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

(Bb Yeaton) #576

No, not preconceptions…You said here awhile ago that you were “simply an agnostic” and when it was time for you to be baptised with your friends, you refused. The information you have put out there is the reason I question the voracity that you come at me concerning the issue at hand. Would you classify yourself as a Christian, Bible-believing SDA at this point? Every category you choose not to be part of should seemingly put distance between my convictions and your criticism.

I see it a bit like the woman who came to the Italian restaurant to eat, observed the Italian decor, read the menu, and then tried to order Paad Thai. And then she insisted on her choice and then demanded it. And you might be the guy in the adjacent Wal Mart parking lot who is protesting the fact that she didn’t get Thai food at Olive Garden.

Homosexual marriages aren’t on the menu at SDA churches.

What exactly did I ever say that is evidence that I had “so much pleasure” in her expulsion from church (she was not expulsified!). This is a misrepresentation of my demeanor during the whose process. I have no “victims”, I followed my conscience and what I deem to be truth from God’s Word.

(Andrew) #577

Your conscience doesn’t mean you have no victims. The problem is you take no responsibility for your actions. Your world view means you think you are doing God’s work, and therefore the consequences are not your responsibility.

With regards to my belief, you have only taken away your perception of what agnostic means. You haven’t taken into account my personal links with the church.

Is not your fault. I don’t blame you. You are a product of your socialisation. You can’t help yourself.

(Andrew) #578

This shows you don’t understand agnosticism.

(Bb Yeaton) #579

Thank-you for your lengthy response…a lot of it resonates with me and I appreciate your sincerity. I will continue to question the nudge that you give to SSA young people to enter this lifelong commitment to homosexual relationships. You might not ever say it directly, but I’m sure everyone knows that Dr Ness approves of gay marriage. Realistically, what percentage of these young people entering these unions won’t be sexually active?

And your theory on “if it doesn’t hurt anyone, it isn’t sin”. What about sex between consenting close relations? What about open marriages? And about gay marriage not hurting anyone…have you spoken to all the parents, relatives and friends to consider if the decision isn’t hurting anybody? For example, what if a father is opposed to his son’s gay marriage…Should that particular one be called off because someone is getting hurt by it? Would you then follow your convictions and go ahead and tell that young person because it is hurting someone it is sinful???

(Bb Yeaton) #580

Hi! Every definition I can find outlines a skepticism about God’s existence and thereby, a lack of commitment to His Word. What part of agnosticism don’t I understand?

(Andrew) #581

That an agnostic rejects God or religious beliefs.

(Andrew) #582

What if a father is opposed to his sons choice of woman in the relationship?

You have to live your own life. Other’s perceptions, you cannot live your life by

(Bb Yeaton) #583

Okay, so an agnostic doesn’t reject God. Silly me. Do you then accept God or His Son or His Word?

If a father doesn’t give his blessing to his son’s choice of wife, than it will all come out in the wash, right? I would counsel the man to leave and cleave.

But according to Ness, if a marriage hurts anybody, then it crosses the line into sinful. Because that is the essence of God’s law, remember? That is the application of the principle. (No harm, no foul).

(Andrew) #584

An agnostic doesn’t accept or reject God.

The ripple effect. Our choices will affect more than the immediate members. I make the assumption that @bness thinking about this. Is any actual harm being caused or are the preconceptions of the person being hurt, actually the cause.?

(Bryan Ness) #585

I am using this in a very narrow sense, as in, it does not hurt either partner in the relationship.

Well, it happened in the Bible, so the Bible isn’t exactly against it. As for harms, there is a somewhat higher probability that children born to close relatives will have genetic defects, some of which can be very serious or lethal. It is something to definitely consider carefully.

I think the track record for open marriages is pretty bad. Lots of psychological trauma to one or both partners. It does seem that humans do not do too well in anything but monogamous marriages. This is why I believe the Bible has an injunction, right in the 10 Commandments, against adultery, since it is clearly a damaging action.

Harms beyond the individuals getting married themselves are obviously the responsibility of those who perceive they are being harmed. It is not the responsibility of the couple getting married, whether heterosexual or same-sex, to make sure everyone else approves. Obviously, disapproval from family members can have an effect (in fact, strong disapproval can have a very negative effect on the couple), but the couple have to decide what is best for them. They are going to spend their lives together, not with their families.

(Bryan Ness) #586


But, I would counsel a parent who is strongly opposed to a son or daughter’s marriage to get over it if it is clear they are planning to marry regardless whether the parent approves. If there is any chance for a poorly chosen partner in marriage (if that is why the parent is disapproving) to form a healthy marriage partnership, the couple will need support from the family. It always pains me to see a parent (or parents) who refuse to attend the wedding of their child because they disapprove of the marriage. There is really no good outcome to that.

(Elmer Cupino) #587

Agnostic is defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;"

Which would raise the following question, “Would you rather have someone whose belief in God is based on suppositions or would you rather have someone admit that nothing can be known about God?” Both individuals can still live a “christian-like” life, meaning as Jesus said in John 6:31, “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.”

Take the example of a child, or your experience as a growing child. Your concept of your mother changed as you developed and matured along the way. Right? Whereas as a child, your mother can do no wrong, as you entered into your adolescent years, and so on, you had to admit that your mother was less than perfect. What makes you think that your belief in your mother as an infant would remain and be robust all your life? A good analogy would be a child who could admit knowing little about his mother’s true psychological self and a child who is certain knowing his mother’s true psychological self, given his level of maturation. Between the two children, who could be right?

Now do you get @Andrew point?

(Tongkam) #588

It appears to me that you are questioning God’s wisdom…the same wisdom that installed a 24-hour day in our week in which He commanded that we do not work. Essentially, the question you ask about marriage is identical to asking about working hours versus the Sabbath.

I’ll take God at His Word. If God says I can work on six days, but not on the seventh, I have no problem believing that what was not sin for 85% of my week is nonetheless sin for that 15%. Marriage and the Sabbath were the two major institutions given in Eden. Every assault on one of these doctrines impacts the other as well.

(Tongkam) #589


A saying I learned years ago, and it seems ever true, is “You can choose your friends, but you’re stuck with your relatives.” Marriage chooses, not friends, but relatives. Once married, you’re stuck with them. Like it or not. They are legally your “family.”

(Elmer Cupino) #590

This says more about what the individual is, than what the family is. It connotes a sense of being lost, having no control, being a hostage, being inadequate instead of being able to contribute to the family dynamics. We see this in religion too. Individuals complaining and whining about this creed and that creed instead of contributing to the betterment of the church.

In this case the individual, not the family, should benefit from counseling with the likes of @GeorgeTichy to anchor himself psychologically and foster self-confidence.

(Bb Yeaton) #591

Thank you for your thorough response. You are probably the kindest person I have yet to encounter here.

For now, I will continue to believe that the Bible is against sexual activities between close relatives or those of the same sex. Not for reasons of harm or hygiene or family dynamics, but simply because a loving God knows what is harmful and what is of benefit to his children. You are well aware of “incest” in the days of the Patriarchs, but that changed with the decline of the race. Post-Leviticus, I challenge you to find permission granted for such relations.

I genuinely hope that your young people aren’t getting that message from you. I hope God gives you the wisdom to help heal their souls without guiding them along a path that many believe He has never approved of.

(Bb Yeaton) #592

You have made excellent points and I appreciate the “free” information! To your first question, I would go with the belief based on supposition. That “nothing can be known about God” doesn’t register with me. I might have understood that belief during the Darkest Ages, but post-Bethlehem, post-Galilee, post-Golgotha, post-resurrection?

It wasn’t that long ago that He was here!

(Bb Yeaton) #593

Yeah, Just ask Archie Bunker. And poor Meathead.

(Elmer Cupino) #594

You might want to edit your post to reflect what you want to say. “Dark Ages” is defined as 500AD-1500AD, from the fall of the Roman Empire through the Age of Discovery. This period comes after “post-Bethlehem, post-Galilee, post-Golgotha, post-resurrection.”

I think what is important here is to acknowledge that life is a journey, and that others might go for the “bee-line” whereas others go through the “scenic route.” While no one is better than the other, what we should appreciate is the fact that we are all heading towards the right destination.

(Bb Yeaton) #595

Done! Have a wonderful day Dr. Elmo!