Why the Church Has To Stop Saying Sexual Sin Is the Most Important Thing


(Elmer Cupino) #398

Thanks. We got that out of the way.

Unless one works for the SDA, in which case an algorithm has to be adhered to before the final wage of “death.” If the transgressor were a female, she goes “straight to jail.” However, if the transgressor were a male, by virtue of the “Male Headship” domain, diversions are available such as 1) transfer to another territory while keeping years of service and benefits, 2) promotion 3) continued support in church activities to promote books etc., among others.

@Nymous


(Elaine Nelson) #399

Do you know which sin the church considers the worst sin?


(k_Lutz) #400

To not lay down one’s life for the church?


(Carolyn Parsons) #401

The unpardonable sin, Blasphemy?


(Bb Yeaton) #402

He is supposed to be committed to upholding Biblical doctrines as a teacher. There is an integrity issue here and you “don’t agree with him” but that is all you seem willing to say. Speaking from a Biblical mandate, his accountability is much higher than a non-teacher. The Bible never says that homosexual sex is appropriate if the two get “married”. Yet this is his message, and it is his message to young people who are under his influence. If that doesn’t bug you, why not? If PUC is fine with this anti-Biblical sexual philosophy, then that is one more fine institution that has gone reprobate. (Inappropriate. - website editor)

You can think what you may, but I cringe to think that our SSA young people in Christian institutions are actually being encouraged to “get married…it will sanctify your actions”.

It is not personal… It is necessary, healthy and fair to ask questions of our leaders. Do you think “nice guys” should be above challenges?


(Allen Shepherd) #403

This is a pretty big issue to be heterodox on and to be openly promoting that position. But it is really shame on your employers. If they tolerate it, then, well, you are free.

Open your eyes! If bakers and photographers are in the crosshairs, it is only a matter of time until we will be. The lawyer for gay marriage at that last session of the SCOTUS said as much. There is a lull right now after the victory, but the time will come when “bigotry” will not be tolerated. And it is near.

[quote=“bness, post:393, topic:9095”]
You still have not given me any valid argument against same-sex marriage other than the “against nature” ritual purity kind of argument. This is because there simply is not an argument that works.

I did answer, and the little story answers as well. The Bible, both OT and NT forbid it, and Paul is adamant. Now you say I have not given an argument. But I have. Joe takes your position and uses it to undermine a forbidden activity he wants to do, and you really don’t have an answer, for you have argued the same way, saying it is an old purity law and not the will of God. You thus undermine scripture. I think as a teacher that is a bad position.

Don’t you think the Joe’s at your school are going to use that tack? You may not be out on a crusade, but your very presence there, and your position on a very controversial and hot topic can not help but promote such a thing. YOU are an endorsement, and your kind gentle mien give you even more credibility. The story shows that a position of acceptance on homosexuality has a direct effect on ALL sexual mores. It can’t be helped.

And the church does not condemn LGBT people because of who they are by nature. But it does condemn giving into that nature. There is a difference.

I sound terrible harsh, and I am sorry. This is such a difficult issue, and it is only going to get more so. I have heard administrators speak of this issue and the trouble it is going to cause. La Sierra takes a very liberal view of this and the creation controversy, and is moving in a direction different from the church. And there is going to be loss if things continue in this trajectory.


(Bb Yeaton) #404

I’m not condemning anybody. Ness has promised to uphold the teachings of the Bible by virtue of his employment in the denomination. He is violating that promise by inserting a false doctrine into his domain of influence. That is; " Gay sex is fine as long it is within the bounds of gay marriage".

This philosophy cannot be found in the Bible soooooo, where’d it come from?

To the best of my knowledge, anonymous Andrew, you haven’t made any commitment to Christ or Adventism or to the Bible, so why do you always have so much “wisdom” to share with me about it? Ness is accountable to fellow Christians because we all opted to follow the same Guidebook. I’m sorry if that makes you uncomfortable as you view the situation from your post-Christian, popular culture lens. (Inappropriate. - website editor)


(Bryan Ness) #405

Yeah, right. LGBT people deserve equal rights in the marketplace, the government has no right to give extend those protections into the church. Saying that such is around the corner is scaremongering. The worse that could happen to the church is that it could lose tax exempt status, which, although it would hurt the church, can’t we trust God if we are doing what is right? Maybe God wants us to openly accept gays.

Even if they do, it is an invalid argument and I will try and help those Joe’s see that.

If their nature, i.e. being attracted to the same sex, is unchangeable (and all indications are that this is the case, which shouldn’t mater anyway, since they are hurting no one), then that puts us in the same dichotomy I have already described elsewhere. Do we take the mercy tack. recognizing that because their acts are causing no harm to health/safety/community, and get past this particular ritual purity rule, or do we go with sacrifice, uphold this ritual purity rule and sacrifice their ability to commune with God’s people.

No one is asking you to become gay. You don’t even have to personally approve of it, since it is possible that your personal disgust psychology may make it exceedingly difficult for you to get past it. All that we need to do to follow Christ’s example is to allow them full fellowship at our table without condemnation.

Are ritual purity laws that do no more than guard the boundaries of disgust worth clinging to, if it means hurting LGBT people?


(Andrew) #406

Good authority = thought bubble it would seem!


(Bryan Ness) #407

And that is just what I am doing, upholding the teachings of the Bible. I am applying Jesus direct admonition: But go and learn what this means:'I desire mercy, not sacrifice. ’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matt. 9:13 NIV


(Bb Yeaton) #408

The Bible says it is a disgrace for two men to lie together to have sexual relations. Yet you say that it becomes acceptable if they “get married”. Please, I want to know the book, chapter and verse where this caveat originated.


(Bryan Ness) #409

You can’t key text it. And you if have not bothered to read what else I have written, I am not going to take the time to restate it all over again.

BTW, the Bible says it is also wrong to have sex when unmarried, but miraculously it is okay when the two get married. Why is that? Book chapter and verse, please. :wink:


(Andrew) #410

So much of what you have written sheds more light on your own prejudices than it does on me.

Firstly, I am not anonymous. My name is Andrew. You can see it at the top left hand corner of my comments. I presume yours is Kristan.

'To the best of your knowledge '. You have no idea as to my relationship to Christ, the Bible or the SDA church. Your knowledge is devoid of any information that could lead to these assumptions/presumptions; only your preconceptions.

I do feel sorry for your victims. The gifted lady you took so much pleasure in publicising her expulsion from your church.

'Post Christian ', an expression I have only heard once before at Southern University. Considering your preconceptions (above), no wonder you lead yourself to such a weird conclusion.


(Carolyn Parsons) #411

As far as I know, nowhere does the bible say that sex outside of marriage is categorically wrong.


(Bryan Ness) #412

Technically speaking, yes, Carolyn, but that probably has to do with the culture of the OT, as you probably are already aware. If a man slept with a woman he was not married to, he was supposed to then marry her, including if the sex was, in fact, rape. Women in the OT are essentially dealt with more like property than individuals.

That sex was not allowed before marriage is implicit, since the primary role for sex in that era was clearly procreation and the carrying on of the family line and property ownership. Having sex with a woman who is not married, in a sense, became a proposal. :wink:


(Tim Teichman) #413

It also says there are unicorns, which are mentioned in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, and Isiah.

For example:
KJV, Job 39:
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?


(Carolyn Parsons) #414

This borders on manufactured victimhood. Churches are not businesses providing public accommodation, which is typically the law under which discrimination by businesses is illegal. Churches are legally protected entities under the constitution and strong constitutional jurisprudence. Unless a church acts like a business, like providing services and facilities to the public for money, there is no way that anti-discrimination law that includes LGBT people have any effect.


(Andrew) #415

Tongkam,

Sorry to say it but you seem to lack the gift of discernment.

The main difference between modern predominantly western Christianity and the irrationally literal fundamentalist subsets of itself and other global faiths, many of whose followers are illiterate, is the ability or common sense to know what passage may just be in there as part of the historical narrative and what is instructive today, thousands of years later.

For some strange reason Jesus didn’t have the NT to quote when He was around.

Nevertheless, I think he had the common sense to know which bits were most relevant to promoting the new Gospel he was announcing to the world.

Should we be cutting off hands for stealing?


(Tim Teichman) #416

Probably, and also start stonings as the default punishment for such things as cursing your parents.

Also, we should be sure to stop planting two crops in one field.


(Bryan Ness) #417

Most of my wardrobe would have to go too. And I wouldn’t see my wife one week out of every month. No, wait, she is post-menopause. Whew, won’t have to deal with that one anymore. :stuck_out_tongue: