. Back then, there was no internet and I didn't have Biblical research materials at hand. My Bible and a Strong's concordance was all I had. I felt like I was the first to have discovered these problem texts in the Bible. By age 30 I realized I was an atheist. From age 30 to 40 my life was filled with ups and downs, modest successes and monumental failures; anxiety and depression were never far away. My marriage was strained. Yet despite all the problems I got myself in, a solution often appeared, often through no extraordiary effort on my part. It was as if someone, something was watching over me (and then I wonder, why me? and not someone else; why would God favour me, after I turned my back on Him, while others suffer? Has divine favour smiled on me, or am I just lucky). At age 40 I returned to church. After a few years, my marriage was back on solid ground, my children were growing up happy and healthy, life was better. I still doubt, but I practice my religion - I study, I teach, I preach, I pray, I tithe. I still have lingering doubts and I wonder if my renewed faith is but a psychological coping mechanism for me. I love our church, our church members and our community of faith. But I cannot help wondering if it is not a delusion. So my prayer remains - Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.

Obama is actually bending over backward to compromise: among other things, Judge Garland is 63, while there are numerous potential candidates in their 50s. He is likely to have a shorter tenure (it's slightly macabre to discuss), giving the opportunity to appoint another justice sooner. He is also quite centrist and has a lot of Republican supporters. If the Republicans are opposing him, it seems to be solely on the grounds that Obama is proposing him.

There are many things that are better. These have been enumerated by others. The oceans are definitely worse because of what we have dumped in them. Air quality is better in LA & worse in Beijing. What the Bible says though is that "evil men & impostors will wax worse & worse." 2 Ti 2:13. So I believe it is the spiritual condition of the unregenerate that continues to get worse as we near the end of time.

Mostly subjective, to be sure, but from where I sit: In terms of safety, I think the world in general is getting worse. In terms of disease control, it's better. In terms of altruism (which I consider a virtue), it's worse. In terms of communication abilities, it's better. In terms of literature, about the same. In terms of sports, slightly worse. In terms of music, slightly worse. In terms of television programming and theatrical arts, a lot worse. In terms of world economics, it's worse. In terms of manners, it's worse. I could go on, but in my estimation, the world and its inhabitants are on a downward trend.