Paul, the problem is that defining sin is off-topic for this post. It also posits that sin is a greater concern to God than is His creation. You may notice that even Lucifer, who sought to exalt himself above his Creator, was not destroyed and to this day accuses God of being unjust. Perhaps you know better the mind and will of God than the one that was exalted above all the angels.
Trust God.
Demonstrating again that there are some Adventists who are obsessed with sins: identifying and condemning them. Their lists grown exponentially. It’s more about sins than forgiveness and grace.
Because this Letter is in search of God’s LOVE within the organisation that has doubled-down on being His ‘remnant’. It is hard to see that this denomination is intent on making disciples of Jesus when there is an inordinate focus on determining who cannot be. Remember, Jesus declared, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, when ye have love one to another."
Which came first: A. the love of your parents? or B. your desire to please them? This seems to be the conundrum Kari is addressing in this Letter, that the love expressed by the congregants is conditional. And that, not even on evidence of wrong-doing, but of the possibilities due to ones makeup. It is impossible to love unconditionally when one’s capacity to sin is more important than being a child of God.
LOVE is the commandment.
Trust God.
Thanks for your advice, I rarely visit these sites, so the knowledge about what this site was created for and where else I should go is duly noted. Not that I plan to make this a practice. But thanks anyway.
I would even go further, God does not approve of anything anyone does.
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Is. 64:6
I think we should all be very careful how we judge others, especially in things that are not explicitly prohibited by the 10 Commandments. Nothing in the 10 commandments speaks to the topic of homosexuality. This does not mean that it is not wrong, but it does mean we need to be extremely careful deciding whether it is or not.
The only clear thing the 10 commandments says about sexuality is that we should not commit adultery. In other words, all sexual relations should be confined to a single partner to whom we are committed in a marriage relationship. Since Christian gays advocate the same, we need to be very cautious about condemning them, and even then we probably need to keep it to ourselves, and leave it to God to convince gays of their wrongdoing, if it is wrongdoing.
There are many things the OT says are wrong, outside the 10 commandments, including homosexuality, but we need to be extremely wary of clinging to such prohibitions uncritically. There are also OT laws that prohibit menstruating women from having contact with others lest they cause them to become unclean, planting more than one kind of seed in a field, and wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth. Interestingly, there is no prohibition against polygamy, which would seem to be against the 7th Commandment.
Obviously, we have made choices regarding these additional OT laws as to which should be followed and which are no longer relevant. Have we made the right choice in all cases? Some would argue that the SDA adherence to the Levitical laws concerning clean and unclean foods was a poor choice. Most Christians seemed convinced we have made the right choice to consider homosexuality wrong, but even in this determination we need to stop a moment and consider whether the so-called “ick” factor may be part of what has convinced us homosexuality is wrong. I would suggest we not be so quick to condemn something just because Christians have long condemned it, or that we do so just because it automatically leaps out at us as “unnatural.”
I think there is a reason Jesus said,
"“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Luke 6: 41-42
I think Jesus is saying we all have a speck in our eye, and I dare say it is a lot more difficult to remove than many of us seem to believe. Thus, our set point should be, “judge not,” period. In the case of homosexuality, I think we must, if we are to follow Christ’s intent, just love and accept. As long as homosexuals are willing to adhere to the 7th Commandment (and remember, we heterosexuals are bound to do the same), I think we MUST accept them. Have personal reservations if you like, but keep them to yourself. Many gays have enough doubts about whether they are right before God or not. They do not need the rest of us to try and set them straight.
To love as Jesus loved, is to love in word and action.
(Comment deleted. Please avoid personal arguments on this comments site. Thank you, Moderator)
(Comment deleted. Please refrain from personal arguments on this comments page. Thank you, Moderator)
You make me laugh. David may have been bisexual? Sure, but that is just plain wild speculation. The statement people use to suggest that possibility is
“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.” 2 Sam. 1:26
David was obviously using hyperbole.
I would have nothing against David if he were bisexual, but this text cannot be used as evidence.
Of course, maybe you were just being humorous. 
True, but the fate of the Antediluvians, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the wicked at the end of time, are all included in God’s love. His love is not all about touchy feeling warm emotions. It includes discipline and punishment.
Perhaps you missed the part where I didnt say homosexuals should be destroyed. Do you not recognize the difference between God not accepting and celebrating the disagreement in heaven and the straw man you offer?
I’m just saying the Bible seems to be pretty clear that David was not exclusively sexually attracted to men 
Adultery at the time of the Decalogue could not have meant monogamy as Moses and the patriarchs normally were polygamous which is illegal in the U.S. today. As you write, Christian gays are monogamous just as are Christian opposite sex partners.
Both the Fourth and Tenth Commandment addresses wives as property, another difference when interpreting the Torah commands for moderns today. There is great selectivity in the attempt to observe all those commands given by God and the apostles as written in both Testaments.
(Deleted. Please avoid personal arguments on this comments page. Thank you, Moderator)
Which is precisely the problem.
Until one is fully engulfed in that love, the discipline and punishment are meaningless. Or worse. It paints a horrible picture of God which is patently untrue, after the manner of the accuser.
Trust God.
There is none Righteous, no not one. That includes Headshipites. Tom Z
Perhaps … but I didn’t miss “None necessarily higher on the ick scale than the other but in the end they are all still chaff.”
Nope. You have neither demonstrated that difference nor identified a straw man.
Trust The Process.
LOL, that is pretty obvious, otherwise Bathsheba would never have had the draw she did. 
Which only further makes the point that we need to be extremely careful about what we consider right and wrong. Murder and lying are pretty obvious, but when it comes to human relationships, things get pretty muddy. I dare say most of us these days would view polygamy a bigger problem than same sex marriage, and some of the arguments that have been used against same sex marriage even predict that should same sex marriage become legal we will be just one step away from polygamous marriages. So many of our taboos around sexual relations are culturally driven, and the “ick” factor so often plays a silent role in it.
WebEd,
I think that you could have made an exception in this case. The article was very well thought out, and apropos. I am sorry it is not here. He met the issue carefully.
(The appropriate way for the commenter to proceed would have been to provide a link. If the article is not internet accessible - oh well. The camel’s nose problem. - webEd)
Good one Tom. You finally identified them… LOL