What is our church doing about this?

[David Koot]

Well that explains a lot. Its quite evident that you don't use your intellect to read the Bible either.

That type of personal put-down would certainly seem to be inappropriate. How about sticking to the issues? If you have textual evidence to the contrary, then by all means present it.

[there buster]

Well, I've stayed out of this whole thing until now. But several points have been overlooked.

I don't know whether I would have done what Mayor Street did or not. But as he was not acting as a representative of the SDA church, nor was he employed by the church, I'm not sure what the denomination could do about it.

As has been pointed out, membership is in the local church. If they deemed that his behavior has brought the church into ill repute, the could act. But I think it would be unlikely that they would do so. If I were a member of that church--and I do not support gay marriage, for what that matters--I would not support a move to either censure or disfellowship him. In sum, agree or disagree with his actions, I cannot see a role for the church to play in this, except maybe education--and that assumes that the denomination wants to get involved, which I don't suppose they do.

So, as to the original topic, the church is --appropriately, I believe-- doing nothing.

[David Koot]

Shane, well actually it does. I would invite you to consider the text (Genesis 1:27-28) I referenced that shows no distinction between them in the natural order of the world. No distinction certain means equal.

[Woody]

Quote:

Shane, the dictionaly defination of comparable is

Gregory ... the person with whom you are addressing this to ... and I won't use his name because he does like that ....

BUT ... he doesn't respond well to the dictionary. I happen to know this from personal experience.

So, if you want to reach this person ... you should try a different authority.

[David Koot]

Shane, the dictionaly (sic) defination (sic)of comparable is:

Quote:

similar or equivalent

The dictionary defination (sic) of equivalent is:

Quote:

Equal in substance, degree, value, force, or meaning.tantamount, equal,

In a nutshell, the defination (sic) of comparable equal. By using the term comparable in the translation that I quoted, the Bible is using the term equal.

That certainly appears to be circular reasoning, additionally using secondary and tertiary sources. How about sticking with the original?

If you want to take a look at the Hebrew word neged, and its range of meanings (semantic range) some helpful information may be found. The particular form used here shows up in several other places, for example Nu. 32:1, 32:4, describing lands "suitable" for livestock. In Gen. 2, the word could properly be understood as "suitable." The range of meanings of the root word includes, "before," "in the presence of," "meet for," and so forth.

Dave

[Woody]

Quote:

the church is --appropriately, I believe-- doing nothing.

As we can see evidenced here ... the "church" is doing something. His fellow 'christians' are attacking him like wolves and seeking to destroy. They are casting judgment on him before then have even heard his heart.

Of course ... this is typical. We do have to make sure that the chruch is pure. We can't have any who 'sin' in our membership ranks.

But a big AMEN to the fact that we should NOT be doing anything but loving him . The least we could do is ask and listen before thowing stones.

[there buster]

Quote:

I don't trust my intellect and I don't trust the intellect of others either. Since organizations are all made up of sinners like me, I don't trust them either. I choose to place my trust in the Bible. The B - I - B - L - E, yes thats the book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God, the

B - I - B - L - E

Whether you trust it or not, the mind, the intellect, is the primary tool with which we all must engage the Bible. We must read and attempt to understand the text.

Not only that, but we understand it better in sharing and discussing our understanding with others. Iron sharpens iron.

And further, the church itself has a role in interpreting the scripture--no, I don't want to get tangled up in a debate about that right now, but please don't anyone be so foolish as to call this position "Catholic". In a multitude of counselors there is safety, and the church can provide them.

And now-- and this says volumes about the sickness of our culture-- I will make the obligatory bow at the altar of political correctness by simply saying I have two daughters, either one of whom would make an excellent pastor, and who have more than held their own in hostile academic and work environments. And they are quite ready to tell dad he's full of it.

I believe the Biblical model is that, after the coming of sin, men should be the head of the household. There has to be a single head for the simple reason that sometimes decisions must be made, and a tie vote just won't cut it.

However, the text is clear that before the fall, there was not only equality, there was essentially identity.

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Both male and female were 'man.' There was no need for headship for the simple reason that they were in perfect accord. They were one.

The argument that woman was made after man, and is therefore inferior, is problematical at best.

Consider that Man was created after the animals. Does that indicate that Man is inferior?

Consider that the Sabbath was instituted after the rest of Creation. Does that indicate that the Sabbath is inferior?

IF, and I do not say that it is so, but IF order of creation indicates anything, it indicates that later is superior.

However, I do not think that is what creation order indicates. I think it indicates completion.

The firmament is not complete until the Sun, Moon, and Stars populate it. The waters and the atmosphere are not complete until birds and fishes populate them. The land is not complete the land animals complet it. The planet is not complete until the steward, Man, is present. Man is not complete until woman is present. And Creation is not complet on its own-- it is dependent upon the Creator, and the Sabbath completes the circle of Creation.

Finally, neither Man nor Woman has a separate identity until after the Fall. Then, and only then, does Adam name her Eve. Until then he is man (Heb: iysh) and she is woman (Heb: ishshah), and they are Adam.

The first place where their names appear together is in 4:1, with the conception of Cain.

The text indicates that a clear change in status occurred because of sin. A separation which had not been there before. And this necessitated a change in the relationship between the two.

[David Koot]

However, the text is clear that before the fall, there was not only equality, there was essentially identity.

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Both male and female were 'man.' There was no need for headship for the simple reason that they were in perfect accord. They were one.

They continued to be "one" after the Fall, right up through Jesus' day, and to the present day, according to God's plan. That does not pertain to the issue of 'headship.' Nor does being in 'perfect accord' pertain to headship. For example, the angels are in perfect accord with God. But God does have 'headship.' The passage cited, Gen. 1, does not expressly address that question either way.

[there buster]

Actually, you did not address the evidence.

The parallel construction

he created him;

he created them.

is strong evidence for the notion of identity.

The argument consists of more than one text.

At first identity; after the fall, separate names.

Yes, "in God's plan" they are one. But then, sin indicates that they departed from God's plan.

[David Koot]

Actually, you did not address the evidence.

The parallel construction

he created him;

he created them.

is strong evidence for the notion of identity.

The argument consists of more than one text.

At first identity; after the fall, separate names.

[there buster]

Maestro!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

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?

I think you have it about right. Just praying, and showing you care for them is most often the best thing you can do, especially when you don't feel close enough to them to talk about such a personal and controversial issue.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it would be right for just anyone to talk to someone about this. In my case, the "Jehovah Witness" man was someone I had grown pretty close to and we had been studying the Bible together for quite a few months.

When I mentioned the fact that in about 25 years of living in the gay lifestyle, no one in the church talked to me about it or told me that God provides power to overcome it, I was referring to people in the church that I went to for counseling. I went to an SDA pastor, an SDA church elder, as well as to an SDA psychiatrist.

[David Koot]

Maestro!

It may indeed be that some individuals have their own points. At issue here has been, quite simply, the words as they read. Do the words as they read indicate equality or lack of equality, headship or no headship? That is the specific point which this student is addressing. If someone wishes to attempt to build a case for gender equality on various levels, that is fine to make the attempt. However, if the specific verses cited are relied on, then it is reasonable to expect to be subject to review and comment.

[there buster]

It may be reasonable to expect that people will be on point, rather than raise extraneous matters-- but that doesn't mean it will happen.

Time to retreat to Iona.

[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.

It's true that the church has a mixture of both wheat and tares, but the church doesn't intentionally bring in tares. It hopes and prays that the people being baptized are true believers who have a genuine love for Christ and have been born of the Spirit. It tries to work with people so that by the time they are baptized and join the church, the church has evidence that they are wheat. The church should never baptize someone while there is good reason to believe they are a tare.

One of the reasons for the church structure and leadership is to try and make sure people are not being buried alive but are really dead in Christ when they are baptized. We can't read people's hearts and minds, but we can go by the evidences.

For instance, after having studied the Sabbath with a candidate for baptism, if they continue working on the Sabbath, and perhaps even say they don't intend to stop working on it, it shows that they are not ready for baptism and membership in the SDA church. We shouldn't baptize and accept as a church member one who gives no evidence of having been born of the Spirit or of understanding what baptism means or understanding the foundational teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church. People should learn what the church believes before, and not after, they join.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

If you think I am sharing with you my own personal reasoning about women and life, all I can say is you couldn't be more wrong. As I have said before, I am only trying to understand the Bible's point of view about Sodom and Gomorrah, which, of course, is quite different from that of our society today.

My guess is that your personal view of women is probably better than the Bible's.

No, I think the Bible's overall view of women is the correct one.

However, God's view is obviously not Lot's view, or the view that people had during Lot's time. Ever since Old Testament times God has been trying to bring people back to his original plan for human beings. The problem is, though, that we live in a sinful, dangerous world, so God has had to put in place some rules that are not ideal but do help us live in the messed-up world as it is. God's original plan for men and women was that they perfectly complement each other and that they be equals. That will be the way it will be again on the new earth. We should strive for that now, but we shouldn't have any illusions that we will reach it before Christ returns.

I believe God's view of how he wants people to live is only found in the first two chapters of Genesis and in the last two chapters of Revelation. Everything else in between is what God put in place during the emergency period that sin created. Nothing during this period is really God's ideal, including the relationship between man and woman.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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?

If you will look at the text that you are using to prevent members from joining the SDA church, you will see that paul is talking to those who are sinning and yet already in the church. They are already members. He is teaching them the standards from within the church. He does not with hold the right to become sons of God...but he does educate them within the church.

OK, sure, but for our purposes, I don't think that matters. You can be sure that Paul would not have baptized him and accepted him into Christian fellowship WHILE he was having incestuous relations with his step-mother. If Paul's instructions were to disfellowship the man AFTER he was a Christian, you may be sure the man's having sexual relationships with his step-mother would have been unacceptable BEFORE baptism.

Does it make sense for me as a pastor to object to incest ONLY AFTER someone has been baptized, when I gave no evidence that I objected to it BEFOREHAND?

For instance, let's say I am studying with someone, preparing them for baptism, and he introduces me to his step-mother. Then I am shocked to find out that he is living together with her as her husband. But I keep my mouth shut and say nothing about it. I tell him he is ready to be baptized and join the church. Then a week later, I tell him that if he doesn't stop being a husband to his step-mother he will be disfellowshiped.

Wouldn't he have a right to say, "Why did you baptize me when you knew my step-mother was my wife? Why are you just now telling me this? You should have told me before and not waited until after my baptism"?

Quote:

What you are saying is that you have to have already achieved the goal of being straight or at least a non-practicing homosexual before you can become a member of the SDA church. It is better to have brought one into the church where they can get the help and fellowship that they need rather than to dangle the carrot in front of them....

Wouldn't you say that since Paul wrote 1 Cor. 6: 9-11, he would have told people BEFORE their baptism that people who practice those things can't expect to be in the kingdom of God? If we really accept Christ, we won't be practicing those things. If we are practicing them, it is proof that we have not totally surrendered our lives to Him.

In my case, I knew from studying the Bible and from the Holy Spirit that it was wrong for me to practice the gay lifestyle. When we were baptized into Christ and joined the SDA church, my former lover and I were still living together, but we were planning on ceasing to live together as a couple soon. We still loved each other very much, and and we supported each other in doing what we both knew was God's will for us. A couple of months later I went off to Pacific Union College to study theology and he studied for his Masters in education at a state university. We kept up contact for years after that. The last I heard from him, he was a special education teacher in Honolulu. I got married to a woman and have a family. He never did.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[David Koot]

It may be reasonable to expect that people will be on point, rather than raise extraneous matters-- but that doesn't mean it will happen.

On point vs. extraneous . . .

Question was: According to the Bible, did God create and intend for Adam and Eve to be "equal," with no headship residing in either one.

Assertions which have been made:

1) Genesis 2 says they were created equal;

2) Equality may be inferred from the words used in Gen. 1 and 2;

3) A literary device in ch. 1 shows equality;

4) Adam did not give Eve her name until after the Fall. That shows equality before the Fall.

Each of these assertions has been responded to very briefly, so far. Now, more in depth treatment of them will follow. Just can't get to it right now, other pressing things need to be taken care of.

Dave

[John317]

Quote:

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.

No, we certainly shouldn't withhold what heaven is offering people. Rather we should teach it to people whenever possible.

Before people are baptized and join a church-- any church-- they need to study the Bible and the teachings of the church which they are joining. In other words, they need to study what the Bible teaches about baptism so they have a clear understanding of what they're doing.

Let's say we study the Sabbath with them, and they say they don't believe in the Sabbath, but in Sunday; then it wouldn't be a good idea for them to join the Seventh-day Adventist church. If they really believe in keeping Sunday, they probably should join a Sunday keeping church. To join a Sabbath keeping church when you don't believe in the Sabbath doesn't make a lot of sense. It would only cause constant friction and frustration. The same with any of the other major doctrines of a church. For instance, the SDA church teaches that when people die they go to sleep and are in an unconscious state until the resurrection. If a man did not believe that, it wouldn't do to become a member of the SDA church. I just can't imagine joining the Roman Catholic Church because it teaches so many things I simply cannot accept. For the same reason I wouldn't join the Mormon church or the "Jehovah's Witnesses." I just wouldn't be compatible with the people in those organizations.

Regards.

"John 3: 17"

[Tom Wetmore]

So how is reaching God's ideal for the relationship between man and woman now somehow an exception to the striving for perfect obedience to God's law that has been argued for so long in these parts?

What I find mystifying is that those firmly in the man/headship camp seem most frequently using the curse of sin that reordered the natural order as justification to keep man at the head and women subservient, which is acknowledged as not being God's ideal original plan, while typically also arguing most strenuously for a striving to reach for God's ideal in all other areas so that we can have that final perfected generation so that Jesus can return to take them home.

So why is it only with regard to male/female relationships that we feel obliged to live down to the level of the curse and not to reach for God's ideal for men and women? And while I am asking questions, why is only that one aspect of the curse honored as if it is what God commanded and expects of us, but we diligently and without any qualms feel no need whatsoever to live according to the rest of the curse and invent numerous ways to circumvent or overcome all other aspects of the curse?

What I am referring to is painful childbirth, weeds, earning bread by the sweat of our brow, etc. If everyone reveled in and relished accepting and living according to the whole curse, we would welcome weeds in our garden. Christians would prohibit weed killers or even using mulch to thwart weeds and thorns. We would do away with air conditioning in our workplace, because to not literally earn our bread with great sweating and toil would be against the natural God ordained order of things for men that we must accept and cherish. And let's face it, unless you are actually a farmer getting dirt under your fingernails, struggling against the onslot of thistles and thorns, you are not really doing as God said. And our dear wonderful women should not be allowed to use anything to relieve the pain of childbirth, because that is what God said was to be and to do otherwise is to go against the will of God. (Come to think of it, since only desiring after her man and bearing children, painfully, are mentioned for women, bearing babies and serving your husband is all women are to do....)

If we were truly committed to the whole of God's word on this and not selectively picking and choosing that which we think supports our own ideas we would strive after these curse ideals just as earnestly as we believe women should be subservient instead of the rulers of the world alongside of men as God said when he created them - both of them, together as one. And read literally as some are so want to do would mean that by God's outline the ultimate end objective for us is to return to dust to be snake food. And that must be the God ordained cycle of life!

Hmmm...

Tom

[David Koot]

So why is it only with regard to male/female relationships that we feel obliged to live down to the level of the curse and not to reach for God's ideal for men and women?

If we were truly committed to the whole of God's word on this and not selectively picking and choosing that which we think supports our own ideas we would strive after these curse ideals just as earnestly as we believe women should be subservient instead of the rulers of the world alongside of men as God said when he created them - both of them, together as one.

So far, you have not established from Scripture that God intended male and female to be equal in every way. If there are differences between male and female--and there are--then, automatically, there is not equality. What remains is to identify the areas of inequality and seek to understand the significance of the differences.

[John317]

So how is reaching God's ideal for the relationship between man and woman now somehow an exception to the striving for perfect obedience to God's law that has been argued for so long in these parts?

Properly understood, I don't believe there is any conflict between obeying God's moral law and having the kind of relationship between men and women that God means for us to have. The only way anyone can truly obey God's moral law is through the Spirit, and it is only by living in the Spirit that we can experience God's ideal relationship between male and female or between people of either gender. I think history proves this. Of course that assumes that both husband and wife are born from above and living in the Spirit. In that case, they will also be joyfully obeying God's moral law.

Regards,

"John 3:17"

[Tom Wetmore]

I never said they were the same, identical in all respects, or given the identical tasks. That is not what is meant by equality or oneness.

What I said was that they were both created to multiple, subdue the earth and rule over it - together, as one, according to Jesus who was there at the time. To "rule over" is a headship kind of term, wouldn't you say? If they were both given rulership together without distinction, wouldn't you say that they are given equal roles of headship over all creation?

Tom

[Bravus]

Quote:

So far, you have not established from Scripture that God intended male and female to be equal in every way. If there are differences between male and female--and there are--then, automatically, there is not equality. What remains is to identify the areas of inequality and seek to understand the significance of the differences.

Nup - spoke to this a few pages ago. 'Equal' does not mean 'identical'. 2 + 3 = 5.

[John317]

What I find mystifying is that those firmly in the man/headship camp seem most frequently using the curse of sin that reordered the natural order as justification to keep man at the head and women subservient, which is acknowledged as not being God's ideal original plan, while typically also arguing most strenuously for a striving to reach for God's ideal in all other areas so that we can have that final perfected generation so that Jesus can return to take them home.

So why is it only with regard to male/female relationships that we feel obliged to live down to the level of the curse and not to reach for God's ideal for men and women?

Good question.

The Ten Commandments are a summary of the principles God's moral law adapted to a sinful environment. According to Saint Paul, it is the same with the relationship between husband and wife. The way it is now is certainly not the way God originally intended or the way it will be on the New Earth.

Quote:

And while I am asking questions, why is only that one aspect of the curse honored as if it is what God commanded and expects of us, but we diligently and without any qualms feel no need whatsoever to live according to the rest of the curse and invent numerous ways to circumvent or overcome all other aspects of the curse?

I don't think it is wrong to try to alleviate any of the curses that resulted from the Fall. We're not going to be able to completely remove or reverse any of them but at the same time we shouldn't try to take advantage of them in order to use the woman's situation in order to gain an advantage over her. Some husbands may use the curse to dominate and run rough-shod over their wives but this is wrong. Men should use their dominant position to make the woman's life better, not to rule her.