Leaderboard

I haven’t read the entire thread so I may have missed something... In this discussion about homosexuality the focus has been on mainly on the act and not what sexuality represents biblically. For me, sexuality from God is clothed in love and represents a oneness in a relationship. It is an exercise characterised by giving and sharing in a depth of intimacy rarely experienced. The beauty of the Song of Solomon is the idea that it is not only a picture of the joy of being married but also of intimacy with God. This is why the Sodom picture is so abhorrent to me. You have a whole town of men, not only gays but ALL the men, who want to not share but violate. They want to take what is not given, to violently degrade and shame their victims. Personally, I am not willing to equate this behaviour with that of the best loving monogamous gay relationship that happens. The Sodom event is not about relationship at all. In the Bible, male believers are still the Bride of Jesus. That is why I try to think bigger than the sexual act. By itself it’s too limited a thought.

Hi Marri, Although I don't agree with everything you stated, support most of it and appreciate the Spirit and passion with which it is presented.

On May 16, 2019. Donnie Edward Johnson, an ordained Seventh-day Day Adventist Elder is scheduled to be executed in Tennessee. https://atoday.org/days-from-his-execution-tennessee-adventist-elder-says-he-is-too-blessed-to-be-stressed/

Thanks for the post. Will get to it and check it out. Sorry I missed your post days ago.

Flesh is weak ?

5 Things You Didn't Know About Margaret Thatcher_3 On May 4, 1979, Margaret Thatcher was sworn in as the first female prime minister of Great Britain.Known to many as the Iron Lady, she was the longest-serving prime minister in the 20th century and the first female British PM. Here are five things you didn't know about Margaret Thatcher... She Was Instrumental in Developing Soft-Serve Ice Cream Every time you get soft-serve ice cream, you can thank the Iron Lady herself. Before moving into politics, Thatcher was a food scientist who had studied chemistry. At one point, she and other scientists worked on a project to add air to ice cream, which would produce a product with fewer ingredients to save companies money. The result was a softer ice cream with the consistency of whipped topping. The product became known in the UK as Mr. Whippy. She Served as Prime Minister Longer Than any Other 20th Century Figure Thatcher was first elected as prime minister in 1979, reelected in 1983 and again in 1987. Following divisions in the party regarding the European Community and a poll tax, she resigned as both prime minister and Conservative leader in 1990. Her service as prime minister to Great Britain was the longest since Lord Liverpool, who served from 1812 to 1927. She's the Subject of a Public Holiday in the Falkland Islands Thatcher acted quickly when Argentina tried to take over the Falkland Islands, a British territory off the coast of Argentina. The result was a two-month battle that saw the UK retain control over the area. As a tribute to Thatcher, the Falkland Islands celebrate Margaret Thatcher Day every January 10. She Lost Her First Bids for Election Thatcher ran as the youngest candidate for the House of Commons at age 24. She lost the race but ran again the following year, losing for a second time. In her third race, she won the seat representing the Finchley Borough constituency, which is in northern London. The IRA Tried to Kill Her On October 12, 1984, Thatcher was in Brighton at the Grand Hotel for an annual conference of the Conservative Party when a 20-pound gelignite bomb, planted by the Irish Republican Army, went off. The bomb had been placed in the bathroom of the suite where Thatcher was staying. Five people died and 30 were injured, but Thatcher and her husband survived unharmed.

Thanks much! I don't actually know that the church will split, and I hope not, but I am alarmed at the sheer number of people who seem to be choosing one extreme or the other. Even the current GC administration is evidently guilty for their opposition to the equal treatment of women. I do not see this "biblical imperative" as being consistent with the main stream of the church, once fully informed. Nor is it consistent with our early history, as a people. The alleged sinful nature of Christ is also a thoroughly unacceptable doctrine. Needless to say, acceptance of homosexual behaviour or the Theory of Evolution is also beyond the pale. Creation took place about 6,000 years ago, as I find clearly inferred in the Bible. It seems that both conservatives and liberals are OK with Sunday keeping in the South Pacific, which I do not believe a fully informed mainstream church could or would accept. But, where are the votes to overturn it, or even the ability to get the matter onto the delegates' agenda? Thank you for saying that there is still a number.

If you notice that Matt 24:27-30 that you highlighted is extremely important. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn. I would like to present if I may truth and understanding of great importance. When MICHAEL stands up there will be a tribulation like never before. That is the last of probation and Daniel gives you two important dates; the first how long the tribulation would be and that the beast and the kings of the earth in prophetic time would have one hour (probation has ended) and within 15 days afterward YAHSHUA will come. The 1,260 is literally 3 1/2 years and the 1,290 and 1,335 if you do the math is one hour or 60 literal days plus 15 which comes to 75 days. The Bible explains what will immediately happen after the tribulation. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. Rev 17:12 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city for in one hour is thy judgment come. For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness for in one hour is she made desolate. Rev 18:10, 17, 19 Babylon is Jerusalem and the whore and the beast will make war. That is Armageddon but before that here is the rest of Matt 24:27-30 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from THE FACE of HIM that sitteth on the Throne, and from the Wrath of the LAMB: For the Great Day of HIS Wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Rev 6:14-17 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth, and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast, and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, Rev 16:2 -10 I know the first is in Rev Chapter Six, but Chapter 7 the angel stopped this from happening at that time, however, these events will take place at YAHSHUA'S Second coming! Notice John specified the beast and not the whore. I will say again, they are two different evil foes of the last days. Finally, men will always try to explain the events of prophecy as they have about a worldwide flood. In all of those who made the claim, it was a forest fire never explained the animal's phenomena or the moon becoming red like blood. Men today are good at speculations. They think they know what Life Cycle of a Star actually is, red giants, supernova, white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, and Back Holes! Not one of these scientists has seen these beautiful stars up close. This planet is the only one that has been marked because of sin. All of YAHWEH'S Creation is not dying or exploding or being born as speculated. They seem them just like YAHSHUA made them. Don't angels have four faces? Who are we to second guess THEM? The Bible says our ways are not like HIS WAYS, nor do we have the mind, the ability or the knowledge that THEY have. What we should do is to marvel at the Creation of the Universe, accept the prophecy of this dying world and be ready when YAHSHUA comes. HE has given us a preview of signs and wonders that we should be prepared for HIS coming. My advice to all is to keep the Commandments and YAHSHUA Testimony because HE is THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY! Happy Sabbath and be Bless!

If that is how you experienced this discussion, The Wanderer, I can only apologise again. It is due to flaws and weaknesses in my communication skills, not to malice in my heart. I do not think ill of, or wish ill for, anyone who has participated in this discussion. I was seeking to inquire into a topic using a particular approach. I have learned a lot about what can happen when people come to a discussion with very different sets of approaches to inquiry that they have not made explicit to each other, and some of my attempts to clarify my own approach for others were clumsy, and have clearly been perceived as attacks. They were not meant that way.

(thought better of it)

Again, I have no agenda in seeking to understand the appropriate context in which to try to make meaning of this text. It may well, indeed, be that all of those three things are in play. I guess the point is to try to understand whether this text remains binding on Christians now. If it is about the sanctity of marriage or about sexual sin, it is. If it is about differentiating Israel from the surrounding nations, it may not be. (Or may be.) Certainly it is possible for people to be motivated to emphasise one context over the other if they wish to support a particular position. The implication, if it is indeed about differentiating Israel from the surrounding nations, is why Christians do not have the beard and hair styles of orthodox Jews, since adjacent chapters include rules about those things. To be honest, I think we have probably taken the discussion of the texts in Leviticus about as far as we can. I'm happy to move on to the NT texts now, if others are.

Sometimes I get frustrated with the lack of communication and my apparent failure to communicate. The following quote, made by the Wanderer, and agreed to by R.G. White, reflects a total misunderstanding of what I was attempting to communicate and is in fact is simply false. * We Adventists have been accused of founding a doctrine based on limited texts, rather than the entire witness of Scripture. * As I have always taught, doctrines must be founded on the entire witness of Scripture on that subject. * Most Biblical scholars, today, teach that a poor exegetical approach to the Bible is to read the witness of Scripture into a verse. On just about every Biblical doctrine, no one verse considers every aspect of that doctrine. Just another reason for looking to the total witness of Scripture on which to base doctrine. * In actual fact, most Biblical scholars today believe that should study in depth what an individual text is saying and should not be approached with an agenda that reads into that text what it does not say. As I say, every text is limited and for an entire doctrinal statement go to the total teaching of the Bible. * Bravus is correct in his attempt to discover exactly what a Biblical text says. He may not be correct as to what he thinks it says. And, he may not be correct as to what the total Biblical teaching is on a doctrine. But, his desire to determine the teaching of a text, is correct.

Because I do not see it as being about homosexuality at all. Yes, in the minds of the people of Sodom these were men, but the story is about rape and it's about the failure of hospitality. It is also being brought in in a way that suggests all homosexual men are rapists and pedophiles, which is false and slanderous. That's why I don't think it belongs in this discussion. I do have my own personal view and position, and I think I've been honest about that, but in this thread I was hoping that it would be possible to conduct a fair, dispassionate inquiry into what the Bible actually says. I still hope so, but people continue to try to derail rather than to engage.

There is also a well known natural cause for the so-called falling of the stars. One should not say that Biblical events never have a natural cause.