What is our church doing about this?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You a making up insults.

No, I have illustrated how certain words and phrases can easily be taken as insults even if that was not the original intention. While it seems I was mistaken to connect the term "fundamentalist" to the term "terrorist" it does also seem clear that the term "fundamentalist" was, and continues to be, used as an inflammatory insult. So whether or not the word "terrorist" was implied seems to be a moot point. Both Richard and Coaspen were directing inflammatory insults toward John317. That is not how we are to play nice with each other. John317, on the other hand, has taken the high road and let these insults be beneath him. That is a fine example of how to react when others attack us.

Quote:

When we try to interpret Lot's actions as if he was a modern rationalist...

I have not read where anyone, John317 or Coaspen, have done this. Everyone in this thread has agreed about Lot being a product of his time.

Quote:

The only reason Lot is declared "righteous" which means "right doing" is because the writer of the book thought Lot was doing the right thing.

I am not sure how that plays into the Biblical authors being inspired by God.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

When it comes to the SDA church in Holland accepting practicing homosexuals as members, I am not surprised it might happen there. The church is influenced by the world to a great extent unless it makes a conscious effort to resist it by clinging to Christ and the Word of God. And of course the Netherlands accepts homosexuality. I could easily imagine the church in San Francisco accepting practicing homosexuals as members also, if it doesn't already do so.

John, I commenmted upon a men and women, sexually involved, and living together, who in Holand are allowed to become members of the SDA Chruch. Not once in my post did I reference homosexual relationships. I did not mention that because I do not know.

The authority for my post came from an article published in the Review, and written by the local Conference President. He informed the REVIEW readersip, and discussed why the chruch had taken that position.

They admit such couples to SDA membership. Then following membership they attempt to lead them into a higher level of understanding,and life style.

NOTE: I stated that the country was Holand. I am attempting to verify that, but I have been unable to do so at this point in time. Perhaps it was another Scandanivan country?

[Woody]

The REAL solution to the problem is to Do Away With Membership totally Neil. Then the conservatives will be able to resist judging who is worthy of membership and who is not.

Membership is an old UN-Biblical tradition.

All are welcomed into the Body of Christ upon Baptism. No NT church ever held a vote to determine if they could belong to some type of "membership" after the baptism.

Keep in mind ... the ONLY way one becomes a "member" is by 51% popular vote of those present. These members sit in judgment of you to determine if you are Holy enough.

Baptism into the Body of Christ is sufficient. This popularity vote for membership is actually a worthless tradition. NO it is actually destructive.

[Neil D]

There is a big difference between coming to worship and learn and being a member of the Adventist church.

[Woody]

Quote:

They admit such couples to SDA membership. Then following membership they attempt to lead them into a higher level of understanding,and life style.

Praise the Lord for good leadership in our church.

This is the way it should be done.

I am so pleased at the direction of our church.

God is leading.

[carolaa]

Quote:

NOTE: I stated that the country was Holand. I am attempting to verify that, but I have been unable to do so at this point in time. Perhaps it was another Scandanivan country?

I'm pretty sure you are right that it is the Netherlands. That's what rings a bell with me, anyway, and I know they have struggled with that issue for years.

[John317]

Personally .... I feel the church IS the place for ALL ... even those who do not sense their need to change their life with particular good works that you might desire them to have. If they can't be welcomed to the fold of Sinners to learn not to sin .. then where would they go?

None of us are any "holier" than another. We ALL sin and come short of the glory of God. I am sure there are actions in MY life that I have not come to a realization that I need to change. But it is IN the church that I can gain this understanding through the patient and loving teaching and understanding of others.

But it will not happen if we project the image that we are a club of people who have arrived at some particular point of holiness. I know of NO one who feels they can practice sin. But many have not been convicted of sin. That is something the Holy Spirit does and he can use our church to bring a person to that point. That is unless we shun those who have not achieved the conviction that we would like them to have.

I can see Jesus rounding up all the scum of the earth and welcoming them as equal partners IN the church. The bum on the street would be held as equal partner WHILE he was struggling with his alcohol and tobacco addictions.

We agree here except that I am talking about membership in the church. I'm not talking about welcoming people into our midst to worship or study the Bible with us.

[Woody]

Perhaps you could outline the sins that would exclude one from the elite "membership" of the SDA church.

That is a business that I would not want to participate in.

How do your judge who is "worthy"?

And WHY would you want to judge such a thing?

I think that I will depend upon my baptism and belonging to the Body Of Christ rather than some 51% vote of a group of people judging my worthiness to join them in some type of group after I have joined the Body through Baptism.

[John317]

Quote:

And there is a difference in what way???

What would cause one sinner to want to join a church whose primary goal would be to keep standards? Oh' date=' memebership ! of course, Membership...That includes being able to run for office, right? So, who would want to govern a group of judgemental people anyways? All you would have is bickering and back fighting and ....Oh...excuse me...we have that already...

Study the story of the sin of Achan, in Joshua 7: 10-26.

God holds the whole church responsible for open sins that it allows to continue. When church members are living openly in sin and are determined to keep it up, the Bible teaches that the church has an obligation to God to correct those situations. Please see 1 Tim 5: 22; Eph. 5: 6; 2 John 11.

What do you believe should be the conditions for being a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: John317

I've said that they should be welcome to worship and study and pray, but membership in the church is not unconditional. For instance, see 1 Cor. 5:

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a'] among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.[c] 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Immorality Must Be Judged

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”[d]

Remind me again how a gay person who come to church to worship the Lord is "the evil person"?

And look at this text again-

"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner"

That text would probably, if applied equally accross to all members as well, exclude you from church as well....Better understand the context of the text and the motive of the "evil person"....Otherwise, I suggest that you are misapplying scripture...

The verse in 1 Cor 5 has to do with people who are unrepentant of their sins and fully intend to keep practicing them. 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 makes that abundantly clear. Also please compare 1 Cor. 5 and 2 Cor. 2: 3-11.

[Woody]

Quote:

What do you believe should be the conditions for being a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church?

We could back up and ask ... What is the condition of eternal life / Salvation. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you are saved. In order to belong to the Body of Christ ... only belief is required. I would propose that the same requirement should be made for the club membership of the SDA church IF you feel that such membership is needed.

Belief.

To focus on works ... would be the wrong focus. Our focus should be on Christ and HIS works. Not the works of our fellow man.

[Neil D]

Quote:

The verse in 1 Cor 5 has to do with people who are unrepentant of their sins and fully intend to keep practicing them. 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 makes that abundantly clear. Also please compare 1 Cor. 5 and 2 Cor. 2: 3-11.

And this relates to those who are trying to have a relationship in what way????

Again, you are miss-applying scriptures.....

And while I do not want to hyjack a thread, but a good discussion on what constitutes membership, eternal life and evangelizing people into the church should be a good discussion....

Quote:

To focus on works ... would be the wrong focus. Our focus should be on Christ and HIS works. Not the works of our fellow man.

I could even be persuaded in our focus/"bragging rights" should be on Christ and His works IN US. [That may just stop the mouths of 99% of the SDA church! The other 1% won't want to say anything!]

[John317]

Perhaps you could outline the sins that would exclude one from the elite "membership" of the SDA church.

I would only repeat to you what you can read for yourself in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy.

Quote:

That is a business that I would not want to participate in.

How do your judge who is "worthy"?

And WHY would you want to judge such a thing?

I spent over 25 years as an Adventist while openly living in gay relationships. During that time I went to gay bars, etc., and did not try to hide what I was doing. Once in a while I would also go to church.

In all of that time, not a single Seventh-day Adventist mentioned my lifestyle. No one told me that Christ had the power to help me overcome those sins. God finally used a "Jehovah's Witness" to point to the truth of the Word of God and help me face my spiritual danger.

See 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2: 3-11; 1 Tim. 5: 22; Eph. 5: 6; 2 John 11; and Joshua 7. Also see Ellen White's comments regarding the sin of Achan.

[John317]

Quote:

What do you believe should be the conditions for being a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church?

We could back up and ask ... What is the condition of eternal life / Salvation. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you are saved. In order to belong to the Body of Christ ... only belief is required. I would propose that the same requirement should be made for the club membership of the SDA church IF you feel that such membership is needed.

Belief.

To focus on works ... would be the wrong focus. Our focus should be on Christ and HIS works. Not the works of our fellow man.

Let's say I am a practicing homosexual who claims to have faith in Christ, and I argue publicly that homosexuality is not a sin and that I plan to go on living in that lifestyle. Would you favor my being baptized and accepted as a member of the SDA church?

Or let's say I am a thief. I break into houses and steal for a living. I claim to have faith in Christ. I want to be a member of the SDA church. Would you favor my being baptized and accepted as a member in the SDA church?

None of these are at all far-fetched. I have known people who fit both descriptions.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Perhaps you could outline the sins that would exclude one from the elite "membership" of the SDA church.

I would only repeat to you what you can read for yourself in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy.

Quote:

That is a business that I would not want to participate in.

How do your judge who is "worthy"?

And WHY would you want to judge such a thing?

I spent over 25 years as an Adventist while openly living in gay relationships. During that time I went to gay bars, etc., and did not try to hide what I was doing. Once in a while I would also go to church.

In all of that time, not a single Seventh-day Adventist mentioned my lifestyle. No one told me that Christ had the power to help me overcome those sins. God finally used a "Jehovah's Witness" to point to the truth of the Word of God and help me face my spiritual danger.

See 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2: 3-11; 1 Tim. 5: 22; Eph. 5: 6; 2 John 11; and Joshua 7. Also see Ellen White's comments regarding the sin of Achan.

Adventists and maybe most Christians, including myself, generally have no clue how to relate to homosexuals. I have SDA friends who I'm pretty certain are gay, but the subject never comes up. I guess I'm not close enough friends with them to be sure, or to know if they are actively living that lifestyle (they are not *openly* living the lifestyle), and so I don't want to bring it up. Whenever I see them in church, I'm just glad they are there. But truthfully, I don't know what else to do except pray that God will keep bringing them back. Any suggestions?

[Woody]

Quote:

Let's say I am a practicing homosexual who claims to have faith in Christ, and I argue publicly that homosexuality is not a sin and that I plan to go on living in that lifestyle. Would you favor my being baptized and accepted as a member of the SDA church?

For Baptism .... The answer to this is simple. YES. If you view this particular sin as being somehow more sinful and not worthy of coming to Christ ... then the answer would be NO.

However ... I should note that Christ said ... Come as you are. We all have some misunderstandings of scripture. WE may not think that anger is a sin. I don't know ... I could list many sins such as over eating. But NO ... we come to Christ as we are and HE transforms us with NEW thinking. We get that after the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Baptism as described in Acts 2 . The work of transforming us though is the work of a lifetime.

As far as SDA Membership .... I have no comment. You can do what you want with that. I don't believe in it. At least at the minimum ... I see NO reason for it. It is more destructive than it is good. Yes, I do maintain my membership but I do so because that is the tradition at present.

[Woody]

YES !!! Bring them all into the family of God. I really don't care what sins they are committing or have committed. Bring them IN. I am no better than they are. I am their equal. And I want them to feel at home.

If they desire to unite with Christ and the body ... then yes ... let them have a full measure of the light.

Study the Wheat and the Tares. Also the parable of the Net. It is not our job to sort the fish or the Wheat .... that is done at the Harvest.

[John317]

Quote:

The verse in 1 Cor 5 has to do with people who are unrepentant of their sins and fully intend to keep practicing them. 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 makes that abundantly clear. Also please compare 1 Cor. 5 and 2 Cor. 2: 3-11.

And this relates to those who are trying to have a relationship in what way????

Again, you are miss-applying scriptures.....

1 Cor. 6: 9-11 relates to those who "used" to be practicing homosexuals or thieves drunkards or extortioners but who are no longer doing those sins. They confessed and forsook their sins. They did not deny they were sins and continue doing them.

Could you please explain the part about misapplying scriptures?

[John317]

YES !!! Bring them all into the family of God. I really don't care what sins they are committing or have committed. Bring them IN. I am no better than they are. I am their equal. And I want them to feel at home.

If they desire to unite with Christ and the body ... then yes ... let them have a full measure of the light.

Study the Wheat and the Tares. Also the parable of the Net. It is not our job to sort the fish or the Wheat .... that is done at the Harvest.

Well, what I was talking about is becoming a member of the church.

As far as baptism is concerned, too, a person who does not understand what baptism means shows that they are not prepared for baptism. And if a person is continuing to live in sin, such as stealing or living as a practicing homosexual, it shows they don't know what baptism is all about.

I was baptized at a Quite Hour evangelistic crusade along with my homosexual lover. My gay lover told L.E. Tucker he was gay shortly before we were to be baptized. He gave us a ride home to our apartment. We were living together at the time, and no one had to tell us we had to break up. We both knew that we couldn't stay together as a couple. We didn't want to stay together as a couple because we knew that God doesn't want His people living that way. No one had to tell us, "You can't live together." We knew that from the Holy Spirit and from Bible study. I gladly gave it up at that time but went back to it a few years later and stayed in that lifestyle again until about 3 years ago.

[aldona]

Quote:

By offering his daughters to those men-- as horrible as it sounds--Lot showed deep respect for the "natural order" of God's plan for human beings, which is that the male is to use the female for sex, and not other males. The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is. See the Bible's characterization of these things in Romans 1: 24-28. So, it seems to me, Lot was showing that he would rather have his beloved daughters abused than see such a horrible, unnatural crime as homosexual rape committed against Yahweh in the person of His messengers. This is doubtless a hard concept for us to fully grasp because we've grown accustomed to viewing these things through the eyes of a society which increasingly advocates the notion that marriage between two men or two women should be considered normal.

Wow, this is really some of the most ignorant reasoning that I have come across in a long time. The reason Lot offered his daughters to the mob is because women were seen as property. And if you are going to rate sins by how much the Bible talks about it you will find far more content about adultery. There is nothing noble about Lot. If he was going to be noble he would have offered himself.

You can find evidence for women as property in regard to how women are treated in Old Testament law. Another story that reveals women's status as property can be found in the priest who had a concubine who was being raped while he was inside a house. The concubine pleaded at the door all night to be saved and eventually died from the violence of the gang rape. The priest opened the door and found her dead the next morning after ignoring her pleas all night. He was not horrified by her suffering but because he had lost a concubine. He cut her into 12 pieces and sent one piece to each tribe.

What horrifies me in your reply is that you need to have the Bible fit some twisted infallibility at the expense of moral empathy. Its time we stopped taking this horrible book literally. The writers of the Old Testament thought what these men did were good ideas and they fit within their concept of women as property. Your reply reveals the very same ignorance.

We wonder why Islam practices acts like wanting to apply 40 lashes to an English teacher for naming a teddy bear Mohammed. Its because they are taking their scriptures literally the same way. Its the same Iron age morality.

I writing this because we can no longer stay silent about this type of thinking. Its terribly destructive to women and further represents them as second class beings. If I could use stronger language I would.

To suggest that the rape of a woman is less wrong than the rape of a man is treating the victim as an object. To suggest that God would be less offended by the rape of a woman is why Christianity is scorned by thinking people around the world.

Thank you - I have just had a busy weekend away from the computer and on my return, I am heartened and encouraged by the thought that I am not the only one that thinks this way.

aldona

[John317]

...Thank you - I have just had a busy weekend away from the computer and on my return, I am heartened and encouraged by the thought that I am not the only one that thinks this way.

aldona

I'm certainly not defending or condoning any of those behaviors. The Bible calls both heterosexual rape and homosexual rape "abominations" to God. God hates both sins. People who do those things will not be in God's kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9,10; 1 Tim. 1: 10; Rev. 21: 8; 22: 15.) 1 Tim. specifically names "fornicators" and "sodomites." 1 Cor. 6: 9 specifically names "adulterers," "homosexuals," and "sodomites" (NKJV).

I would like to point out that the word [Gk:"malakos," soft] translated "homosexuals" refers to "catamites," that is, the passive, feminine partner in a homosexual act. It occurs in Greek, extra-biblical literature. "Sodomites" refers to the active. So both kinds will not be in heaven if they continue to practice those things and don't repent of them and forsake them. The Bible could not be clearer.

But the man who rapes a female (or the woman who "rapes" a male) is also included among those who won't be God's kingdom (unless, of course, he/she repents and is forgiven by God).

Some readers are evidently under the impression that in my writing about Lot, I am talking about MY view of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. My view of women has nothing to do with it. I am discussing the Bible's view of what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah and how the Bible views various sexual sins. I would not have done what Lot did.

Where the difference lies between these sexual sins is in the "unnaturalness" of the homosexual acts. Romans 1 describes them as "against nature" because they are using human bodies in a way that God did not intend. God intended the male to use the female body for sexual pleasure. God never intended for females and males to use the bodies of their same gender for sexual pleasure. That is why the Bible never calls heterosexual rape or sex a "perversion," "against nature," or "unnatural," as it plainly does of homosexual acts. For instance, Romans 1 refers to them as "shameful lusts" (v. 26), "the degrading of their bodies" (v. 24), "unnatural" (v. 26), "indecent" and "perversion" (v. 27).

Jude 7 uses two Greek words that mean, literally, "different flesh," i.e., different from that which God intended when he created humans. Those words are translated as "perversion" (NIV), "strange flesh"(NKJV; ASV; NASV), "unnatural lust" (NRSV; REB; NJB), and "other kind of flesh" (Rotherham's Emphasized).

[Woody]

Quote:

Well, what I was talking about is becoming a member of the church.

Like I keep saying. It really doesn't matter what you do with membership in my mind. If you are a part of Christ and the Body through Baptism .... WHY would you care WHO was on the books of an organization?

I am IN Christ through my Baptism ... NOT through the 51% vote of an individual church somewhere in tin buck two.

By the way ... My name is in the book of LIFE. That is the only book that I care about.

[John317]

Quote:

Let's say I am a practicing homosexual who claims to have faith in Christ, and I argue publicly that homosexuality is not a sin and that I plan to go on living in that lifestyle. Would you favor my being baptized and accepted as a member of the SDA church?

...As far as SDA Membership .... I have no comment. You can do what you want with that. I don't believe in it. At least at the minimum ... I see NO reason for it. It is more destructive than it is good. Yes, I do maintain my membership but I do so because that is the tradition at present.

Hope and pray you will see things differently some day.

[John317]

Quote:

Well, what I was talking about is becoming a member of the church.

Like I keep saying. It really doesn't matter what you do with membership in my mind. If you are a part of Christ and the Body through Baptism .... WHY would you care WHO was on the books of an organization?

I am IN Christ through my Baptism ... NOT through the 51% vote of an individual church somewhere in tin buck two.

By the way ... My name is in the book of LIFE. That is the only book that I care about.

I don't agree with your view, but if you really believe that being a member of the SDA is more destructive than it is good, why don't you drop it? I would if I believed what you say you do. I know why I am a Seventh-day Adventist and I am thrilled to be one. I was thrilled when my wife decided on her own to be baptized and join the SDA church. The same with my two daughters. I never even asked them to be baptized or join.

Of course it is quite true that having your name written in the Book of Life is all-important, and it is also true that many people who have their names on the church books will not ultimately be saved in God's kingdom. But that doesn't mean being a member of the SDA church is unimportant. God wants us to have our names in the Book of Life and to be members of the Seventh-day Adventist church, but He wants us to be members of the church out of conviction and not due simply to "tradition."

It's also very important for us to be aware that it's possible for our names to be removed from the Book of Life. The Book of Life holds the names of all those who have ever placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Owner, but if at the time of their death, or at the end of human probation, our life shows that our faith was not genuine, our names will be taken out of the Book. See GC 480-484.

[cardw]

Quote:

While it seems I was mistaken to connect the term "fundamentalist" to the term "terrorist" it does also seem clear that the term "fundamentalist" was, and continues to be, used as an inflammatory insult.

You seem bound and determined to make any disagreement an inflammatory insult. Since when is being a fundamentalist an insult? Fundamentalists tend to claim that designation with conviction. You still seem to making up insults which really has nothing to do with what is true or not.

[Woody]

Perhaps you misunderstood me ... I was saying it was more destructive to have "membership" than to not have "membership" as a tradition. But since we have the tradition ... I have to abide by the decision for the sake of unity. Not that I believe in it. But because that is the way it is now.

Yes, I would prefer if there was NO membership. But I am not going to throw away my membership as you suggest ... just because I see it as counter productive for the church as a whole.