Leaderboard

And that is my oft repeated point that has gotten quite an airing in this thread about insisting that the sin of Sodom was or had to include homosexual behavior. Or that the vague reference in Jude was confirming that even. To name just a few... It is so deeply entrenched in eisegetical thinking that the much clearer pronouncement of Ezekiel is discounted, eisegetically interpreted or virtually ignored because it clearly does not include any reference to homosexual behavior. Ezekiel was a prophet who was in the immediate context of the statement delivering an apparent verbatim message from God, and not conveying his own thoughts in his own words based on divine inspiration. What that sort of adamant clinging to weak and faulty evidence does is undermine credibility of our Christian witness.

I did not view that as he passed, only that he was ill. My cousin outlived 3 partners to AIDS, it finally took him. BUT what a fight he put up. He went into a hospice (again) and the nurse told me he thought he died 10 years earlier, as he was in there deathly sick and when she came back on after the weekend he was gone. Turns out he bounced out and was given another 10 years, he surrendered his life to Christ before he passed, and passed with both assurance and dignity.

Have you read the 12 pages? For Leviticus, many Christians ignore whole swathes of the rules in that book: why are these passages different? No-one has given a clear answer that does not assume what it sets out to prove. For Romans, if the notion that those texts are something Paul is challenging rather than laying down as doctrine is correct, the meaning is different. For the texts in Corinthians and the other texts, the words do not mean the same thing as what we mean by 'homosexual', which may limit their applicability. Far from *my* approach being the one failing to respect Scripture, an approach that takes the shallowest surface interpretation that fits existing prejudices and insists upon it is the approach that is disrespectful. Trusting Scripture means taking it seriously and studying it deeply with all the tools at our disposal.

Gay, I so totally admire the way you put yourself out there. You are the most "true-faced" person on this forum. I wish I had your courage , faith, and trust to talk about my issues and challenges like you do. GBU!

Read More Daily Jesus Scripture: John 8:12 Starting Questions: Have you ever been forgiven for something that you knew deserved much more punishment? How did you respond? Have you ever forgiven someone for something they deserved to be punished for? How did it feel to offer forgiveness? Light of the World ** Continued from Caught in the Act yesterday ** Jesus waved the men’s grasping hands away from the woman. Her arms were released and she quickly covered herself. He leaned over and scrawled something in the dust on the step nearest the man who had made the accusation. The man adjusted his gaze, lining his head up with the ambient morning light so he could make out the words. His head snapped up, more jerkily than he intended. Jesus made eye contact with him. “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” The man, so aggressive just moments before, submissively eyed Jesus with wonder and fear. He glanced again at the dusty scrawl, turned and exited through the crowd. Jesus looked at the remaining group and then began furiously scribbling in the dust. Word after word, man after man, the unspoken rebuke continued until the woman stood alone between Jesus and the crowd, her gaze still firmly fixed on the ground at her feet. After all of the men had fled from their secrets, Jesus lifted the woman’s chin so their eyes met, “Where are your accusers?” She peered at the space where the rude and rough men had stood just moments before. She looked confused. Jesus continued, “Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” “No, Lord,” She said with visible relief. Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.” The remorse, rage and fear that coursed through her escaped with one ragged breath. Her energy gone, the woman slumped to the ground. Clinging to Jesus’ feet, she began to cry. Jesus removed his overcoat and rested it on the woman. He sat on the step just above her. The early morning crowd looked on with mixed emotions. Many of them couldn’t help thinking to themselves, Oh that I might be thrown at His feet and watch my accusers and my sin vanquished so effectively! Just then the sun rose from behind the Mount of Olives and poured it’s penetrating light into the colonnade of Solomon’s temple. The sun illuminated Jesus’ face. Behind Jesus, the white marble steps, walls and columns shone with such ferocity that the people shaded their eyes. Jesus had been waiting for this very moment. With the sun blazing into the eyes of his listeners, Jesus spoke to their hearts, “I am the light of the world.” Reaching down He lifted the face of the young woman, still clinging to his feet, “If you follow me, you won’t have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life.” Reflection Question: The children's chant says, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Is this true? How do we stone people with our words? How does Jesus reply when someone is brought to Him for judgment and punishment? Prayer time: Before you pray together, ask: What would you like to say to Jesus today? View the full article

Blessings on you and your partner... So little we understand. But still we stand under the cross. Together. As one in Christ.

An agreement that the Bible condems homosexual activity does not mean that we agree on what specific verses say. E.G. I personally know people who believe that the Bible does condem homosexual activity, but do not believe that every verse that is used by people to demonstrate this is a verse that actually condems such activity.

I had a nice, uplifting post all ready that disappeared when I realized I was not signed in. Wow- you really put yourself out there when telling of this recent experience! Thank you for your trust in us I remember reading somewhere in SOP that even with people who had not accepted Jesus that we should treat them well, as this world is the best they will ever get. I am not saying that is you at all, but that we as SDA have not excuse to treat another soul badly. I don't know how I would ever look that up... I realise it would be cruel for you two to break up the friendship you have now, especially when it involves life and death as it did a month ago. Jesus will keep changing things for the better. In heaven there will be no gender issues. That we will instead be like the angels might be harder for we marrieds to swallow. But I trust that whatever Jesus has for us will be better than anything we know here.

Gay I know often, and it is too bad more heterosexual relationships were like this, that people in your situation it is more than a partner, it is your best friend, a double whammy. I feel your pain and am praying and cheering for you. Even so, Come LORD JESUS come..

I think it's very good sleight of hand. Demons aren't terribly interested in performing for entertainment.

Every living person is a creation of God and sustained by the power of God. As such, every person is of value and should not tolerate abuse. A denial that one is a child of God is a factor that may lead to abuse of that person and that has been demonstrated historically. A belief that some have been created with a superior status may lead to abuse of those who have been created with a lessor status.

It's very safe to remain with the book of Romans chapter 1 on the issue of homosexuality. That chapter is absolutely clear unless one twists its meaning....

DAVID EDGREN JESUS shows HIS loving kindness and mercy to the sinner----the sinner must then follow JESUS and sin no more dgrimm60

_______________to pass the laws for the multitudes, the dark ages will have returned. The Washington Post

Wonder what happen to her British look alike cousin? Suppose she died at the same time..

That is what David (Bravus) wanted to discuss--individual verses and their actual meaning. That discussion might have been profitable. But, to much emotion was involved. People just were not hearing what he was saying. As most know, Southern is a very conservative SDA college. It is not considered to be liberal. But, some years ago I read some material written by one of their religion staff. He was the one who alerted me to the fact that some individual verses commonly used on this subject were actually not as conclusive as the people using them thought. Yet, he held to the position that the Bible did say that homosexual practice was a sin.

Indeed. Now there are some magicians who in their performance are so mystical that I think they may be preparing people's hearts for the demons. But the things in this video are amazing slights of hand. HMS Richards Jr was an excellent magician and his dad loved watching magicians. Everything that was done in this video could be done by anyone with practice.

To me, the Easter bunny was just a cute little rabbit who came around once a year, and was the reason for some fun. I never ever questioned that Santa Claus wasn't real when I was little... When I found out otherwise, I was disappointed, but it didn't cause a psychological catastrophe, nor did it make me not trust my parents. My Dad played Santa Claus at Christmastime to kids at school and to patients in hospitals. He did that for church Christmas functions as well, and everyone loved it....until someone got uptight and complained that my Dad was promoting heathenism. So *that* ended the service my father thought he was providing. Dad was crestfallen, but considered it as another thing that the church folks were misunderstanding.

I with great JOY and sadness read this. Stan God is so into us its a scandal!

I must have sound so sullen he is better..i want to continue my post I was reliving it as i typed

Iam typing this out in myown software and still still sharing.. He is alive! looking back at my post ..it looks grim hold up..im still typing Sorry for the miscommunication I screwed up im trying to do this with somany emotions

Certainly, and yet: 2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Can we agree at this point that homosexual actions are strongly condemned by God in Scripture? And that God designed marriage to be a lifelong union of a man and a woman?

My comment about heterodoxy was meant to disarm the 'ad hominem' attacks of the form 'this guy is...' What this guy is is irrelevant: what matters is what the Word says. And that requires study, not assumption.

The 144,000 have the Father's NAME on their foreheads. Having the Father's name designates one as part of the Father's kingdom. Right? Is it also true that one will NOT receive the Father's name IF one accepts the "mark" of the Beast - in the forehead? Is taking "the mark" a sign that one worship's the Beast? Rev 14:9-10, makes it seem so. The way it reads, those who receive the mark - either in forehead or in hand - will suffer the last plagues. Revelation 14:9 "Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 "he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." (NKJ)

This may be true for Jews who don't accept Yeshua as Messiah; but Jesus referencing Daniel's writings while he was here was a sufficient Imprimatur for me to accept its authenticity.

I especially dislike how you endeavor to "cloud" truth and make it questionable. This is nothing more than an attack on one's faith in God. Why do you persist?

Yes, because when "the man of sin" and his delusions come to fruition there will be no atheist. (see 2 Thess 2:3-10)

I liked the author's ending statement: Illusions and delusions Despite Dawkins’s certainty about his views, in his book The God Delusion he does hedge his bets a bit. He has a chapter titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God.” Almost certainly no God? Why almost? For someone so sure of his attack on “God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural,” he has given himself an “out” here. Paul explained Dawkins’s slight uncertainty when he wrote that enough about God’s existence can be seen “by the things that are made” that people will be “without excuse” on judgment day (Romans 1:20). In other words, Dawkins isn’t fully convinced of his position, because the witness from the things “that are made” is too powerful. For all the certainty of Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists, logic in fact does suggest that the real illusion is the delusion that God does not exist.

First of all your comment is confused. Yes, by the time of the KJV most Christians were Sunday Keepers. However we are talking about the ancient manuscripts that the KJV translators used and the manuscripts used by say the Revised Standard Version and other translations that Elder Wilkinson, and others who support the KJV only, criticizes. What we have since learned, which was not known in Wilkinson's time, about the creation of those ancient manuscripts is that the KJV translators used manuscripts that were made by groups who had very quickly given up the Sabbath for Sunday. And the creators of the manuscripts that Wilkinson is upset about and that the KJV only people are upset about was created by ancient Christians who at the time of the creation of those manuscripts were still keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath. The reference where this was pointed out is: George E. Rice PhD. Contemporary Issues in Prophetic Guidance Volume 1 Sponsored by the E. G. White Estate, sold by American Christian Ministries http://americanchristianministries.org/index.php/prophetic-guidance-contemporary-issues-cds-21087.html I hope this is useful. I have to admit I am feeling bad now because while I can't think of any other way of wording this, yet I feel like giving a strong reference like this is something that comes on too strong and it is causing a pain in my heart that this may hurt some people's understandings and beliefs. . I want to apologize for my critical spirit. Please keep me in your prayers.

Glad to hear someone else who likes the New Living Translation. That's the version I'm using in reading the Bible through this year. I have lots of other versions, and I like comparing them when studying. I love our Bible; it's God's gift to us to take us through these troublous times.

We repent and seek to grow in grace to be delivered from sin. This applies to all of us. We also repent of the sin of judgement. It is no-one's business but mine, my wife's and God's what, if anything, goes on in my bedroom. The same is true for everyone in the world. Don't assume, don't presume, don't even think about it. It's none of your concern.

The problem with the Jews about Daniel, is if they accepted the Book, than they have a problem!! And on top of that, than they'd have to rethink there problem with the New Testament and Jesus!!

I used to be very "meek and mild" when abuse came my way....and I suffered horribly because of that. I don't tolerate it anymore. But I have to be careful, especially in what I say, as it's not nice to engage in verbal combat with unarmed opponents...

Kevin: " Dave, don't you think it easier to define marriage? Then we know that all else is fornication and sin." David: "Sure. But if that definition already assumes that a loving, monogamous same-sex marriage is excluded, we're back in 'circular reasoning land." A component of marriage involves sexual intimacy. The Bible does not view "monogamous same-sex marriage" intimacy as legitimate love, but rather a perversion. Romans 1:26-27: "....God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." (NLT)

We, as Kevin described in his home, were not raised to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. They were only symbols. My children were not raised to believe in them. It was not an issue, except when one of my daughters shared with her entire kindergarten class that they were not real. Parents were not happy about her revelation to their children.

In my home we were always raised not to believe that Santa or the Easter Bunny were actual beings, but as symbols for the season. Santa was the easiest for us because being Norwegian we also have Jul Nissen. They were seen as symbols of the giving spirit the joy of the season etc. Because of this I have never had the disappointment of "No Santa" and Santa has always retained that special magic. I see like the polar express and feel sad for that right of passage for so many children. There is an honest way of sharing these. Granted the Easter Bunny was more down played at home. And I always had a problem with the Easter egg hunts because the coaching "you're getting warmer/colder" I took too concretely, I always wanted to be just comfortably warm, not too hot nor too cold....

Perspective, not conclusion. And, tentatively at least, 'human understandings', not 'God'. No-one needs defending form the true God, and God needs no defense from humans. Humans sometimes get it wrong, though, as when they burned 'witches', and I like to hope I'd have defended the minority then too, against human understandings.

I haven't concluded. I've speculated, marked as such. Most who have speculated that it means homosexuality have not done as much. Maybe once we finish with the other texts that's a study we could pursue. Pretty much my sole point with that post was that we ought to avoid the Red Queen's approach: " ‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day. ‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’ "

Sure. But if that definition already assumes that a loving, monogamous same-sex marriage is excluded, we're back in 'circular reasoning land'. As are so many of the comments in this thread. Decide ahead of time that homosexuality is the issue, then hey presto, 'strange flesh' is homosexuality. What does the Greek say? In OT context, it's much more likely to be about race and tribe: foreign flesh. If we're using modern words, 'strange' is a slang term for an adulterous partner of the same sex. Assumption is the mother of all... eisegesis.