Mormons and Gays

[carolaa]

Interesting you separated Catholics from Christians. You could add Mormons, who are actually not Christians.

[Tammy]

By the way, how about this: THE ADVENTISTS SAME-SEX COUPLEX,,,,???

When our Sabbath-School leaders calling for "COMPROMISING" as a mandatory.....and then start teaching: "Come as you are and live as you are" rather than: "Come as you are and Go! and sin no more."

Another mandatory DOGMA is totally to refuse Revelation 3:15,"I could wish you were cold or hot! (One of the top 10 of Bible verses which the Progressive Adventists need to be rejected then attacked, believe it or not!)

Rationale--->"But, we're sorry dear Jesus, we're really hate the Rev 3:15 and as Sabbath-school theologians that are much wiser than you Jesus, compromise has been proven to be the "best". Foundations of Adventists faith as a solid Biblical-principal is proved to be a sarcastic and toxic to win souls, right Jesus? Just talk about love and grace and our church shall be full and crowded each sabbath. More tithe and more offerings will come, of course.

“Making disciples might require us to do strange things: eat or drink strange mixtures and be all things to all people so we can win some. This is the call and challenge of discipleship, especially as the gospel goes around the world and into cultures sometimes radically different from our own.”

http://sabbath-school.blogspot.com/2008/02/ethnicity-and-discipleship-lesson-6.html

Traditionally, Adventists have been straight. But they do have a call to go into all the world, and make disciples, as we see above.

Mr. Alexander Carpenter is an Adventist. He takes this mission seriously.

The Adventists have now targeted the Bay Area gay community for discipleship. Church members are ready, willing, and able to do strange things to win some members. In particular, the ministry team is geared up to “eat or drink strange mixtures”.

http://powerofpride.wordpress.com/2008/0...ventist-gospel/

[delta]

Thanks, Tammy, for Pst.Clif Goldstein's clarification. Again, I just amazed and quoted directly from their web:

http://powerofpride.wordpress.com/2008/0...ventist-gospel/

[Amelia]

It's rather interesting that the website promotes an professor at the PUC, as being the one to go to for gay nuptuals.

[Taylor]

Homosexual marriage does not exist. That is the point. Marriage is defined as the union of one man with one woman. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. That is like me going down to City Hall and insisting they sell me a dog tag to put on my cat's collar. When they refuse I cry discrimination. They tell me they have cat tags for my cat but I insist that I don't want a cat tag, I want a dog tag. I want to expand the definition of a dog to include cats so that cats will not be discriminated against.

Right!

[Bravus]

Defined by whom?

[Dr. Shane]

Words are defined by society. One word may mean one thing in one country or geographical area and another thing in another country or geographical area. This is especially true in Spanish. If and when society defines marriage as between one man and one woman than that is the definition. Anything different than that is not marriage - at least not in that society.

Now in Central America they have dish called marriage. It consists of beans and rice. So words can have loose meanings as well as strict definitions. In either case, when a society defines a word by voting on it and making it part of their constitution, that pretty much settles the issue for that society.

[John317]

It's rather interesting that the website promotes an professor at the PUC, as being the one to go to for gay nuptuals.

If that's true, it must be a lot different from the PUC I attended.

[olger]

Postmodern nonsense is just as irrelevant in the northern hemisphere...

[John317]

Bravus,

If you had a gay friend you are close to, would you ever try to find a way to talk to them about salvation and the fact that the Bible clearly condemns the practice of homosexuality?

How do you feel-- or what do you think-- about that subject?

Before talking to them, it's best to pray for several months that God will touch a homosexual's life and that the Holy Spirit will convict him/her and give them a desire to do God's will. If you can, solicit the prayers of a whole congregation for the individual. Of course the congregation doesn't have to know the person's name.

I know prayers are effective. They make a HUGE difference. God can do things because of prayer that He can't or won't do without it.

In my own case and the case of my friend, there were a lot of people praying who never did say anything to me about it at all. It is not always necessary to talk to them directly about it. It isn't something that just everyone should talk to them about. It usually takes a special person-- someone they really trust, like, and respect.

[Bravus]

I would try to introduce them to Jesus, and let the Spirit do the rest. As I said above, I find it all too easy to believe that the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexual practice are there despite, rather than because of, God's will. He hasn't succeeded in convincing *me* differently: I wouldn't *dare* try to convince someone else.

[Tammy]

Thanks, Tammy, for Pst.Clif Goldstein's clarification. Again, I just amazed and quoted directly from their web:

http://powerofpride.wordpress.com/2008/0...ventist-gospel/

I understand, Delta. You should be able to trust something posted on a website....but...it goes to show how dishonest they are, and how they have to twist things in order to try to show they have support. It's been a couple years since I've talked with Cliff....saw him at the last GC in St. Louis...but I just couldn't believe he really was in favor of homosexuality! I hope he makes them set the record straight!

[Dr. Shane]

I find it all too easy to believe that the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexual practice are there despite, rather than because of, God's will. He hasn't succeeded in convincing *me* differently: I wouldn't *dare* try to convince someone else.

This is what commonly happens when we stray from Sola Scriptura. First we doubt what Scripture says about one thing then later another. Ultimately, if all Scripture is not inspired and good for doctrine, how can we possibly know which portions are inspired and which are not?

[Bravus]

There are ways of believing in God other than the logocentric/bibliolatrous

[Dr. Shane]

I am sure there are many ways to believe in God. My comment was directed at how we read the Bible. I am sure there are people that believe in God that do not believe in the Bible.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I find it all too easy to believe that the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexual practice are there despite, rather than because of, God's will. He hasn't succeeded in convincing *me* differently: I wouldn't *dare* try to convince someone else.

This is what commonly happens when we stray from Sola Scriptura. First we doubt what Scripture says about one thing then later another. Ultimately, if all Scripture is not inspired and good for doctrine, how can we possibly know which portions are inspired and which are not?

Large country amen from olger...

[Bravus]

But this was my point: Sola Scriptura is a particular emphasis within Christianity, which not all Christians subscribe to. If I am to remain any sort of Christian, I need to explore some other points of view, because I can no longer accept all parts of the Bible as expressing the reality of God. There are other Books in which He reveals himself, and the attitude that the Bible automatically trumps all other forms of Revelation is one I understand well - but no longer subscribe to. You can make of that what you will, and call me what you will, but beating me over the head with Sola Scriptura no longer works: I don't believe in the power of that particular club any more.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not trying to beat up any individual. Rather I am just trying to participate in the healthy exchange of ideas. Protestants do believe in Sola Sciptura. Adventists embrace that principle as much as any other evangelical church. So in any exchange of ideas among Adventists, the principle of Sola Scriptura is going to come up as the principle means of reading and understanding the Bible.

There are Christian denominations that do not embrace Sola Scriptura. The Catholic church does not. Nor does the Anglican, Unitarian or Orthodox churches. There are even some Lutheran and Methodist denominations that have strayed away from Sola Scriptura although there remains fundamental sections of both of those.

The problem I have is as I expressed: if portions of the Bible cannot be accepted, how do we know which portions can be? How can we possibly accept the resurrection of Christ?

[olger]

I see.

[rush4hire]

I totally agree that it shows why our church shouldn't get involved in politics.

Ellen White never said we shouldn't get involved in politics. We just shouldn't get swept away in it. It's like the difference between riding a bike and getting caught up in the "bicycle craze".

She said to vote on certain things. That's involvement in politics.

To stay completely out of politics is not Biblical at all. We see too many prophets who where called upon by secular, pagan kings for their wisdom in political matters, including Daniel, Joseph, John the Baptist, Nehemiah, Mordecai, and others I can't think of off hand.

Just secular, pagan kings. Not Israel.

She said don't vote on a political party. In other words don't just always vote "Democrat", or "Republican", or whatever party they have now. Don't even identify yourself with a political party. It's the same principle that keeps us out of secret societies, and labor unions.

Secret societies / labor unions / political parties

Unfortunately it's a lose / lose situation when you have members of the same secret society running against each other, taking both political parties. Like in the 2004 election, Bush (Skull and Bones member), VS Kerry (also Skull and Bones member). Either way, Skull and Bones will take the Oval Office. If that's not rigged, what is?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I totally agree that it shows why our church shouldn't get involved in politics.

Ellen White never said we shouldn't get involved in politics. We just shouldn't get swept away in it.

Here is what I said:

By "involved," I mean the church as an organization taking official positions or campaigning for various political/social causes such as Prop. 8. I didn't mean to imply that individually we shouldn't take personal positions or vote. (I do see some exceptions, as for instance, on the Sabbath/Sunday issue, but I think that generally speaking our church needs to be very careful about taking sides in politics.)

Quote:

God's people have been called out of the world, that they may be separated from the world. It is not safe for them to take sides in politics, whatever preference they may have. They are ever to remember that they are one in Christ. God calls upon them to enter their names as under His theocracy. He cannot approve of those who link up with worldlings. We are entirely out of our place when we identify ourselves with party interests. Let us not forget that we are citizens of the kingdom of heaven. We are soldiers of the cross of Christ, and our work is to advance the interests of His kingdom.--Ms 67, 1900, p. 10. ("Words of Instruction to the Church," typed Nov. 19, 1900.) {3MR 40.3}

God has warned His people not to become absorbed in politics. We cannot bear the sign of God as His commandment-keeping people, if we mingle with the strife of the world. We are not to give our minds to political issues. God's people are walking contrary to His will when they mix up with politics, and those who commence this work in the Southern States reveal that they are not taught and led by God, but by that spirit which creates contention and strife and every evil work. We are subjects of the Lord's kingdom, and we are to work to establish that kingdom in righteousness.-- Letter 92, 1899, p. 5. (To "Dear Brethren," typed June 16, 1899.) {3MR 41.1}

The Lord has been greatly dishonored by His people's catching up the issues that arise in this time of test and trial. His people are to keep free from politics. They are to stand as a separate, peculiar people; the name of God our Ruler is to be in their foreheads, showing to all that He is their sovereign.--Ms 1, 1897, p. 7. ("Forgetfulness." No date.) {3MR 41.2}

Neither you nor any of your brethren had any work to do in arguing or writing or taking any part whatever in politics. God was dishonored by all who acted any part in politics. God has chosen a people who are to proclaim the third angel's message to the world. They are to be a separate and peculiar people in this world of churches who are transgressing His commandments. . . .

[John317]

My brethren, will you not remember that none of you have any burden laid upon you by the Lord to publish your political preferences in our papers, or to speak of them in the congregation, when the people assemble to hear the Word of the Lord. . . . {2SM 336.2}

We are not as a people to become mixed up with political questions. All would do well to take heed to the Word of God, Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers

337

in political strife, nor bind with them in their attachments. There is no safe ground in which they can stand and work together. The loyal and the disloyal have no equal ground on which to meet. {2SM 336.3}

He who breaks one precept of the commandments of God is a transgressor of the whole law. Keep your voting to yourself. Do not feel it your duty to urge everyone to do as you do.--Letter 4, 1898. {2SM 337.1}

Our Pioneers Reach an Important Decision

[A PAGE FROM ELLEN G. WHITE'S 1859 DIARY.]

Attended meeting in the eve. Had quite a free, interesting meeting. After it was time to close, the subject of voting was considered and dwelt upon. James first talked, then Brother {J. N.} Andrews talked, and it was thought by them best to give their influence in favor of right and against wrong. They think it right to vote in favor of temperance men being in office in our city instead of by their silence running the risk of having intemperate men put in office. Brother {David} Hewitt tells his experience of a few days {since} and is settled that {it} is right to cast his vote. Brother {Josiah} Hart talks well. Brother {Henry} Lyon opposes. No others object to voting, but Brother {J.P.} Kellogg begins to feel that it is right. Pleasant feelings exist among all the brethren. O that they may all act in the fear of God. {2SM 337.2}

Men of intemperance have been in the office today in a flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course of the Sabbathkeepers not voting and expressed hopes that they will stick to their course and, like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time, and he has workers upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.--E. G. White diary, Sunday, March 6, 1859. {2SM 337.3}

[Bravus]

Quote:

The problem I have is as I expressed: if portions of the Bible cannot be accepted, how do we know which portions can be? How can we possibly accept the resurrection of Christ?

We then have to begin to use our intellect and reason, along with study, prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to discern the will and the nature of God. It's hard, scary work, and not for the faint-hearted. Being literal is much simpler and clearer, and seems 'purer'. But it's necessary, at least for me. I'm not going to attack anyone else, although I might argue because I enjoy discussion, but 'as for me and my house', we serve a God who is above and beyond the petty fears and prejudices of man, a God of love and acceptance and peace and joy and power, a God who is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, a God who is transcendent of all time and space and immanent in all time and space. This God has revealed Himself in Scripture, and in his Creation, and through prophets and teachers and everyday people, and reveals himself again each time we are loved by someone.

[John317]

I agree with you, Bravus. Yes, God does want us to use our intellect and reason. Jesus and Paul certainly used their intellect.

However, does God ever want us to go contrary to the clear teaching of His word? Should we follow human reasoning when it goes against the clear teaching of the Bible?

It is true that there are issues that are not so clear, because we live in a time and culture far removed from the Bible.

Yet there are very clear Bible teachings, and when they are clear, do you believe that God would have us go contrary to what it says?

How dependable is the Bible as the word of God?

Can I depend on it even when it seems to teach something that I don't like or agree with?

[Woody]

Good Points Bravus. We as SDAs don't believe in taking the Bible word for word literally. Much of the Bible is symbolic. And all of it is open to interpretation. So, I think you are on the right track. Then we have Ellen White. So, I find no fault in the fact that God reveals Himself through everyday people. No fault at all. I don't think your thinking is any different than anyone else's here.

You just may be verbalizing it differently. And the other just may not be willing to admit it. But I will.