Leaderboard

Concerning the article: http://conversation.spectrummagazine.org/t/the-inherent-fallacy-of-the-bris-statement-on-transgenderism/13352 My observations: First, in reply to the statement that "This admitted lack of knowledge on “such issues” should have been enough for the BRI to abstain from giving a public response, until they could demonstrate that they had at least an adequate understanding of both the wealth of scholarly work concerning trans and intersex bodies, and gender dysphoria," is shortsighted. Scholarly work doesn't necessarily imply veracity. Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" which I believe would readily be considered a scholarly work has proven in practice to be a failure since its publication. Moreover, there is no end to "scholarly work." So is one not to have any opinion until everything that has been written on a particular subject has been read? I think not. Next, it seems that the statement that "A trans individual’s dysphoric struggle and societal transition is one of the most difficult and personal experiences that a human being could ever be asked to experience," is based on the premise that somehow other human beings life challenges aren't comparable. This I believe to be false as throughout history we see examples of individual struggles that meet the not only this level of intensity but even surpass it. How about those that chose to stick to their principals during the Holocaust and lost their lives as a result. This statement is rather prejudiced. Finally, the authors true issue with h BRI, "What I find the most confusing about the church’s statement is how the church has, in effect, declared transitioned bodies inherently sinful, this is the crux of their issue and should have been the starting point of their argument. Everything previous to this statement was an emotional argument that was employed in lieu of sound logic. Then, continuing on with the same emotional pandering, "To then follow this with a generic call to love everyone is an empty gesture because it has already set these transitioned bodies outside of the sphere of “accepted” engagement with the church," is again to set aside basic logic. The premise being that you can't love people because you deem their behavior acceptable. Well, I am her to tell you as a parent this is patently absurd.

I see this pastor struggling to reconcile the reality of deep unspeakable persistent pain in his life with the theological views held by faith. Physical reality and the life of faith have a dance that steps and swings, drops and lifts... weaving each other into the sunlight and through the darkest winter hours of cold. I am certain Jesus who leads the dance knows every step and every faltering... and places his success and love everywhere it is needed.

I still fail to see how simply making a choice to believe that Jesus is what He Says He is and did what He said He would do is considered a "work". Is anything we do to express our faith a"work"? are we just supposed to sit back and be "saved"? That sure doesn't seem to be what Paul, Stephen, Peter, and many other disciples and apostles did. Paul says we should run for the prize (I Cor. 9:24). I don't know about you, but "running" is "work" for me. Paul talks like we should want the prize enough to work for it - out of love and passion; not obligation.

Jesus spoke about the Born Again experience... we are all familiar with that. It seems hard for some good and faithful Adventists-since-birth to see a need for the born again experience.. Thoughts?

[Christ speaking] "Without Me you can do nothing." OK. We all believe this. Samie, your emphasis is on the "without Me". You seem to ignore the "you can do". The point is that it takes BOTH Christ and you - to accomplish anything good. Christ cannot "save" you, without your cooperation (your belief in and trust in HIM). And you [without HIM] cannot "save" yourself. You have said that individual salvation is ALL of God, and NONE of the individual human's intention or "doing". I disagree totally!! We humans either RESIST or WELCOME the Spirit of Christ into our hearts. It's one or the other. There is no neutral place where the human being does nothing. This is our part. God has created us with this ability to resist or to believe. Yes. HE loved us first. HE loved us while we were still oblivious of His love. But His love - without our response to that love, does NOT accomplish anything. All the power of the divine cannot "save" the individual WITHOUT that individual's consent. And consent is given, by believing in Him. [NOTE: I use the word "believing" in the Hebrew sense, which implies walking in that belief.]

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Jesus died FOR the whole world of human beings. But only those who BELIEVE IN HIM will receive "eternal life". The GIFT is eternal life. We (all human beings) have a certified GIFT CERTIFICATE. But we must believe it is there, and sign for it (as it were) before the gift of eternal life will be given to us. Why is that so complicated? You quote 1Tim. 4:10 to prove that God has "saved" (past tense) "all men". But you must balance this with the fact that most of the human race will NOT accept/receive the GIFT of "eternal life". Jesus said, "Straight is the gate and narrow the way that leads to LIFE, and few there be that find it." Jesus is the way/ the gate that leads to LIFE. He called Himself "the life". ONLY those who "believe in Him" will receive the GIFT of eternal life. 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." We receive the GIFT when we "come to repentance". The LORD's desire is to save every human being. Does that mean every person will receive eternal life. No. Those who do not "come to repentance" will "perish" [the opposite of eternal life]. Repentance would be the opposite of "a stubborn heart of unbelief" - just as "everlasting life" is the opposite of "perish".

His journey was a very human journey and one that many of us have taken. That is why I posted it.

Prior to making this post, I have NOT reviewed all five pages of the posts, which have mainly been written by JSAD and Robert. But, I will comment on the beginning posts which related to the manner in which the Roman Catholic Pope is addressed as The Holy Father, His Holliness and other such. If we are going to criticize the use of such titles for a human being, we ought to be accurate in our understanding of the OFFICIAL meaning that is attached to those titles. We should be careful not to attribute meanings to them that are not a part of Roman Catholic theology. In RC theology, the Pope is a sinful human being like the rest of us. Due to this, the Pope has a Confessor Priest to whom he is expected to confess his sins with the same obligation as any other human. IOW, in RC theology, those titles DO NOT imply that the Pope is without sin. JSAD is on the right track in his postings as to the Biblical meaning of the word "saint." The Bible calls Christians saints. In basic meaning, the saints are those who are dedicated to Christ. In the same sense, in RC theology a holy person is such a dedicated saint. That is the meaning that is attached to the titles given to the Pope. The difference is that in RC theology, the Pope had committed himself to a total dedication to Christ in all of his life. The RC intended meaning behind those titles is simply to recognize that total dedication to spirituality and Christ that is a part of the life of the Pope. One might say that the common RC member, may not understand that and therefore something else to the meanings of those titles. If that is true in individual cases we still should be accurate in our representation of RC official teaching. Yes, I would not be comfortable in addressing the Pope in those terms. But, that is a different issue.

Samie, Your description of those who believe that we are "born in sin" (with carnal nature, and within Satan's dominion) is beyond unreasonable. NO ONE here believes that God our Father has done nothing to rescue human kind. Of course He has!!! We just don't believe that God erased all sin even before it was committed. Adam and Eve were adults with intelligence far beyond our present brain power. God warned them about the Evil One. But God was not going to tie them to a tree, to prevent their disobedience of His expressed command.