Adventist Online

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. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Church in The Netherlands Commits Itself to Being a Safe Place for LGBTI Individuals

The Netherlands Union Conference has advised all churches in the Netherlands to "fully commit themselves to ensuring that LGBTI individuals feel safe in the church." In addition, NUC leadership says it would "strongly advise against any steps to revoke the membership of LGBTI people, given the unsafe environment this would create in churches."
 
This statement was agreed after the recent General Conference vote to adopt guidelines for "responding to homosexual and other alternative sexual practices." 
 
A vote was taken at a recent meeting of the Netherlands Union Conference Executive Committee to publish the statement, which follows in its entirety (translated here):
 
"There is a great deal of discussion about sexuality, and specifically LGBTI individuals (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, intersex), at this moment. The General Conference recently held an international conference on this topic in South Africa, and last week the board of the world church voted on guidelines regarding LGBTI individuals.
 
In the Netherlands the topic of sexuality has been under discussion for quite some time, and in 2012 the delegates of the local churches voted the following: 
 
Following the example of the ‘Safe Church’ initiative, the delegates, gathered together in committee, charge the Executive Board in the coming administrative period to consider the problems of and concerning people with a non-heterosexual nature, so that they can feel safe in the church.
 
Following this vote, the Executive Committee has committed itself to ensuring that LGBTI individuals feel safe in the church. In taking this decision to heart, the Netherlands Union Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist church would like to respond to the General Conference’s recently-voted guideline.
 
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.
 
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."

Views: 2098

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Manuela, I took a direct copy paste, and then debated the thesis.  That is merely my intent to pursue an intellectual discourse on the subject.   You can address the argument or flee from it, that is entirely your choice.  It would appear that you are putting LGBT as divergent species of human, and my argument is they are certainly not. ...."

No you certainly did not do that.

What you did is taking out 1 quote out of the discussion without reading, understanding or applying the context that quote was said.

Sadly enough a lot of people do that already with scriptures as well where the authors can not object to it anymore. At least i can and will object against it when you take my quotes out of the context these where said in to give them a different meaning and twisting my words.

It was a direct reply to Dan where he denied that there is such a thing as a homosexual. He denies that there is even a homosexual attraction and homosexuality only exists when there is sexual activity.

On this theory i replied with that homosexuals do not choose to have an attraction towards the same sex. Even your theory, as wrong as it is, does not give the homosexual person a choice in the matter of attraction towards the same sex unless you want to claim that not only is it caused by child abuse but the child chooses to be abused.

So again i ask you before twisting my words out of context to read what is said and in what context.

This would probably solve your accusations as non existent since i did not say what you try to make out of it.

Regards

p.s.: Lastly your comparission lacks of reality. I believe you when you say you lived 26 years without sex and waited till you found your companion who you married and will stick together. However you do not demand the same thing of homosexual people. What you demand is not 26 years celibacy but on average 80 years and with no chance to ever find a suitable companion since homosexuals are never allowed to marry the partner they are attracted to.

You waited till you found the "right" person. Great. Congratulations. Now homosexuals could find the "right" person yet you would deny them the right to marry and build a lifelong relationship together since you think the person they choose is not the "right" one.

I see.  Religion is a deeply held personal experience.  Once, it is held, it is rarely altered.  This has become your religion.  So, it has become a pointless debate as I am trying to dissect the discourse.  However, dogma is dogma. You cannot alter my position that there is a  Personal God, that this God communicates, the communication is therefore a Revelation.  I accept the Revelation to be the Bible, as an adherent of the Bible, I believe there is an objective morality.  Because, I accept the fact that there is an objective morality, then there are ethics associated with the objective morality and this derives meaning and purpose.

If your religion is all things homosexual, then the corollary would be all things homosexual are acceptable, and homosexuality does not need to be explained.  Of course, that would be divergent from the matrix in which I view reality as I subscribed to a particular Revelation that disputes that concept.  As we are at odds on this, I can only assume that your position is as intractable as my own.  However, where it would seem where our dogmas intersect is the mandate to seek converts to the position held.

It would appear that you are seeking converts to your particular dogma, and so are many of us.

We were commissioned to spread the Gospel according to our dogma.  Mine is Christ, yours is LGBT? 

Reply by Manuela 16 hours ago

@John: That was the whole point basically. Nobody chooses who he is attracted to that is something you are born with it.

Denying that fact like Dan and so many others do is just trying to justify something.

We don't chose because we were all born sinners but God does and he has the power to remove the sin from our minds/hearts.  And since we have the chose to follow God or not we do have a say in the matter.  When I was younger I thought it was natural for me to always be sexual attracted to women and made some bad decisions because of it.  Even now I have to be careful around some of my old friends because they remember the old me and still try to tell me acting on the thoughts are ok because they are natural for men.  However, I have acknowledged the thoughts/desires as sinful and do my best to avoid them and by the grace of God he usually gives me a peaceful way out whenever I am confronted with the temptation.

Trying to find or give excuses for sin is never the answer.  only God/Jesus is the true solution.  I don't believe anyone should have to take the following verses literally, but if they aren't going to rely on God to change their mindset they'd be better of doing it than continuing to try to live in sin without him.

Matthew 18:7-10

7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

The Devil has both sides.. MFG..it is the goodness of God that leads a sinner to repent and that sinner can only see the goodness of God by providing laws in which to obey. God never blesses sin. He winks at our ignorance, but we are not ignorant of homosexuality and promuscuity. Adultery is still a sin.. pride is the worst of all sins..

What I have noticed in every thread here on homosexuality is blame.  Blame put on heterosexuals who are Adventist Christians.  This is a form of judgement.  While it may be true that some treat gay people in an un-Christian way it is not true of all heterosexual Adventist Christians.

For example, when I see or am with a homosexual I see a person, one of Gods children.  I do not see a sexual being. I do not really care that they are homosexual and I do not make it my business to know what they do in a sexual manner.  I treat them the same as I treat anyone.  The fact that I do not agree with them according to the Bible does not make me a bigot, and that is the rub.  

Anytime anyone defends what they believe as a Biblical standard they are branded a bigot even though the opposite is true.  I want to see Gods heaven filled with people who had same sex attraction because in heaven sex will not matter anymore. Simple as that.  

Because of this hate branding I feel that in the future that no one will be able to preach the gospel to the gay community and that is what the devil wants.  

Instead of the being told that I am a bigot and a homophobe I would like to see something other than good intentions. I would like to see how the Gospel is being given to the gay community besides telling everyone to overlook obvious sin. Sin that is no different from heterosexuals sin, if they engage in the same acts outside of marriage. 

Soap box kicked aside.  Hope I get a response. 

Thanks Bart I like Your post.

You have said the most I can not think of nothing to add to that

I do say a sin is a sin and it matters not what it is its still a sin. As James say "If we break one we have broken all" 

You hit the nail on the head. Especially how the homosexual community will not be able to be ministered to because they are being told all is well.
Every person needs to have hard truths broken to them, in love, as it pertains to others doing the breaking. I wouldn't want to have my ears tickled to the point that I was beyond understanding that some of my ways were sinful.

I'd have to agree with you. We must at all times be prepared to be a witness for Christ, especially to those whose lifestyles are contrary to God's laws. However, we must present truth in a loving and nonjudgmental manner. 

Jesus says we should be harmless as doves and wise as serpents. 

Before anyone will listen to Gospel they have to first open their hearts to God and be fully willing to abide by his will regardless of how it conflicts with their way of life.  Sadly there are a lot of things we have become attached to that some naturally use Political Correctness to defend no matter what scripture or intent is given to them out of love.  I don't know if the willful disobedience to the God of the religion they choose to follow can be described in any PC way I can think of.  However, I like to believe most attempts here are with good intentions to give better understanding on who the God of Christianity is and what he can do for us when we allow him into our lives.  

Still, I can only imagine how lonely it must feel being on the receiving end.  The good news is that when we choose to follow the God of our Faith we don't need to associate ourselves with sinful labels anymore because we are redeemed and born again.  There is also no need to defend or justify anything the scripture of the Christian faith we follow says is a sin/abomination.   I think that's been said in more ways than one from the post I've seen.  Sadly what people say usually gets twisted because we all want to be the victim and forget about being the redeemed.  GBU for changing the spirit of the discussion Bart.

So Bart how would Jesus or any of the Apostles have dealt with a known homosexual, especially St. Paul? What kind of approach do you think the early church would have adopted if they knew that some of its members were homosexuals? How did Jesus deal with Mary of Magdala? Did He simply converse with her, or did he forgive her and commanded her to sin no more? Who is a homosexual by the way? Is he or she one by virtue of their sexual feeling, or one who carries out the sexual act of same sex intercourse? I mean there are thousands of individuals who are still struggling with their choice of sexuality who have not yet experienced same-sex intercourse. We have to make a distinction in all fairness. Personally I'd rather not interact with homosexuals who show no intent of giving up the lifestyle, but would freely interact with those who truly see the need to repent and walk in the newness of life......

all was done against the true Biblical truth

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2018   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service