Mormons and Gays

[Bravus]

Very thoughtful questions all. You've clearly answered them in the affirmative in terms of the dependability of the Bible, and what I'm saying is that I'm tentatively coming to answer many of them in the negative.

Homosexuality is only one of the issues, it just happens to be the one under discussion in this thread. Other issues that I have a problem with - and I hope people here will do me the courtesy of accepting that this is something I have studied and wrestled with at length, rather than a passing fancy or whim or the result of personal taste or personal sin - include:

* genocide being commanded, extolled and rewarded

* lots and lots of stoning offenses

* literal creationism

* God's active daily involvement in working miracles for his servants, except not all the time, and allowing all manner of pain and perversion to be carried out. The teaching that God sets up rulers, for example, implicating God in the setting up of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Almost all of the other things about Christianity with which I have issues are matters of interpretation and may well turn out to be based on others' misinterpretations of the text. In fact I feel that way about literal recent creationism, but I have been repeatedly told here that there is no other possible way to interpret the text, which is why it's on the list.

I read the Bible, and find a God of love - a God who defines himself as love - but yet a God who apparently ordered the murder of every man, woman, child and animal in a country simply so it could be taken over by his favourite nation. I can no longer argue that away and convince myself that it's right: if God is to be the guarantor for a moral system then He needs to also model that moral system, not flout it. If murder is sin, then that God is a sinner.

And therefore, if I am to believe in God, and avoid atheism, I must believe in the God of love who shines through the Bible, but accept that we see his image through a glass darkly, and that some of the things described above are smudges on the glass, not the True Image.

[Woody]

Whatever ...

[Bravus]

To be much less verbose, He requires us to apply our reason to the Bible, but not *only* to the Bible.

[Dr. Shane]

My problem is that I don't trust myself. Left to my own devices, I will destroy my life and those around me. I see a lot of wisdom in distrusting self and trusting a Power greater than myself.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8, 9)

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

I have an alcoholic mind. The problem with the alcoholic mind is it has a way of leading the alcoholic back to drinking even though the alcoholic knows how disastrous drinking will be. The mind is the command organ of the body. When the mind wants something logic completely fails to prevent the mind from taking control of the body. The word "heart" in Jeremiah 17:9 is the Hebrew word "lebab" which can also be translated as "mind" or "understanding". So with me I distrust my own ability to use logic. I must follow some sort of intelligence outside of myself.

"Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit." (Jeremiah 17:7, 8)

Quote:

Being literal is much simpler and clearer, and seems 'purer'.

I believe the gospel is simple and clear. I believe God has laid it out so that the most common person can read the Bible and discover God's will. I do not believe we need intellectuals or priests to explain the Word of God to us.

"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." (Pslams 19:7)

[Dr. Shane]

We as SDAs don't believe in taking the Bible word for word literally.

That is not what the Adventist church teaches.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

We as SDAs don't believe in taking the Bible word for word literally.

That is not what the Adventist church teaches.

Yes it is.

[Woody]

Try explaining this one word for word 'literally'.

Quote:

"And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." Luke 16:24

[Dr. Shane]

Please read page 8 of Seventh-day Adventists Believe... Section entitled "The Process of Inspiration"

"God inspired men - not words."

[Dr. Shane]

Try explaining this one word for word 'literally'.

Critics of Sola Sciptura use the word "literal". That is not a correct way to describe Sola Scriptura. Sola Sciptura simply means letting the Bible interpret the Bible. Some portions of the Bible are poetry, others are prophecy, others are plays, others are hymns, others are letters written to specific people and still others were written as a historic record or events.

[Woody]

Please read page 8 of Seventh-day Adventists Believe... Section entitled "The Process of Inspiration"

"God inspired men - not words."

Exactly my point. We do not believe the Bible literally word for word. Much of the Bible is figurative.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Try explaining this one word for word 'literally'.

Critics of Sola Sciptura use the word "literal". That is not a correct way to describe Sola Scriptura. Sola Sciptura simply means letting the Bible interpret the Bible. Some portions of the Bible are poetry, others are prophecy, others are plays, others are hymns, others are letters written to specific people and still others were written as a historic record or events.

Exactly what I said. And you disagreed with. You have me quite confused. Why would you say that church does not believe this when I said it did?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

We as SDAs don't believe in taking the Bible word for word literally.

That is not what the Adventist church teaches.

Huh?

[Dr. Shane]

I misread that. We are in agreement. The message is inspired - not the exact wording chosen by the author.

Regarding homosexuality, the Biblical message is that it is sin. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The dispute here is if the Biblical author was influenced by their society rather than inspired by God. It can't be both. If they were inspired the message is from God (not the exact wording). Clearly the Bible teaches that it is itself inspired and the only rule for faith.

[Bravus]

And the genocides and stonings.

Yes, that's precisely the question.

I know that many are able to rationalise it with 'we can't understand God's reasons'... but I can't any more. He's the God, it's his job to communicate clearly.

[Woody]

What is there to understand about genocides and stonings? They are the work of the Devil ... not God. What is your question Bravus?

[Bravus]

My question is 'The Bible claims they are the work of God - what do those who are Sola Scriptura do with that?'

[John317]

My question is 'The Bible claims they are the work of God - what do those who are Sola Scriptura do with that?'

If God told you personally He led the Israelites to kill men, women, and babies in Palestine; that He destroyed the world in the flood; or that He ordered a man to be stoned to death for willfully breaking the Sabbath, would you continue to worship, love and honor Him?

I would have no problem with it, either way. If He told me that the prophets of God got it wrong, and were confused, and that He never killed anyone at all, I'd be fine with it. But if He told me that the prophets got it right and that He did command Moses to kill the idolaters at Sinai, etc., I would be fine that with that as well.

God is above law. God precedes all law. The Ten Commandments were written for mankind. I don't believe that God is obligated to obey the law in the same way that we are. It's an expression of who He is, but He is much more than is contained in the words of the law.

As the God of the universe, who made life, He certainly has the right to take life when He sees fit to do so. If He decides to explain things to us, or ask us our opinion, that's wonderful and gracious of Him, but He certainly is not obligated to do it.

During the 1000 years, the Bible tells us that we will be able to see why God did what He did, and at that time we will have many of our questions answered. That shows how God loves us and wants us to worship Him freely and intelligently. But again, it is not something He must do. He would have been right if He had destroyed Adam and Eve after the Fall. He didn't need to offer Himself as the Messiah. He did it out of love and grace, not because some higher law or power or standard required Him to do it. He would have been right NOT to do it.

What do you think?

[Woody]

Bravus you might find this interesting what Ellen White had to say ...

Quote:

"Those who feared God were to think for themselves. They were no longer to leave other men to do their thinking. Their minds were no longer to be chained down to erroneous maxims, theories, and doctrines. Ignorance and vice, crime and violence, oppression in high places, must be unveiled. The Light of life had come to this world to shine amid the moral darkness. The gospel would now be proclaimed among the poor, the oppressed. Those in humble life would be given opportunity to understand the real qualifications necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God." TDG 31

[Bravus]

John317: He would have some 'splainin' to do.

As I said above, if God is the ground of the moral code, God must exemplify the moral code. Maybe there is some higher sense in which the actions you list do that, but I would need to understand.

[John317]

John317: He would have some 'splainin' to do.

Sure, that's clear. And if I know Him on the basis of His special revelation, I am sure God will stoop to talk to us and help us understand.

But of course, when we consider culture, etc., it becomes obvious that He will have a lot of explaining to do to many different people, and some of those explanations may not satisfy some people if they are judging Him by human moral codes or mores. For instance, I am sure that some of the more primitive tribes will have far different kinds of questions and objections than a 16th century European. And a 21st century American or Australian is going to make objections perhaps that someone living in a different time and place won't make at all.

Whose standard is God obligated to follow? What seems wrong to you or me may seem right to people of another culture and time period. Our ideas of right and wrong are not absolute but are changeable according to our education, background, experiences, and culture, etc.

God has to make so many different kinds of people happy. I don't envy Him.

[Bravus]

As I said, I've thought of all these issues before, and they sufficed as explanations, or at least rationalisations, for many years, but they just won't any more. I guess he'll have to damn me for it if that's his choice, but I can't see any other way to move forward as a moral person and a believer. Atheism would be so much simpler, but I'm resisting it with all my might.

[John317]

I don't think God would damn you for having questions, Bravus. Every intelligent person is going to have lots of questions about God, the Bible, the universe, etc.

Look at Job. He had lots of questions he wanted to ask God, about things that didn't make sense to him.

Can you think of any satisfactory explanation God could give you for why He had the man stoned for willfully breaking the Sabbath? Or for why He destroyed the world in a flood?

Perhaps your view of God is more accurate than mine is. We won't know for sure until we get to heaven. We'll learn so much then. Don't miss it.

Think of the science questions you will learn the answers to. Maybe you will be able to watch God create the biggest star ever!

[Bravus]

Amen! And thank you, my brother, you are always an encouraging and thoughtful presence here, and I deeply appreciate you.

[Taylor]

Yes, that was a very thoughtful answere John!

[Tom Wetmore]

...The dispute here is if the Biblical author was influenced by their society rather than inspired by God. It can't be both...

Why not?

I believe that the Biblical authors were all very much influenced by their society, environment, culture, language, fate, circumstances, heredity, family, mental physical and emotional limitations, experience, or lack thereof, - and were very much a product of all that. We all are.

And despite all that, God still broke through to them in some way to motivate (inspire) them to include God in the picture and write it down. Some did so eloquently with great insight and wisdom(inspiration), others with great difficulty, unable to make complete sense of it, but were nonetheless used imperfectly by God (inspired) to accomplish His purposes. But they felt compelled (inspired) to seek after God and to write it down anyway and or to convey it to their own people.

And people are still today inspired by God in very similar ways, with similar results.

Tom