I have seen suggestions on this board suggesting that the Adventist church conduct gay weddings, and other that gays not be allowed to attend Adventist chruches. Neither of those are going to happen, so its important to discuss what role gays do have in the church.
We could make Idol worshipers feel safe by having statues of the madonna and budda and krishna in the parking lot before they walk in.
Okay, I have to wonder if some of you even read the article that you are pontificating about. The article does not talk about how gays can "feel" safe, it is about being safe. Crucifixs and Buddhas don't really make anything safe so there would be no purpose in having them in the parking lot.
As I read it, it was advocating allowing them to marry and continue sinning in homosexual acts. Did I read it incorrectly?
For is states, "Although we acknowledge the biblical ideal of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship, we continue to emphasise that it is an ideal. The basis of Christianity is that all people fall short of God's ideal; this is why we require God’s grace and Christ’s sacrifice. This leads to the conclusion that we, as Christians, must welcome all children of God – who all fall short of God’s ideal – into our churches with love."
This tells me they are saying that God's way of doing this is merely a suggestion. Interestingly enough, I remember a similar conversation in the Garden of Eden when Satan told Eve that God does not say what He means, or means what He says.
If we are to take that view of God, why bother with Him at all?
" it is about being safe."
What does that mean? Explain the meaning maybe we could wear bubble wrap, safety vests, and hard hats. The wording is post modern touchy feelly good intentions nonsense. Like wearing pink to help cancer. What good does it do. The Holy Spirit should be in our church and that is what should make us feel safe / make sinners feel safe. Maybe we should be so intune with God and led by the Holy Spirit and that is what we should focus on to make people feel safe.
You think it should be safe for gays, but not others? If I decide to have three other wives, can we not all go to church and feel safe in our polygamy? Or, is homosexual marriage acceptable to you, and polygamy not?
Polygamy may not be as bad as adultery. Adulterers usually add the sin of lying, polygamists are up front about it in some cases. I do not support polygamy and intend to not have any sister wives when I get married, but where does the Bible condemn polygamy?
That is my point to you. The Bible condemns homosexuality, yet you present to us a message, seemingly endorsing the Netherlands message ,that God's prohibition against practicing homosexuality is just a mere suggestion, somehow "misunderstood" rather than what it plainly says that people will lose their salvation over it.
So, if baffles me that you would seemingly endorse homosexual union and continued activity, but eschew polygamy.
Sadly, I suspect there would be gasps of horror in the Netherlands if I brought in a bevy of extra wives, but applause if I came in holding hands with one of my male friends.
I am not endorsing polygamy in what I am saying, as the same passages that speak against WOPE, also speak against polygamy.
Besides, from experience, I can tell you that one woman is more than enough.
There is a reason that the plural of wives in Spanish is also the same word for handcuffs.
Again Netherlands is not endorsing homosexuality, they are saying that gays should be safe in church, why would anyone object to that?
No, if you read the actual language, "Although we acknowledge the biblical ideal of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship, we continue to emphasise that it is an ideal."
Essentially it states although we understand the Bible gives us an idea of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship. It is saying there is a sense you might glean from the Bible regarding this thought.
Then they go on to say, not "we continue to emphasize it is ideal," but emphasize their concept that is a mere suggestion by stating, that it "is an ideal."
It is an idea, a decent thought, they go on to say that practicing homosexuals should be full fledged members to honor these unholy, perverse, sexual unions.
"We advise the churches in the Netherlands to fully commit themselves to ensuring that LGBTI individuals feel safe in the church. We would strongly advise against any steps to revoke the membership of LGBTI people, given the unsafe environment this would create in churches."
Sorry, when people live in open sin, it is not for us to celebrate it and make sure they are standing members.
No more than we would allow an adulterous elder, we should not permit a homosexual union to be acknowledged in the church.
Both are practicing sexual sin. According to scripture, both are equally condemned.
We should be declaring that open sexual sin is wrong, not embracing it.
This is simply the evolution of WOPE that has been warned about repeatedly over and over again.
I don't believe the Bible distinguishes some sins as worse than others (possible exception of the unpardonable sin), does the Bible ever use the term "open sin"? I'm not being snarky, if it does let me know. I think a lot of us like to feel that our sins are benign and excusable, but other people's sins are bad.
THERE IS NO BIBLICAL CONDEMNATION, IT WAS INDEED THE PRACTICE BY MANY.
By the way Heisenberg, where do you get "comfortable" from? Its not mentioned in the article. Does any sinner really feel comfortable in church? If comfort is someone's objective he should skip church and go to the spa or buy a Lazy-Boy recliner. Safe yes, comfortable no.