Revival Sermons

Other Forums => Town Hall => Topic started by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 09:49:10 AM

Title: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 09:49:10 AM
Has anyone been following Prop 8 in California which will be on the ballot to define "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"?  While I believe homosexuality is a sin, the problem I have is with the SDA church's open support and push to pass this ammendment. I recently read an interesting article on this topic:

"As a general matter, the Adventist Church speaks as a world body in general terms, while local church entities exercise responsibility for application of church positions and teachings. In this spirit, the General Conference Department of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty (PARL) and the editor of Liberty Magazine were consulted regarding Prop 8 and they encouraged the Church State Council and the Pacific Union Conference to support marriage and/or the amendment. The Council's support is consistent not only with church teaching concerning marriage and same-sex marriage, but is also consistent with actions taken by other local level bodies in the Church. Several examples are that the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada filed an amicus brief in the Canadian Supreme Court in defense of traditional marriage; the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee in 2000 officially endorsed Proposition 22; which language was identical to Proposition 8; and the Northwest Religious Liberty Association in 2004 with the support of the North Pacific Union Conference issued a statement in support of marriage (see www.nrla.com/article.php). The Church State Council's support for Prop 8 is completely consistent with church teachings and statements concerning marriage and same-sex marriage."

I just don't feel it is the position of the Church to step in and dictate its agenda through political means. Does anyone else have problems with this?

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 24, 2008, 10:46:17 AM
ahillock, the defining of marraige to be between a man and a woman is not a particular agenda of the Seventh-day Adventist church. It is the basis of all sociiety since the beginning. The attempt to undermine, even destroy it is a direct attack on society and the family. Whether one is a Bible believer or not, it should be enough to vote for the amendment on the basis of the harmful effects and confusion it is sure to produce. As citizens, it is our duty to uplift and uphold the positive aspects of society and to oppose those efforts to denigrate and undermine the good. It is not a violation of our stand for separation of church and state. It is appropriate for churches to support the good and oppose the bad. Thats hopefully why churches exist.

As Seventh-day Adventists we have the advantage of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that gives us an overview of the war between Christ and Satan, between good and evil that we are all part of and is even now escalating as we approach the end. Satan is bringing his forces to bear against marraige and families which was established by God in the beginning and we will soon witness his wrath as he focuses it on the seventh day Sabbath and those who honor it.

Concerning an "agenda," I highly recommend a book by Tammy Bruce titled "The Death of Right and Wrong" This book is a warning from Tammy Bruce, who documents from her first hand experience, the organized and increasingly successful efforts of the community of homosexual activists with the support of liberal polititions, academics and
others to use every means possible including political means to transform society in to a corrupt and amoral image of themselves.
Tammy Bruce described herself as a gun owning, pro death penalty voted for Reagan, feminist lesbian.  She was elected in 1990 as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, the largest and most effective chapter in the organization. Over time she came to understand that the organization has little to do with uplifting women, but it purpose is to transform society and further the homosexual agenda. She ultimately left that group and today speaks out against "political correctness" and the efforts to tear down everything decent in our society.  She knows what she is talking about. She may be a lesbian but she is a strong voice against evil forces that seek to destroy whatever is good. Her book "The New Thought Police" is also a warning and well worth reading.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 11:10:07 AM
It doesn't take much time to look at past history or to even read GC to realize that whenever a state attempts to dictate matters of moral conscience, things don't end up well. I think this is an issue that is best decided between the individual and their Creator. I don't think by passing a law we will be better able to reach those who are lost by "forcing" them to follow what the Bible says. While the outcome and goal of Prop 8 is well meant and Biblically true in all regards, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should happen. Many times the means are more important than the end result itself.

I think this is a church-state issue since a church/religious institution got actively involved with pushing its own agenda through rather than trying to protect its own rights. Those are two differences that need to be acknowledged. While I support the church in protecting my right to worship according to my conscience, I have a problem with the church going on the offensive and attempting to "correct society" according to the "vision" of what we think it should look like. Ultimately we are almost re-creating the Crusades all over again but using political rather than military power to push our will. The Bible and SOP are both very clear that things will become much worse in the end times, I wonder if our energy could be better spent reaching people than trying to fight or stop what has been prophetically told would happen?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 11:16:13 AM

As Seventh-day Adventists we have the advantage of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that gives us an overview of the war between Christ and Satan, between good and evil that we are all part of and is even now escalating as we approach the end. Satan is bringing his forces to bear against marraige and families which was established by God in the beginning and we will soon witness his wrath as he focuses it on the seventh day Sabbath and those who honor it.



And yet I think this is exactly the problem that many Adventist get themselves into. Using political means to bring about a change in morality never, ever works. That is something that can only come by the Holy Spirit and through reading of the Scriptures and prayer. Ultimately each person is held responsible for their own actions. I can't force someone to be more moral by creating a law to that regard. To think that by enacting a law against gay marriage we will protect marriage as God ordained it is quite naive imho. Marriage can only be protected if we as a church, and families themselves, take an active role in nurturing the relationship and spending time with God and each other. You can't protect the state of a marriage by arbitrarily making a law about what a true marriage is while husbands and wives cheat on each other or if they hardly see each other during the week due to work obligations.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 24, 2008, 11:24:02 AM
i have to agree with you 100% ahillock.  i didnt know the church joined in this movement.  i dont see any difference in this and when the church moves on the state to enforce the sunday law and death decreee against sabbath keepers.

the union of church and state is the union of church and state no matter how you look at it.  we should see this as the signs of the times.  we either live by the bible or we dont.

2Co 10:4  (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 11:24:53 AM

Concerning an "agenda," I highly recommend a book by Tammy Bruce titled "The Death of Right and Wrong" This book is a warning from Tammy Bruce, who documents from her first hand experience, the organized and increasingly successful efforts of the community of homosexual activists with the support of liberal polititions, academics and
others to use every means possible including political means to transform society in to a corrupt and amoral image of themselves.
Tammy Bruce described herself as a gun owning, pro death penalty voted for Reagan, feminist lesbian.  She was elected in 1990 as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, the largest and most effective chapter in the organization. Over time she came to understand that the organization has little to do with uplifting women, but it purpose is to transform society and further the homosexual agenda. She ultimately left that group and today speaks out against "political correctness" and the efforts to tear down everything decent in our society.  She knows what she is talking about. She may be a lesbian but she is a strong voice against evil forces that seek to destroy whatever is good. Her book "The New Thought Police" is also a warning and well worth reading.

Doug Batchelor has a great sermon here on the issue from the Biblical perspective: http://www.amazingfacts.org/Television/EverlastingGospel/tabid/78/ctl/PlayMedia/mid/414/MDID/3671/PID/1842/SID/2/SQT/3-2008/7/Gay-Marriage-A-State-of-Disgrace/Default.aspx
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 24, 2008, 11:47:25 AM
i have to agree with you 100% ahillock.  i didnt know the church joined in this movement.  i dont see any difference in this and when the church moves on the state to enforce the sunday law and death decreee against sabbath keepers.

the union of church and state is the union of church and state no matter how you look at it.  we should see this as the signs of the times.  we either live by the bible or we dont.

2Co 10:4  (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

There is a big difference between enforcing a particular kind or day of worship and passing laws that regulate interaction between citizens of this country. To compare Prop 8 to the Sunday law is a big stretch. Do you and/or ahillock also have a problem with laws against murder and stealing?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 11:54:58 AM
There is a big difference between enforcing a particular kind or day of worship and passing laws that regulate interaction between citizens of this country. To compare Prop 8 to the Sunday law is a big stretch. Do you and/or ahillock also have a problem with laws against murder and stealing?

No obviously I am not against those laws because they don't have just a religious context behind them. Even secular and atheistic states have had laws against stealing and murder. The issue isn't whether same sex marriage is wrong, the issue is whether the church should publicly support a law to further its will and belief? Do you really not see how this is a slippery slope? This law has all the best intentions, but I think by supporting it the church is stepping onto dangerous ground. Why use a law to force morality? I'm surprised we haven't learned that you can't force morality. By passing this law are we really protecting the "sanctity and sacredness of marriage"?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Jim on October 24, 2008, 12:01:15 PM
Amen Wondering!.... we are to vote for moral issues and this indeed is a moral issue. When speaking about the prohibition of alcohol Mrs. White said that she would probably surprise some by saying that if you can't vote on any other day then to vote on the Sabbath in favor of prohibition.

This is what I call an Seventh-day Adventist knee-jerk reaction to what we think is treading too close to legislating the 1st 4 commandments.

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Jim on October 24, 2008, 12:05:10 PM
No obviously I am not against those laws because they don't have just a religious context behind them.

I totally disagree. Laws against stealing, murder, etc..etc.. do indeed have a religious context. This no more of a slippery slope than having laws against adultery. Which are actually still on the books in some states it's just that society today sees adultery as the norm.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 12:25:34 PM
I totally disagree. Laws against stealing, murder, etc..etc.. do indeed have a religious context. This no more of a slippery slope than having laws against adultery. Which are actually still on the books in some states it's just that society today sees adultery as the norm.

So if there was a law stating that everyone in America would have to worship on Saturday, the true Sabbath you would vote in support of it since it has a religious context to it?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 12:26:33 PM
Amen Wondering!.... we are to vote for moral issues and this indeed is a moral issue.

Amen!

This proposition 8 has to do with morality. We are told to take a stand against sin. When we see these sins coming upon our church and land, we are told to speak out against them. We are told also to even speak out and do what we can in preventing... when we see the Sunday law coming. We are never told to keep silent on these matters. Yes, we are told that prophecies will be fulfilled, but we are not told to sit still and do nothing when it comes to the Sunday law, and moral issues.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 12:30:47 PM
Amen!

This proposition 8 has to do with morality. We are told to take a stand against sin. When we see these sins coming upon our church and land, we are told to speak out against them. We are told also to even speak out and do what we can in preventing... when we see the Sunday law coming. We are never told to keep silent on these matters. Yes, we are told that prophecies will be fulfilled, but we are not told to sit still and do nothing when it comes to the Sunday law, and moral issues.

I think you guys are missing the point. It isn't that we shouldn't speak out against sin. The question is should the church become actively involved with creating and passing legislation to pass issues that we "think" will make our country more moral.

So those of you who are in support of Prop 8, what positive outcome do you think will come about if it is passed?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 12:33:14 PM
Amen!

This proposition 8 has to do with morality. We are told to take a stand against sin. When we see these sins coming upon our church and land, we are told to speak out against them. We are told also to even speak out and do what we can in preventing... when we see the Sunday law coming. We are never told to keep silent on these matters. Yes, we are told that prophecies will be fulfilled, but we are not told to sit still and do nothing when it comes to the Sunday law, and moral issues.

Sunday law and gay-marriage are two separate issues. A Sunday law would limit my freedom and rights to worship according to my conscience which is guaranteed under the Constitution. EGW is very clear about the Sunday issue no doubt, but at least to my understand she does not give the same warning regarding gay marriage.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Jim on October 24, 2008, 12:39:57 PM
So if there was a law stating that everyone in America would have to worship on Saturday, the true Sabbath you would vote in support of it since it has a religious context to it?

I really don't see how you drew that conclusion from my statement. I guess I'll take most of the responsibility on this because I have to admit that I assumed that no Seventh-day Adventist would every vote or support in any fashion any law that would dictate for or against the 1st four Commandments. This is where liberty of conscience comes in.

However, the Commandments that govern person to person relationships are to be legislated.

Do you think it's good that society no longer enforces the laws against adultery? Has the un-enforcement of these laws made society a better place to live?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 12:40:47 PM
Is homosexuality a sin?

By the way, those for homosexuality seem not to mind the fact that they are forcing little children in the schools in California in learning how to become a homosexual, by teaching them that it is okay.

Is that okay with you?

God calls this practice an abomination and sin.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 24, 2008, 12:42:32 PM
I really don't see how you drew that conclusion from my statement. I guess I'll take most of the responsibility on this because I have to admit that I assumed that no Seventh-day Adventist would every vote or support in any fashion any law that would dictate for or against the 1st four Commandments. This is where liberty of conscience comes in.

However, the Commandments that govern person to person relationships are to be legislated.

Exactly!!
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 24, 2008, 12:49:59 PM
Amen Wondering!.... we are to vote for moral issues and this indeed is a moral issue. When speaking about the prohibition of alcohol Mrs. White said that she would probably surprise some by saying that if you can't vote on any other day then to vote on the Sabbath in favor of prohibition.

I agree with your assesment that it is no different than voting for prohibition. Are we to just sit by and watch as the laws of the country deteriorate or are we to speak up? After all, we are citizens too, and have a responsibility to make our opinions known even if they do agree with the Bible...
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 24, 2008, 12:52:05 PM
So those of you who are in support of Prop 8, what positive outcome do you think will come about if it is passed?

If nothing else, it will let others know that there are still some who speak out against evil.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 12:59:30 PM
If nothing else, it will let others know that there are still some who speak out against evil.

Amen.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 01:01:36 PM
If nothing else, it will let others know that there are still some who speak out against evil.

Any why can't we do that by proclaiming the 3 Angel's message? Why do we have to use a law?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: CountryBoy on October 24, 2008, 01:03:59 PM
The principle I usually try to apply on questions of "legislating morality" is Jesus' "give unto Caesar" rule. To me, any legislation dealing with enforcing and affirming the last 6 commandments is good, right and should be promoted by any professed Christian or Christian organization. This is giving unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar as I see it.

On the other hand, legislation dealing with the first 4 is off limits since that would be giving unto Caesar the things that belong to God.

Prop 8 (to me at least) clearly falls into the former category, not the latter. Kudos to the Mormon Church for funding the pro side of California's Prop 8. Would that oither denominations had their courage on this issue....
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 01:07:31 PM
The principle I usually try to apply on questions of "legislating morality" is Jesus' "give unto Caesar" rule. To me, any legislation dealing with enforcing and affirming the last 6 commandments is good, right and should be promoted by any professed Christian or Christian organization. This is giving unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar as I see it.

On the other hand, legislation dealing with the first 4 is off limits since that would be giving unto Caesar the things that belong to God.

Prop 8 (to me at least) clearly falls into the former category, not the latter. Kudos to the Mormon Church for funding the pro side of California's Prop 8. Would that oither denominations had their courage on this issue....

So are we going back to enforcing the Levitical law? What about a law enforcing that only clean meat can be eaten, is the SDA church going to support that as well?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: CountryBoy on October 24, 2008, 01:11:14 PM
Sorry, no, not the levitical law at all. First 4 and last 6 refers to the law of liberty, God's Ten Commandments, still binding on all today. If murder wasn't prohibited until the time of the Exodus, why did God punish Cain? To me, the 7th commandment would appear to disqualify Christian support for gay marriage...
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 01:13:05 PM
Ahillock.... Doug Batchlor from Amazing Facts has done a sermons on Proposition 8.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 01:16:33 PM
Ahillock.... Doug Batchlor from Amazing Facts has done a sermons on Proposition 8.

Yeah I listened to it. I actually posted a link for it on the first page if you didn't get a chance to read those posts yet.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 01:22:52 PM
Sorry, no, not the levitical law at all. First 4 and last 6 refers to the law of liberty, God's Ten Commandments, still binding on all today. If murder wasn't prohibited until the time of the Exodus, why did God punish Cain? To me, the 7th commandment would appear to disqualify Christian support for gay marriage...

It is from the Levitical law where God strictly mentions laws concerning sexual conduct - incest, bestiality, and most notably homosexuality in men (Leviticus 18, and also Leviticus 20, in which penalties are given).

Worth watching why many SDA's are against Prop 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 24, 2008, 01:39:55 PM
It is from the Levitical law where God strictly mentions laws concerning sexual conduct - incest, bestiality, and most notably homosexuality in men (Leviticus 18, and also Leviticus 20, in which penalties are given).

Worth watching why many SDA's are against Prop 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0

Do you think the commandment prohibiting adultery applies to homosexual behavior, or do you think it is only the Levitical laws that cover that?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Jim on October 24, 2008, 01:43:06 PM
Ok, I wasn't gonna comment anymore on this but for the sake of the this discussion I watched it. I still believe that the arguments presented are weak.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 01:46:02 PM
Ok, I wasn't gonna comment anymore on this but for the sake of the this discussion I watched it. I still believe that the arguments presented are weak.

I guess the whole issue for me is that this is a religious liberty issue. Many of you seem to look at this as a chance to speak out against homosexuality. It isn't like Prop 8 is going to stop homosexuality from happening, so what do you see as a benefit from the passing of the bill? There are better ways of expressing our view that homosexuality is wrong.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 24, 2008, 01:47:17 PM
It amazes me how it is so easy to become confused on church/state issues. This is not a matter of the church interfering in people's immoral behavior. This law does not prevent people from living together or any thing else. It is the responsibility of a society, through its laws to regulate how society will function. The law was passed in California via the initiative process that legal marraige could be only between a man and a woman. This was passed by a majority of voters. The will of the people in this civil matter was overturned by a Judge. The people are now usng the initiative process to restore the will of the people.

Prop. 8 is not supported only on the basis of morality by churches and religious people.  Support comes from people who see that the law is necessary for the good of society and to defend against the encroachment of the homosexual minority who want to impose their values on the rest of society. That is the heart of the matter. The ramifications of this issue are far reaching. It will be played out and is already being played out in public schools as very young children are being taught that homosexuality is normal and appropriate.

Just as a reminder in case some do not understand, homosexuality has been considered a perversion by almost every known society in history.

To say that it is wrong for the church to express its veiw in this is a gross misunderstanding of church and state issues and the mission of the church. To roll over and let it happen without using our influence and our vote to protect the society we live in is to fail in our role as Christians and members of the society in which we live.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 01:56:34 PM
Do you think the commandment prohibiting adultery applies to homosexual behavior, or do you think it is only the Levitical laws that cover that?

It is both. Everything points back to the Ten Commandments and the broad principles that it outlines. However many issues are more specifically outlined and described in other places in Scripture.

If this proposition should be passed, then there is an argument that a law prohibiting the eating of pork and shell fish should be supported by the church as well as forced tithing. You can't pick and choose what ordinances of God's you want to enforce can you? Unless of course it supports your own opinion. Back to the good old days of the RCC.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Jim on October 24, 2008, 02:02:53 PM
I don't understand why someone would not want to support a law that supports the last 6 commandments. Without these laws our society would fall apart.

And I think it's short sighted to think that is just about homosexuality. This is also about 2 guys and girl getting legally married and the combinations are endless. I find it interesting that when it comes to sexual behavior that people hesitate at supporting laws but the same people have no problems supporting laws that govern fraud, stealing, murder and etc. Each have a very big impact on society at large. The libertarian says that it doesn't matter what happens behind closed doors. They have the idea that it won't affect anyone else. Is that really true?

I'm not saying that we should go out and start a pro Prop. 8 rally group or attend meetings or get involved politically. But what is so wrong about voting to keep marriage as marriage. In some ways I see this as more important that prohibition example given by Mrs. White.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 24, 2008, 02:11:56 PM
... what is so wrong about voting to keep marriage as marriage. In some ways I see this as more important that prohibition example given by Mrs. White.

I wholeheartedly agree. Are we to keep silent and allow Satan to make a mockery of a sacred institution established by God? In a country where we have freedom of speech to be used against these types of attacks on morality?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:12:53 PM
I don't understand why someone would not want to support a law that supports the last 6 commandments. Without these laws our society would fall apart.

And I think it's short sighted to think that is just about homosexuality. This is also about 2 guys and girl getting legally married and the combinations are endless. I find it interesting that when it comes to sexual behavior that people hesitate at supporting laws but the same people have no problems supporting laws that govern fraud, stealing, murder and etc. Each have a very big impact on society at large. The libertarian says that it doesn't matter what happens behind closed doors. They have the idea that it won't affect anyone else. Is that really true?

I'm not saying that we should go out and start a pro Prop. 8 rally group or attend meetings or get involved politically. But what is so wrong about voting to keep marriage as marriage. In some ways I see this as more important that prohibition example given by Mrs. White.

Because the issue of the sanctity of a marriage and the integrity of families is not something that can be fixed with laws. It just can't. The reason many Adventists, and myself included, have issues with this is that I don't think religion should be mixed with politics.... at all. Never. Even if it helped the SDA church in anyway, the uniting of church and state is never right. It took several hundred years to break this bond.

So what are we going to do if Christianity isn't the major religion in the future? Don't you see how using the religion of the majority tramples upon those in the minority no matter how good the meaning is? While on the issue of homosexuality most of the major religions are in agreement, what are you going to do when the next issue comes up for a law to be passed and different religions and church's differ? Can't we just leave politics and religion where they belong, separated from each other.

There is actually a pro proposition 8 SDA group. If you do some research you can easily find that they previously used these as reasons to support the bill:

        "If Proposition 8 does not pass judgment may soon be at our doors! California is already in crisis! Since Proposition 22 was overturned we have seen: Record Forest Fires! Record Budget Crisis! State wide Drought! Divorce rates are up. Could there be a connection?"

        "The vast majority of Christians in California are in support of Proposition 8. Obviously, if Seventh-day Adventist do not speak up and take a stand regarding this attack on the seventh Commandment, we no longer have a right to make an issue of the fourth commandment."

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 24, 2008, 02:13:50 PM
It is both. Everything points back to the Ten Commandments and the broad principles that it outlines. However many issues are more specifically outlined and described in other places in Scripture.

If this proposition should be passed, then there is an argument that a law prohibiting the eating of pork and shell fish should be supported by the church as well as forced tithing. You can't pick and choose what ordinances of God's you want to enforce can you? Unless of course it supports your own opinion. Back to the good old days of the RCC.

So again, you are saying that there should not be laws prohibiting murder, stealing, etc. Because you would, in fact, be picking and choosing...if I accept the premise you used in the last paragraph quoted above. I do not, however, believe that tithing and eating pork, etc. are equivalent to Prop 8. I think you are trying to mix apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:15:37 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. Are we to keep silent and allow Satan to make a mockery of a sacred institution established by God? In a country where we have freedom of speech to be used against these types of attacks on morality?

I agree, but you are mixing up freedom of speech and church getting involved with politics to pass a proposition. Two entirely different situations. I am all for the SDA church standing tall and proclaiming the truth. It is interesting that the church is so eager to support this proposition, and yet we have such a hard time having pastors preach about homosexuality from the pulpit or going out proclaiming the 3 Angels' message. So easy to case a vote, so hard to stand up for truth in our churches and in our cities. What a shame.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:19:00 PM
So again, you are saying that there should not be laws prohibiting murder, stealing, etc. Because you would, in fact, be picking and choosing...if I accept the premise you used in the last paragraph quoted above. I do not, however, believe that tithing and eating pork, etc. are equivalent to Prop 8. I think you are trying to mix apples and oranges.

Actually what I was doing was showing how you weren't be consistent. If you feel that homosexuality should be governed by laws then you would have to say the same thing about tithing and eating unclean meats since the Bible is also very clear about that. How can you say that one issue (homosexuality) is more important than tithing or what foods God has ordained for us to eat?

I am also stating that a society doesn't have to necessarily be religious to support laws governing against stealing or killing. Those are laws that have been shown in place in many societies that were atheistic or pagan.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 02:22:11 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. Are we to keep silent and allow Satan to make a mockery of a sacred institution established by God? In a country where we have freedom of speech to be used against these types of attacks on morality?

Amen! reaching4heaven...

Are we to keep silent? NO... Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel's message. {2SM 336.1}

Does this have any relation to the 3 Angels messages?

Surely and yes it does.

The hour of His judgment IS come?

Judgment against what?

What about the commandments of God? What about those things which are sins and abominations that pertain to the end times?

This issue in proposition 8 strikes against the character of God. These are sins and abominations against God. This is directly related to the 3 Angels messages.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:23:25 PM
Amen! reaching4heaven...

Are we to keep silent? NO... Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel's message. {2SM 336.1}

Does this have any relation to the 3 Angels messages?

Surely and yes it does.

The hour of His judgment IS come?

Judgment against what?

What about the commandments of God? What about those things which are sins and abominations that pertain to the end times?

This issue in proposition 8 strikes against the character of God. These are sins and abominations against God. This is directly related to the 3 Angels messages.

Amen. So speak out against it church. But don't take a public stance on a political issue. I don't hear anyone here speaking out against prohibition any more? So what that issue isn't important for our society any more. That impacts society as much or more so than homosexuality.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 24, 2008, 02:24:18 PM
Actually what I was doing was showing how you weren't be consistent. If you feel that homosexuality should be governed by laws then you would have to say the same thing about tithing and eating unclean meats since the Bible is also very clear about that. How can you say that one issue (homosexuality) is more important than tithing or what foods God has ordained for us to eat?

I am also stating that a society doesn't have to necessarily be religious to support laws governing against stealing or killing. Those are laws that have been shown in place in many societies that were atheistic or pagan.

A society does not have to be religious to support laws upholding traditional marriage either. The reason it is even an issue now is because it was never put in law in the first place...it was assumed to be the case until the homosexual groups started their militant indoctrination to normalize their behavior. I don't think your stand on this is consistent.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 02:24:42 PM
Amen. So speak out against it church. But don't take a public stance on a political issue.

That is not a sin brother.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 02:27:04 PM
In proclaiming the 3 Angels messages, we are not only to proclaim them in church, but where ever we go. It is not a sin, to take a moral stand in public. Then it is left to each individuals conscience to choose who ye will serve.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:29:58 PM
That is not a sin brother.

Being an alcoholic isn't a sin? Are you serious???
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 24, 2008, 02:31:03 PM
Being an alcoholic isn't a sin? Are you serious???

It looks like he was saying that it is not a sin to speak out against and take a political stance on the Prop 8 issue, not alcoholism.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:35:59 PM
But until then I believe that the example of God on earth leads His followers to err on the side of the historically disadvantaged (Matthew 9:9-13), particularly via religious dogma (Luke 18:10-14). There are many sins that are committed that don't have state or federal laws to govern them. But that isn't the role of the church to dictate what laws should be created and passed.

Words inspired by Pastor Martin Niem
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 02:37:18 PM
But don't take a public stance on a political issue.

This is a moral issue that has been made a political issue. I am taking the stance on this issue because it is moral, and that it is a sin and God condemns it as such. If it is a political issue for you, then that is between you and the Lord.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:41:09 PM
This is a moral issue that has been made a political issue. I am taking the stance on this issue because it is moral, and that it is a sin and God condemns it as such. If it is a political issue for you, then that is between you and the Lord.


It is a political issue because it is involving the passage of a law. That is why it is political. I stated from the beginning that I believe homosexuality to be a sin and that is easily seen by a study of the Bible. However, the issue is the passage of a law defining what constitutes a marriage. If you are basing what defines a true marriage on religious terms that is fine, if kept within the church. However when you enter the public arena, religion should be taken out of it.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 02:43:15 PM
My last posting before I need to get ready for Sabbath.  :-D Religious liberty means that no religion should impose its beliefs on another person, and everyone should have the right to worship as their conscience dictates. Seventh-day Adventists have long been advocates of religious liberty, in large part because our eschatological theology leads us to believe that our own religious freedoms will be threatened someday. We also believe that freedom of choice is a gift from God. It is inherent in His character that He does not coerce anyone into following Him; He draws us by love. Satan is the one who uses any means he can to force us to follow his way.

Adventist support of religious liberty has led us to champion some seemingly strange positions, such as opposition to prayer in public schools and even the right of Native Americans to use peyote in their religious rituals.

Although our church may officially understand God
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 02:47:11 PM
However, you have not shown clearly from the Bible and the SOP that it is a sin to take a stand such as those who are in favor for proposition 8. Until then any argument is in favor alongside those who want to force our children to have to listen to those who want to push their agenda upon them against their will.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 24, 2008, 02:52:08 PM
Words inspired by Pastor Martin Niem
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 02:55:40 PM
Very Godly men in a "multitude of counselors" as the Bible tells us have searched the scriptures on this matter before us. And in so doing, I believe they have Gods blessing in their findings on this matter on proposition 8. You can read their names there... such as Ron Clouzet, David Asscherick, Steve Bohr... among others... I believe that these men are of God. It is evident in their lives, and the fruit that they bare, and to think that they are committing error by taking a stance such as they and many others have publicly is a personal decision and conclusion on your part. This is the stance that our church has taken on this matter. If you have a problem with the SDA churches stance on this, then you need to go to these people in some manner and state your concern. I would advise using Matthew 18 in going to your brother (they are those leaders in our church... and those who started the Proposition 8 website http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx and those from NARLA http://billcork.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/narla-commentary-on-prop-8/) and expressing your concern on this matter.



Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 24, 2008, 02:58:32 PM
Do we have the right to tell all gay and lesbian people, Adventist or not, that they must remain celibate all their lives? Do we want to take the responsibility of pushing them toward promiscuity if they are not able to be a lifetime celibate, because we refuse to allow them to live together as committed couples?

That's a bit much - if I can't marry legally I will become promiscuous and it's your fault.

Is Prop 8 stating that homosexuals cannot live together or is it stating that they cannot have a "married" status in the eyes of the law? Two different things.

Happy Sabbath
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 24, 2008, 03:09:33 PM
That's a bit much - if I can't marry legally I will become promiscuous and it's your fault.

Is Prop 8 stating that homosexuals cannot live together or is it stating that they cannot have a "married" status in the eyes of the law? Two different things.

Happy Sabbath

I agree reaching. Not to mention, even if homosexuals can "marry" according to the government, there sexual activity will still be condemned. Ahillock, you must not know many homosexuals because the lifestyle is one of promiscuity and excess. Those who remain committed to each other need no law to do so. Your argument in this regard holds no weight.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 24, 2008, 04:16:56 PM
has anyone reviewed the papal history lately? 

when did they start legislating moral laws?

for example, i know the bible says nary a thing about abortion, especially Jesus and his disciples, but as the church continued slipping away from the Lord religious writers started having something to say about it.  the disciples  who ministered to the gentiles had no way of avoiding abortion and infanticide.  surely if God saw it in the same light as man He would have made sure it made it into the bible.

 the point being, did God want us to make laws regarding the morals of our fellowman?  or did He want heart obedience?  there was a time when adulterers were put in jail, as were those who tried to committ suicide.  how far do we go with these laws?  where is the beginning and where is the end?  who is the ultimate judge in the end?

and by the way, how did you all like the laws about what kind of sex a husband and wife could have in the privacy of their bedroom and marriage, when they were enforced?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 24, 2008, 04:34:02 PM

Because the issue of the sanctity of a marriage and the integrity of families is not something that can be fixed with laws. It just can't. The reason many Adventists, and myself included, have issues with this is that I don't think religion should be mixed with politics.... at all. Never. Even if it helped the SDA church in anyway, the uniting of church and state is never right. It took several hundred years to break this bond.

So what are we going to do if Christianity isn't the major religion in the future? Don't you see how using the religion of the majority tramples upon those in the minority no matter how good the meaning is? While on the issue of homosexuality most of the major religions are in agreement, what are you going to do when the next issue comes up for a law to be passed and different religions and church's differ? Can't we just leave politics and religion where they belong, separated from each other.

There is actually a pro proposition 8 SDA group. If you do some research you can easily find that they previously used these as reasons to support the bill:

        "If Proposition 8 does not pass judgment may soon be at our doors! California is already in crisis! Since Proposition 22 was overturned we have seen: Record Forest Fires! Record Budget Crisis! State wide Drought! Divorce rates are up. Could there be a connection?"

        "The vast majority of Christians in California are in support of Proposition 8. Obviously, if Seventh-day Adventist do not speak up and take a stand regarding this attack on the seventh Commandment, we no longer have a right to make an issue of the fourth commandment."


Teresa, the issue has nothing to do with homosexual behavior. There are no laws that prevent them from being who they are. The real issue is about redefining what marraige is and redefining homosexuality as normal.  That is an appropriate function of the law. It does not necessarily deal with morality as such.

The issue has nothing to do with the "sanctity" of marraige. As far as the law is concerned it is a civil and a legal matter which is the responsibility of the government to regulate.
The government cannot protect the "sanctity" of marraige by laws, but marraige can definately be eroded denigrated by government intervention to change what marraige means which is what the judge did in this case.

The first amendment prohibits governmental support of religion. There is to be no particular religion favored by government. That is the "establishment clause." The government also cannot prevent the free exercize of religion. That is the "free exercize clause." Of course there are exceptional circumstances where they can.

The first amendment does not prohibit religious people from having a voice in politics. It is an atheist/secular/humanist/liberal idea that has been gaining ground over the last few decades that religion must be silenced in the public and the political arena. They have been gaining ground by their influence in politics and their influence is pervasive throughout the educational system from top to bottom.

The notion that all Christians must put their religion aside in order to have a part in the political life of the nation is something that would never have occurred to the writers of the consitiution and this notion has never been seriously promoted until recent times.

On the other side of the coin, there are religious organizations who believe that it is the duty of Christians to take over the government, impose religious laws and "bring the nation back to God." We have heard a little of this from the "Religious Rght" for a long time. This must be vigorously opposed, and as a church we have always been against this kind of encroachment. Persecution of minorities always follows.  The "Religious Right" is said to have been a major factor in the election of our current president and are said to have had an inordinant amount of influence on some of the policies of this administration. We know from prophecy things will get worse in this regard very soon. There is a thread on Dominionism related to this.

In the mean time, we must oppose the forces of evil, not just sit back and do nothing.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on October 24, 2008, 04:45:51 PM
Some of the reasoning that has been used on this thread against the church's support of Prop. 8 is so convoluted that I'm unable to follow it or respond to it.  So I will say this, which was alluded to by one other person this afternoon--If same sex "marriage" becomes the law of the land (remember, although it used to be said that "as Maine goes, so goes the nation," that is no longer true.  Now it is, "as Calif. goes, so goes the nation), it will only be a matter of time before lawsuits are filed to get polygamy legalized.  Once the definition of marriage is changed to mean 2 people of any gender, it is a small step to change it to mean any number of people of any gender.  Do we want to stand by silently and watch this happen?  I commend the leadership of the church for taking a stand on this issue.  The family is the bedrock of a well-ordered society.

Contrary to what has been posted by some, this proposed law would not deny anyone their "right" to live together in whatever arrangement they may choose.  But it does deny access to privileges that are reserved for true marriage.  To extend all the benefits of marriage to an arrangement that is not and cannot ever be marriage would create chaos throughout society.  That which promotes a well-ordered society cannot be condemned as forcing our religious beliefs on the society at large.  Someone may argue that the concept of a "well-ordered society" is subjective and subject to the whims of any particular generation alive at the time.  But one would have to admit that the general agreement that the government could legitimately legislate in matters relating to the last 6 commandments has worked fairly well for many centuries.

I also object to the idea proposed by one poster that "In many cases, these are Christian people, both heterosexual and homosexual, who believe that God can bless committed same-sex monogamous relationships."  I submit that if someone actually believes that they are not Christians, because they do not believe the Bible.  

Also contrary to what has been posted by some, this issue has nothing to do with levitical laws.  This is New Testament.  The apostle Paul is very clear that those who persist in these lifestyles will be lost.

I only wish the church leadership had been as firm in taking a stand on other issues in the past, issues about which they are still wishy washy.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Jim on October 24, 2008, 06:14:58 PM
Because the issue of the sanctity of a marriage and the integrity of families is not something that can be fixed with laws.

Amen!!! We finally agree on something.

However, neither did God's law keep men from lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, adultery or mocking their parents. Laws will soften the hardened heart. But while laws can't change the heart they can modify someone's behavior if there are consequences to the behavior. If you don't think that's true then parents should stop disciplining their children.

You may not want laws to govern the behavior of your unconverted neighbors but I do.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Jim on October 24, 2008, 06:23:38 PM
Religious liberty means that no religion should impose its beliefs on another person, and everyone should have the right to worship as their conscience dictates.

Again we agree on something. Well, at least partially or until we dissect this a bit further. However, I don't think that you're actually willing to follow through with your statement all the way. Are you? If you are then you must allow the wiccan and satan worshipers to do as their consciences dictate.

And again we are talking about worship. I agree that no one should impose their ideas of worshiping God on someone else. This worship involves the first 4 Commandments. The last 6 are not directly tied to worshiping God but they are to govern human relationships and should be legislated. Which includes the 7th commandment.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Arnie on October 24, 2008, 06:25:55 PM
And again we are talking about worship. I agree that no one should impose their ideas of worshiping God on someone else. This worship involves the first 4 Commandments. The last 6 are not directly tied to worshiping God but they are to govern human relationships and should be legislated. Which includes the 7th commandment.

We see this applied throughout the Old and New Testaments, and through history.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 24, 2008, 07:47:50 PM
Some sincere Christians will attempt to argue for tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within the church. I will not: The Bible is clear as to its position on both gay and lesbian relationships. Following the literal word of God, the Adventists for Prop 8 are in the right in terms of whether their faith supports such behavior.

The problem is that the United States government serves all faiths, as well as those who have none. Telling gays and lesbians that they are not legally allowed to marry because of what we believe will not impress them as to the sincerity of our beliefs: It might drive them into the arms of the open door churches that support their lifestyle, or away from church altogether. The Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council has chosen to link arms with the evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics who seek to legislate their moral views. When those same evangelicals and Catholics return with a government-sponsored agenda that alienates those of us who worship on the seventh day, the Church State Council will have enabled them.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 24, 2008, 08:38:41 PM
Some sincere Christians will attempt to argue for tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within the church. I will not: The Bible is clear as to its position on both gay and lesbian relationships. Following the literal word of God, the Adventists for Prop 8 are in the right in terms of whether their faith supports such behavior.

The problem is that the United States government serves all faiths, as well as those who have none. Telling gays and lesbians that they are not legally allowed to marry because of what we believe will not impress them as to the sincerity of our beliefs: It might drive them into the arms of the open door churches that support their lifestyle, or away from church altogether. The Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council has chosen to link arms with the evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics who seek to legislate their moral views. When those same evangelicals and Catholics return with a  agenda that alienates those of us who worship on the seventh day, the Church State Council will have enabled them.
Hillock, you seem to be unaware of the facts of this case as well as the broader picture of what is really going on.  This is a public affairs issue, not a religious liberty issue. Nobody's religious liberty is at stake. The people of the State of California, not the church,  passed a law stating that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. Marriage in the eyes of the law is not a religious matter. The state reserves the right to regulate marriage and to determine who can marry. Saying two men cannot legally marry is no different than saying two children cannot marry or an adult and a child cannot marry. In the eyes of the State these are all civil, not religious matters and are  all within the responsibilities of the state to regulate. The court overturned the law. The people of the State of California by the use of the initiative process have now proposed a constitutional amendment that will carry out the will of the people that the court subverted.

In this case nobody is trying to impose a moral point of view on homosexuals or anybody else. In fact the opposite is what is happening. A politically powerful minority is attempting to impose their values on the majority of the people by institutionalizing their behavior which is viewed by most as perverse, even it it is not politically correct for the majority to admit it. Your argument that the church, by supporting preposition 8 might drive homosexuals into an "open door church" is like saying if the church takes a stand against drugs and drinking, it will drive the drinkers to the dealers or to the bars. (Or at least to the Catholics.)  :-)

It is right and appropriate for the church to make its views known through its Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Departments and for them to actively support this initiative. There is nothing in the first amendment that even hints that it is a violation of the constitution for the church to do so. There is nothing in the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that would preclude the church from doing so. 

hillock, I believe that you are well intended but you do not seem to really grasp the issues involved in Proposition 8.  Your argument that the church is somehow imposing its religious values on homosexuals by denying them the right to marry and will somehow enable the Evangelicals when they want to persecute Adventists is very puzzling to me. There is no inherent right for them to legally marry and never has been any place in the world or any time in history, with very recent exceptions in the US.  It does not logically follow that supporting proposition 8 strengthens the hand of the Evangelicals when they want to persecute Adventists. 
 
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 25, 2008, 01:12:49 AM
ahillock, the defining of marraige to be between a man and a woman is not a particular agenda of the Seventh-day Adventist church. It is the basis of all sociiety since the beginning. The attempt to undermine, even destroy it is a direct attack on society and the family. Whether one is a Bible believer or not, it should be enough to vote for the amendment on the basis of the harmful effects and confusion it is sure to produce. As citizens, it is our duty to uplift and uphold the positive aspects of society and to oppose those efforts to denigrate and undermine the good. It is not a violation of our stand for separation of church and state. It is appropriate for churches to support the good and oppose the bad. Thats hopefully why churches exist.

As Seventh-day Adventists we have the advantage of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that gives us an overview of the war between Christ and Satan, between good and evil that we are all part of and is even now escalating as we approach the end. Satan is bringing his forces to bear against marraige and families which was established by God in the beginning and we will soon witness his wrath as he focuses it on the seventh day Sabbath and those who honor it.

Concerning an "agenda," I highly recommend a book by Tammy Bruce titled "The Death of Right and Wrong" This book is a warning from Tammy Bruce, who documents from her first hand experience, the organized and increasingly successful efforts of the community of homosexual activists with the support of liberal polititions, academics and
others to use every means possible including political means to transform society in to a corrupt and amoral image of themselves.
Tammy Bruce described herself as a gun owning, pro death penalty voted for Reagan, feminist lesbian.  She was elected in 1990 as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, the largest and most effective chapter in the organization. Over time she came to understand that the organization has little to do with uplifting women, but it purpose is to transform society and further the homosexual agenda. She ultimately left that group and today speaks out against "political correctness" and the efforts to tear down everything decent in our society.  She knows what she is talking about. She may be a lesbian but she is a strong voice against evil forces that seek to destroy whatever is good. Her book "The New Thought Police" is also a warning and well worth reading.

Thank you Larry.

It is unbelievable how this thread has taken off so fast. Why would there be so much controversy over something that is so obvious?

Gay marriage is an OXYMORON.  It is so obvious that God in His creation made no provision for gay unions. It is absolutely proven medically that it is specifically the act of anal intercourse which breaks down the immune barriers which predisposes to the transmission of the HIV virus. It is truly a crime against nature.

Should not any church that calls itself Christian stand up firmly for God's moral laws? Is it also OK to stand by and let babies be slaughtered even outside the womb?

We must stand for supporting the Law of God.

BTW, Larry, I also find Tammy Bruce's story fascinating. Even the current president of NOW in Los Angeles agrees with Tammy Bruce and is supporting the presidential ticket which also opposes gay marriage and abortion of innocent babies. (smiley)

Stan
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on October 25, 2008, 03:23:18 AM
Hillock, you seem to be unaware of the facts of this case as well as the broader picture of what is really going on.  This is a public affairs issue, not a religious liberty issue. Nobody's religious liberty is at stake. The people of the State of California, not the church,  passed a law stating that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. Marriage in the eyes of the law is not a religious matter. The state reserves the right to regulate marriage and to determine who can marry. Saying two men cannot legally marry is no different than saying two children cannot marry or an adult and a child cannot marry. In the eyes of the State these are all civil, not religious matters and are  all within the responsibilities of the state to regulate. A judge took it upon himself to overturn the California law. The people of the State of California by the use of the initiative process have now proposed a constitutional amendment that will carry out the will of the people that the judge subverted.

In this case nobody is trying to impose a moral point of view on homosexuals or anybody else. In fact the opposite is what is happening. A politically powerful minority is attempting to impose their values on the majority of the people by institutionalizing their behavior which is viewed by most as perverse, even it it is not politically correct for the majority to admit it. Your argument that the church, by supporting preposition 8 might drive homosexuals into an "open door church" is like saying if the church takes a stand against drugs and drinking, it will drive the drinkers to the dealers or to the bars. (Or at least to the Catholics.)  :-)

It is right and appropriate for the church to make its views known through its Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Departments and for them to actively support this initiative. There is nothing in the first amendment that even hints that it is a violation of the constitution for the church to do so. There is nothing in the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that would preclude the church from doing so. 

hillock, I believe that you are well intended but you do not seem to really grasp the issues involved in Proposition 8.  Your argument that the church is somehow imposing its religious values on homosexuals by denying them the right to marry and will somehow enable the Evangelicals when they want to persecute Adventists is very puzzling to me. There is no inherent right for them to legally marry and never has been any place in the world or any time in history, with very recent exceptions in the US.  It does not logically follow that supporting proposition 8 strengthens the hand of the Evangelicals when they want to persecute Adventists. 
 

Very well stated, Larry.  In theory that should be the end of the debate.  The opposition has not presented any new arguments, only reiterated the old ones.  There does seem to be a gross misunderstanding among many Christians, including some SDA's, of what constitutes civil rights as opposed to religious rights.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: wondering on October 25, 2008, 04:46:17 AM
Very well stated, Larry.  In theory that should be the end of the debate.  The opposition has not presented any new arguments, only reiterated the old ones.  There does seem to be a gross misunderstanding among many Christians, including some SDA's, of what constitutes civil rights as opposed to religious rights.

That's true :-D
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 25, 2008, 07:14:09 AM
Thank you Larry.

It is unbelievable how this thread has taken off so fast. Why would there be so much controversy over something that is so obvious?

Gay marriage is an OXYMORON.  It is so obvious that God in His creation made no provision for gay unions. It is absolutely proven medically that it is specifically the act of anal intercourse which breaks down the immune barriers which predisposes to the transmission of the HIV virus. It is truly a crime against nature.

Should not any church that calls itself Christian stand up firmly for God's moral laws? Is it also OK to stand by and let babies be slaughtered even outside the womb?

We must stand for supporting the Law of God.

Stan

It amazes me that many bring up the issue of "do you support laws against murder and stealing?" Those issues revolve around the issue of protecting the rights of minorities (the minority being the victim of the murder and the victim of the stolen property). Your rights only go so far as to the nose of the other person. Once your actions affect the liberty and freedom of another person, then you have gone to far (life, liberty, and happiness/property) and the law of the nation is required to step in. Tell me how a homosexual marriage is going to affect you or your marriage? Is a homosexual a second class citizen or do they have the same rights to liberty and happiness that I do? Or only if they interpret the Bible the way I do and belong to the same church as me? It isn't gays and liberals that are destroying the church and God's people, its our own fault for not staying in the Word and spending time with Him. Don't blame others for what is going on. Look to yourself.

So where are you in supporting the Law of God by supporting laws to dictate the issue of gossip? Gluttony? Hypocrisy? The reason I bring this up is that it is so easy to defend a law that supports our will of believing that homosexuality is a sin. But God forbid we don't want a law to support other issues that the Bible and SOP have spoken so clearly about. Why do you guys want a law stating what constitutes a true marriage, but most likely won't support a law that dictates gossip, gluttony, hypocrisy, being overweight, being ruthless, conniving, or vengeful (with out breaking any laws of the country), accumulating excessive wealth or environmental pollution (some of you tried to make a distinction between the first 4 and last 6 Commandments and the States right to dictate laws according to the last 6. So what about the examples I just listed that affect the last 6?)? Just read Matthew 7:3, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

Religion does not have sole authority over the definition of marriage as it is also a civil and societal issue. While it started in the Garden of Eden and was ordained by God, that does not give us sole authority to define it in a societal context unless we live in a theocracy like Israel did. While President Bush and others might believe we live in a theocracy, as far as I'm concerned we don't.  Religion definitely has the authority to define marriage in the context of a church/religious setting or religious institution/group of believers, but not in society. Plain and simple. That is not just for marriage, but for every issue. You will start getting into dangerous territory when religion dictates how, when, where to worship God and what to believe.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 25, 2008, 07:14:19 AM
It still amazes me that many of you are not getting the point. This issue is not whether homosexuality is wrong or not, it is a sin. Period. Can we move past that? The issue being raised is whether the church should involve it self in a religiopolitical issue. And many might say that this won't violate seperation of church and state, and I must say that you have quite a liberal understanding of church and state issues. This does not take away an individuals' right to vote on the issue if they so choose. I encourage all of you to vote according to your conscience. As pointed out, EGW encouraged members to vote on the abolition issue even if it had to be on the Sabbath. The issue presented is the SDA General Conference getting involved with other religious groups (RCC, LDS, Evangelical churches, Knights of Columbus) in a political situation. That is just plain wrong and we all know it. Whether you want to excuse the church's involvement because this points to a higher moral calling is your call. All I am saying is that I am extremely uncomfortable when any church, especially my church, gets involved with political matters that do not affect my religious liberty (as the Sunday law would). To dictate moral law with politics vs. defend my civil and religious liberties are two very different issues and I'm surprised that many of you fail to realize this distinction? Why is that? I don't want my church or any church using the political system to dictate morality. Never! That is the issue since many are using this Proposition as their "chance to speak out against homosexuality and defend God's Eternal Law and Truth."

Seems like some of you did not read what I wrote before but I figured I would post it again to reiterate the issue involved. Religious liberty means that no religion should impose its beliefs on another person, and everyone should have the right to worship as their conscience dictates. Seventh-day Adventists have long been advocates of religious liberty, in large part because our eschatological theology leads us to believe that our own religious freedoms will be threatened someday. We also believe that freedom of choice is a gift from God. It is inherent in His character that He does not coerce anyone into following Him; He draws us by love. Satan is the one who uses any means he can to force us to follow his way. Adventist support of religious liberty has led us to champion some seemingly strange positions, such as opposition to prayer in public schools and even the right of Native Americans to use peyote in their religious rituals. How is the issue of gay marriage any different?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 25, 2008, 07:44:57 AM
Very well stated, Larry.  In theory that should be the end of the debate.  The opposition has not presented any new arguments, only reiterated the old ones.  There does seem to be a gross misunderstanding among many Christians, including some SDA's, of what constitutes civil rights as opposed to religious rights.

"Come now, and let us reason together" Isa. 1:18. Why can't we have a civil conversation about this issue without you proclaiming victory and end of issue? If anything I think we have barely hit the surface imho.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 25, 2008, 08:24:20 AM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this Hillock. Obviously you feel strongly about it  and your ideas are set about this issue. And yes, the church has a responsibility and the right to speak out against this.
By the way, Since you already had your mind made up, why did you start the topic?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on October 25, 2008, 01:09:35 PM
"Come now, and let us reason together" Isa. 1:18. Why can't we have a civil conversation about this issue without you proclaiming victory and end of issue? If anything I think we have barely hit the surface imho.

We were trying to have a civil conversation but it seems to be your way or the highway.  You have stated that we don't get the point, but we could just as easily take the position that it is you who do not get the point.  You can't seem to accept the fact that most of us here have a fundamental disagreement with your position on this issue.  It has been well articulated by Larry and others, but you seem to have ignored his very valid points (apparently, since you have not responded to them), and he is right that we apparently will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 26, 2008, 05:10:56 PM
13 Civil & Religious Reasons to Vote YES on 8! article at:
http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx

Within the article are 3 links to editorials in the Pacific Union Recorder by Alan J. Reinach, Esq which will enlighten on how religious liberty can be adversely affected if Prop 8 is not passed. Some problems have already been experienced in Massachusetts where homosexual rights have been put above religious freedom rights.

http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36742.html
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36745.html
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/7/35882.html

While we can agree to disagree, we should all be well informed and read the articles.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 26, 2008, 06:53:53 PM
13 Civil & Religious Reasons to Vote YES on 8! article at:
http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx

Within the article are 3 links to editorials in the Pacific Union Recorder by Alan J. Reinach, Esq which will enlighten on how religious liberty can be adversely affected if Prop 8 is not passed. Some problems have already been experienced in Massachusetts where homosexual rights have been put above religious freedom rights.

http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36742.html
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36745.html
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/7/35882.html

While we can agree to disagree, we should all be well informed and read the articles.
There are very negative ramafications connected with laws permitting homosexual maraige. The so called "Law of Unforseen Consequences" will no doubt come into play. According to a statement Alan Reinach made a few years ago at a RL retreat, we can't get a religious liberty protection law through the California legislature because of the inordinate amount of influence that the homosexual activitists have in the legislature.  They insist that any law passed must give the rights of homosexuals precedence over every one elses'. Their rights trump everyone elses' rights.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on October 27, 2008, 03:33:00 AM
we can't get a religious liberty protection law through the California legislature because of the inordinate amount of influence that the homosexual activitists have in the legislature.  They insist that any law passed must give the rights of homosexuals precedence over every one elses'. Their rights trump everyone elses' rights.

This is in the name of tolerance, right?  :roll:  Translation:  you must tolerate my views--no matter now aberrant, but if I don't like your views, you have no right to have those views or express them.  This situation is so crazy that sometimes I feel like Congressman, James Traficant, who used to say "Beam me up Scotty" whenever something goofy reached the floor of the House.  The whole tenor of public debate has become illogical and devoid of common sense in many places.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: CONCRETE on October 28, 2008, 05:53:33 AM
Is homosexuality a sin?

By the way, those for homosexuality seem not to mind the fact that they are forcing little children in the schools in California in learning how to become a homosexual, by teaching them that it is okay.

Is that okay with you?

God calls this practice an abomination and sin.

Is it a sin not to keep the Sabbath Holy?

I wonder if there was a law enforcing the keeping of Sabbath, would Adventists support it?

What I do know, is when we stand up for what is right based on the moral law of the Ten Commandments, how can we go wrong? This is for an individual decision of course. In the end we are judged as individuals, not as a church.

However, as a Church, we must be careful about what state issues to support that effect the choices of others. This is how police states begin especially Nazi Germany. The first minorities to be targeted we homosexuals and gypsies, and most of the citizens didn't worry because it didn't pertain to them. When it did get to them, it was to late.

Larry talked about the agenda at hand specifying that the homosexual supporters wanted homosexual rights to take precedence over others. This is not right! Coming from Canada I know that the homosexual agenda wanted special and exclusive rights that the rest of us couldn't have. They also wanted their rights to take precedence. Again this is not right. What Larry speaks of is the true issue, not that of legislating morality.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: colporteur on October 28, 2008, 07:47:33 AM
Is it a sin not to keep the Sabbath Holy?

I wonder if there was a law enforcing the keeping of Sabbath, would Adventists support it?


I would not support the law but would support the Sabbath.

Even so, with abortion, an innocent human life is at stake. I don't believe in killing people because they do not worship on Sunday or the Sabbath. That's what is coming.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 29, 2008, 01:02:47 PM
13 Civil & Religious Reasons to Vote YES on 8! article at:
http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx

Within the article are 3 links to editorials in the Pacific Union Recorder by Alan J. Reinach, Esq which will enlighten on how religious liberty can be adversely affected if Prop 8 is not passed. Some problems have already been experienced in Massachusetts where homosexual rights have been put above religious freedom rights.

http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36742.html
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36745.html
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/7/35882.html

While we can agree to disagree, we should all be well informed and read the articles. 

there is another sda site that has checked out each of the scenarios presented in the above articles and pointed out important details that were left out of the articles.  it seems we should really check out the facts and not just believe what we are told.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 29, 2008, 03:10:25 PM
there is another sda site that has checked out each of the scenarios presented in the above articles and pointed out important details that were left out of the articles.  it seems we should really check out the facts and not just believe what we are told.
It is a simple and straight forward question. Does the state of California have the right to make civil laws that regulate marraige? The court in effect said that  homosexual rights have precedence over the right of the State to regulate marraige, and the will of the people was declared invalid. Prop 8 is designed to restore the legitimate right to regulate marraige by the State through a constitutional amendment.

This is exactly the kind of public affairs issue in which the churches can legitimately have a voice. It is a distortion of the concept of separation of church and state to claim that it prohibits churches from having any voice in the public arena. That was never the intention of the First amendment and it has never been interpreted that way by the courts.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 29, 2008, 07:10:43 PM
It is a simple and straight forward question. Does the state of California have the right to make civil laws that regulate marraige? The court in effect said that  homosexual rights have precedence over the right of the State to regulate marraige, and the will of the people was declared invalid. Prop 8 is designed to restore the legitimate right to regulate marraige by the State through a constitutional amendment.

This is exactly the kind of public affairs issue in which the churches can legitimately have a voice. It is a distortion of the concept of separation of church and state to claim that it prohibits churches from having any voice in the public arena. That was never the intention of the First amendment and it has never been interpreted that way by the courts. 

so no need to check out another side to the issue?  case closed?

there is nothing stopping people from voting the way they believe, so why the extra step to meddle in the government?   

im sorry, but im not allowing anyone to tell me what to think or believe, regardless of the consequences.   i read those paragraphs from that person renach.  i read his work.  what does he base his statements and maybes on?  is he giving us all the facts?  or just part of them?  how do we check out the veracity?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on October 29, 2008, 07:29:45 PM
so no need to check out another side to the issue?  case closed?

I wouldn't say that the case is closed necessarily. The problems with Adventists opposing Prop 8 on 1st Amendment grounds are these:

Almost all civil laws prohibiting certain kinds of conduct (theft, murder, rape) have their basis in religion. Do we do away with those laws because of their religious basis?

We ought not lose sight of the fact that the entire institution of marriage has a Biblical basis. If one takes the position that the state can't forbid marriage between men and men or women and women because that prohibition has a religious basis, then perhaps the state shouldn't be able to regulate marriage at all. Fathers should be able to marry their daughters or sons their mothers.  If we take it one more logical step forward, because marriage itself has religious roots, perhaps the state shouldn't recognize it at all!

Finally, there is absolutely no way that the Framers of the Constiitution would have considered Prop 8 to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Nor would any right-thinking court.

I am open minded regarding these questions but have heard no convincing answers from the "other side" of this issue.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 29, 2008, 08:02:46 PM
There are very negative ramafications connected with laws permitting homosexual maraige. The so called "Law of Unforseen Consequences" will no doubt come into play.

According to a statement Alan Reinach made a few years ago at a RL retreat, we can't get a religious liberty protection law through the California legislature because of the inordinate amount of influence that the homosexual activitists have in the legislature.   They insist that any law passed must give the rights of homosexuals precedence over every one elses'. Their rights trump everyone elses' rights.

for example?  what specifically have they not been able to pass?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 29, 2008, 09:11:40 PM
for example?  what specifically have they not been able to pass?
It is a bit involved, but I will give you the background.
It has to do with the first amendment to the US constitution. "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercize therof." The establishment clause has been held by the courts to mean no government favored religion and no government money to support any churches. The free exercise clause meant that government could not interfere in anyone's religious practices.

There were exceptions. There have been cases where parents were refusing to get needed medical care for a child because they do not believe in doctors due to their religious beliefs. The state can remove the child from the parents and provide the needed medical care. But to do this, the long held criteria was that the state must prove in court that there was a "pressing need" to do this. The safety of a child was a pressing need.  The first amendment rights of the parents were violated, but the state proved to the court that there was a pressing need to do this.

In 1990 there was a case in the state of Washington that changed everthing. Two men, both Native Americans were fired from their jobs as counselors in a drug rehabilitation program. The reason they were fired was because they admitted that they used peyote on certain occasions as part of their Native American religious practice. They applied for unemployment benefits and were denied because they were fired for cause. They sued the State Department of Employment charging them with discrimination on religious basis. They claimed that their first amendment rights, (the free exercize clause) had been violated. These men were not hippies using religion as an excuse to get high. Their use of peyote was an established ritual of the Native American Church and was perfectly legal.

The case went to the US Supreme Court and the court ruled against the men. One of the justices, either Rhenquist or Scalia I think stated that "our country can no longer afford the luxury of this kind of religious freedom." What they did was to ignore the long held criteria that the state must show a pressing need to deny a persons right to practice their religion. Clearly the state had no "pressing need " in this case, and years of precedence and case law was overturned.

Immediately after that decision came down, legislation was introduced in the US congress called the Religious Freedon Restoration Act, that restored the requirement that the state must show a pressing need. It was passed by the Senate and the House almost unanamously and became law, essentially nullifying the Supreme Court's decision.

A few years later, in 1998 I thinik, a Catholic church in Bourne Texas (ronounced "Bernie') decided to renovate and enlarge their church to accomadate their growing membership. The State of Texas said "No you cant alter the building in any way becasue it has "historical archetectural significance." The church sued claiming discrimination under the free exercize clause and it went to the US Supreme Court who ruled against the church. The court rulled that the Religious Freedon RestorationAct was invalid because the federal government does not have jurisdiction. It is up to the states to pass such laws.

That is where things now stand. Several states have passed religious freedom laws, but, and here's the answer to your question teresa, the California State Legislature is so liberal and the influence of the "gay rights" people is so strong, that any attempt to write an acceptable religious freedom law in California fails because it will not even leave committee and come up for a vote unless it has provisions that give homosexuals special treatment.
In other words, if there is a situation where there is a conflict between a person's right to his religious beliefs and practice and a homosexual's rights, the homosexual must always win according to law or the law will not be passed. So California is a state with no religious freedom protection law.

That is the way I understand the situation.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 29, 2008, 09:19:55 PM
I wouldn't say that the case is closed necessarily. The problems with Adventists opposing Prop 8 on 1st Amendment grounds are these:

Almost all civil laws prohibiting certain kinds of conduct (theft, murder, rape) have their basis in religion. Do we do away with those laws because of their religious basis?

Obviously a lot of things have their origin in religion since God created everything. Even government was first created by God, but that doesn't negate the ability of secular societies to still create their own government separate from the Bible's standards. Like wise the ability to create laws that are similar to laws of the Bible but based entirely upon secular values.

While they have their basis in religion, there are many other religions besides the Judeo-Christian that have laws regulating against theft, murder and rape. Here in America those laws are based on the idea that they go against another person's right of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (US Declaration of Independence) or "life, liberty, or property" (US Constitution Bill or Rights). That is why stealing, murder and rape are illegal in America. Not because the Bible says they are. You can argue about the basis for the formation of America, whether the founding fathers were Christian's, Deist, Masons...etc. But the main point is that the laws of the country are based on the US Constitution, not the Bible unless you think we live in a present day Theocracy.


We ought not lose sight of the fact that the entire institution of marriage has a Biblical basis. If one takes the position that the state can't forbid marriage between men and men or women and women because that prohibition has a religious basis, then perhaps the state shouldn't be able to regulate marriage at all. Fathers should be able to marry their daughters or sons their mothers.  If we take it one more logical step forward, because marriage itself has religious roots, perhaps the state shouldn't recognize it at all!

Finally, there is absolutely no way that the Framers of the Constiitution would have considered Prop 8 to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Nor would any right-thinking court.

I am open minded regarding these questions but have heard no convincing answers from the "other side" of this issue.

Yes marriage was first created by God. However so were other things like government. Marriage you need to understand is not only a religious institution, but it is also a societal institution. As a result society has the right to define it as it wants to. In addition to that, the church also has the ability to define marriage as it wants to. No matter how Prop 8 turns out, the church will be able to define marriage in the context of its own religion.

Have you looked at who is supporting Prop 8 legislation? When you have powerful religious institutions like RCC, Knights of Columbus, LDS, Evangelical churches, Focus on the Family, and others getting involved with raising money, running ads, and publicly pushing for the passage of legislation, that is why you should start to worry.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 29, 2008, 09:34:02 PM
It is a simple and straight forward question. Does the state of California have the right to make civil laws that regulate marraige?

Yes California does have that right because it is a societal issue, not a religious one. If this was an issue within a particular church or religion, than "no" the state of California would not have that right to interfere. Unless of course that religion interpreted marriage in a manner that went against the principles of this country of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This is a state issue, so society gets to vote on it. Religion does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.


This is exactly the kind of public affairs issue in which the churches can legitimately have a voice. It is a distortion of the concept of separation of church and state to claim that it prohibits churches from having any voice in the public arena. That was never the intention of the First amendment and it has never been interpreted that way by the courts.

Just look at who the big backers behind the Pro-Prop8 are financially and publicly (RCC, Knights of Columbus, LDS, Evangelical churches, Focus on the Family). I just don't like the idea of church and state uniting behind this legislation. I think this is the beginning of what we will see more often in the future.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 29, 2008, 09:45:10 PM
Just another example of the interesting times that we live in. Well worth the read about what is going on with religion beginning to get involved with politics. EGW warned us about this long ago, it is exciting to see it come true in my life time.

"NEW YORK (CNN) -- We're about 40 days away from November's critically important midterm elections, and the campaign volume is rising.

The political strategists, campaign managers, and the partisan savants will be working overtime to excite their conservative, liberal, Republican and Democratic bases, trying to get at least 50 percent of us who've registered to vote to actually go to the polls.

As in election years past, they're going to have a lot of help, and not just from PACs, labor unions and 527 groups like MoveOn and Progress for America. Oh no, we're going to be treated to something akin to, and as close as we should expect to get to, divine intervention. Evangelical Christians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims and Mormons are already getting rowdy, not only on their respective pulpits, but in the mail, on the air and certainly on the campaign trails.

Now I know you're thinking that this is America, what is religion doing in politics and what is politics doing in religion. As it turns out, just about everything. And the politically correct orthodoxy would prefer you and I not take notice.

The First Amendment of our Constitution declares that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But the devil's in the details, if you will, and the often demonized Internal Revenue Service has taken up the issue where other federal agencies and branches of government have feared to tread: This summer the IRS sent out a warning letter to more than 15,000 churches and tax-exempt nonprofit organizations throughout the nation. The letter is meant to serve notice that any sort of politicking could endanger their tax-exempt status.

The IRS discovered a disturbing amount of intervention by religious groups in national politics in 2004. It determined nearly five dozen churches and charities violated laws against political activities, and there are now 40 active investigations into the politicking of various churches.

The mixture of religion and politics is on public display throughout the country. The Mormon Church rolled out the red carpet for Mexican President Vicente Fox, embraces illegal immigrants in the state of Utah and helped pro-amnesty incumbent Congressman Chris Cannon with a get out the vote campaign."
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 29, 2008, 09:45:25 PM
"Apparently nobody in the federal government is too concerned that the Catholic Church has repeatedly lobbied on behalf of millions of illegal aliens and their supporters for wholesale amnesty and open borders. Until the Supreme Court ordered him to, the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, didn't think he should cooperate with the law when it came to divulging information on priests accused of pedophilia, and he believes it is entirely correct to encourage his parishioners to civil disobedience in the case of legislation that secures our borders and punishes those who cross them illegally. The Cardinal disavows the will of the people in opposition to current law. Ironically he's now spearheading a drive to register a million new voters by 2008. Where he'll find them, only heaven knows.

The role of religion in politics and the role of politics in religion in this country has never deserved more attention and merited more intense examination than now. Religion is dominant in the lives of most Americans: The latest Gallup Poll reveals that nearly two-thirds of us are members of a church or synagogue and about one-third of us attend church or synagogue at least once a week.

Surveys show as many as 250 million Americans are Christian and 70 million of us describe ourselves as evangelicals. Clearly, Christian Americans could dominate our political system, and many argue that the outcome of the 2004 presidential election was determined by Catholic voters who shunned Catholic candidate Sen. John Kerry and bolstered born-again President George W. Bush, by a margin of 52 to 47.

What is the Constitutional and appropriate role of religion in our political lives. Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State says there are definite limits. "What houses of worship cannot do, under federal law, is to endorse or oppose candidates for public office. They may not use their resources to intervene in a partisan race. Houses of worship cannot become cogs in anyone's political machine."

But isn't that exactly what is happening today? Some churches and nonprofits have become extensions of both Democratic and Republican political message machines at the local and national level. The intrusion of religion into our political lives, in my opinion, should be rejected in the same fashion that we constitutionally guarantee government will not interfere with religion.

This issue is far too important to be left to the sole judgment of the Internal Revenue Service. And it is time for all of us to examine closely, both in our communities and in our Congress, just what separation of church and state really means to us and to the nation."
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 29, 2008, 10:15:47 PM
i have watched as christians were manipulated and coerced into an anti-homosexual and anti-abortion stance, then united into action, for the last 30 years.  when i came back into the church i just listened in open-mouthed amazement to the statements!! 

i have watched as the moral majority and christian coalition have done everything in their power to take over this nation "polling place by polling place".

i have watched as statements by our founding fathers of this nation have been taken out of context to justify doing away with the separation of church and state... just watch most any christian network on even a semiregular basis.

christians have been united on common ground.  the sunday law is right around the corner, and the same arguments, reasoning and rationalization will be used. 
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 29, 2008, 10:23:22 PM
Hillock, that is a good article from CNN. I read it rather quickly but the author of the article seems to see clearly what is going on. It seems that most people have little or no understanding of the history of the US much less the history of Europe through the centuries when Rome ruled and there was no separation of church and state. The statement in the article about church people being aligned behind particular political parties is easy to see, at least in my limited area. Even among Seventh-day Adventists. When the church has undue influence in government it always results in mischief.

That said, I have no problem with a church or churches supporting laws that are for the good of society. I see nothing wrong with that. It is when they exert their influence in areas like foriegn policy and the like that they have overstepped their boundries. As you say, we know from the Bible and the SOP what is coming. Our faith and our courage will be tested. It seems as though things are building up quickly for some major events.

One more thing, the pastor has asked us to keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and long statements and multiple postings to avoid the 500 word limit are discouraged. A number of people have said that they just do not read them and often I do not. The pastor has said he does not, so please keep in mind that the forum is for discussion and not long discourses. .

Yes I know my previous post was long but I wanted to answer teresa's question the best I could. . I get a little windy sometimes too buts lets try to keep the posts short and participatory.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 29, 2008, 10:29:29 PM
It is a bit involved, but I will give you the background.
It has to do with the first amendment to the US constitution. "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercize therof." The establishment clause has been held by the courts to mean no government favored religion and no government money to support any churches. The free exercise clause meant that government could not interfere in anyone's religious practices.

In 1990 there was a case in the state of Washington that changed everthing. Two men, both Native Americans were fired from their jobs as counselors in a drug rehabilitation program. The reason they were fired was because they admitted that they used peyote on certain occasions as part of their Native American religious practice. They applied for unemployment benefits and were denied because they were fired for cause. They sued the State Department of Employment charging them with discrimination on religious basis. They claimed that their first amendment rights, (the free exercize clause) had been violated. These men were not hippies using religion as an excuse to get high. Their use of peyote was an established ritual of the Native American Church and was perfectly legal.

Immediately after that decision came down, legislation was introduced in the US congress called the Religious Freedon Restoration Act, that restored the requirement that the state must show a pressing need. It was passed by the Senate and the House almost unanamously and became law, essentially nullifying the Supreme Court's decision.

A few years later, in 1998 I thinik, a Catholic church in Bourne Texas (ronounced "Bernie') decided to renovate and enlarge their church to accomadate their growing membership. The State of Texas said "No you cant alter the building in any way becasue it has "historical archetectural significance." The church sued claiming discrimination under the free exercize clause and it went to the US Supreme Court who ruled against the church. The court rulled that the Religious Freedon RestorationAct was invalid because the federal government does not have jurisdiction. It is up to the states to pass such laws.

That is where things now stand. Several states have passed religious freedom laws, but, and here's the answer to your question teresa, the California State Legislature is so liberal and the influence of the "gay rights" people is so strong, that any attempt to write an acceptable religious freedom law in California fails because it will not even leave committee and come up for a vote unless it has provisions that give homosexuals special treatment.
In other words, if there is a situation where there is a conflict between a person's right to his religious beliefs and practice and a homosexual's rights, the homosexual must always win according to law or the law will not be passed. So California is a state with no religious freedom protection law.

That is the way I understand the situation.

up to the last paragraph i saw nothing that had anything to do with homosexual rights vs religious rights and that was my request.  

as to the native americans and peyote.  not all native americans had religious rites with peyote, only a very few.   i happened to hear a particular native american who was very concerned over this issue since his tribe had never used peyote in their religious rites and was now given the "right" to have one more "killer" of his people.  more research needs to be done on this issue.

Quote
That is where things now stand. Several states have passed religious freedom laws, but, and here's the answer to your question teresa, the California State Legislature is so liberal and the influence of the "gay rights" people is so strong, that any attempt to write an acceptable religious freedom law in California fails because it will not even leave committee and come up for a vote unless it has provisions that give homosexuals special treatment.
In other words, if there is a situation where there is a conflict between a person's right to his religious beliefs and practice and a homosexual's rights, the homosexual must always win according to law or the law will not be passed. So California is a state with no religious freedom protection law.


for example, please.  what laws specifically have been hindered, and in what way?


Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on October 30, 2008, 03:27:43 AM

Have you looked at who is supporting Prop 8 legislation? When you have powerful religious institutions like RCC, Knights of Columbus, LDS, Evangelical churches, Focus on the Family, and others getting involved with raising money, running ads, and publicly pushing for the passage of legislation, that is why you should start to worry.


Just because those organizations support a particular piece of legislation doesn't mean the legislation is bad.  The RCC and most of those other organizations you mentioned also support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and are against euthanasia.  Does that mean the SDA Church should distance itself from taking a pro-life stand on these issues?  That would be ridiculous.  There is a big difference between partnering with these organizations (which, if I understand it correctly,  would go against SOP counsel), and supporting proposed legislation which they just happen to also support.

No, I don't worry about it when organization such as these support good laws.  I start to become concerned when they advocate policies which weaken the separation of church and state--which a law defining marriage does not do.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ahillock on October 30, 2008, 07:18:55 AM

One more thing, the pastor has asked us to keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and long statements and multiple postings to avoid the 500 word limit are discouraged. A number of people have said that they just do not read them and often I do not. The pastor has said he does not, so please keep in mind that the forum is for discussion and not long discourses. .

Yes I know my previous post was long but I wanted to answer teresa's question the best I could. . I get a little windy sometimes too buts lets try to keep the posts short and participatory.
Thank you.

Sorry about that. I understand, but there was no other way to post the article which I felt was beneficial to the discussion at hand so I had to split it in half. I know that we live in a ADD society, but the article was short so hopefully those willing to read it could benefit from it. If you need to edit it, that is fine.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: colporteur on October 30, 2008, 07:27:42 AM
I believe that there is evidence under the surface that would suggest that while the RCC publically comes out against abortion they are actually facilitating it. This way they can look like the good guy to the more conservative public. It is the old trick of working to create the need and then coming to the rescue as the hero. This they do over and over again. It is like secretly shooting the guy so you can show everyone how good a surgeon you are at removing bullets. It looks good on the surface but is diabolical at the root. Since this system is referred to in the Great controversy as Satan's masterpiece of deception we can be sure that no good thing can come out of Rome other than what God turns for good.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 30, 2008, 10:50:52 AM
up to the last paragraph i saw nothing that had anything to do with homosexual rights vs religious rights and that was my request.  

as to the native americans and peyote.  not all native americans had religious rites with peyote, only a very few.   i happened to hear a particular native american who was very concerned over this issue since his tribe had never used peyote in their religious rites and was now given the "right" to have one more "killer" of his people.  more research needs to be done on this issue.
 

for example, please.  what laws specifically have been hindered, and in what way?



Teresa there is no religious freedom law in California to be hindred because a religious freedom law cannot be passed without favoring homosexual rights over religious freedom.  The point of my post was to explain how this came about. The US Supreme Court eliminated the need for the state to prove a "pressing need" if they decide to interfere with your religious practice.  There is in effect no federal protection for your first amendment right to the free exercize of your religion. You may live in a state that has passed its own religious freedom laws, but if you live in California, you do not. The reason there is no free exercize protection in California is because a law protecting religious freedom cannot be passed unless it gives  homosexual rights over religious freedom rights.

I thought it would be good to understand how it came about that the first amendment to the constitution has been practically nullified by the Supreme Court and the current administration. The "faith based" social welfare programs have esentially nullified the establishment clause.

As a reminder, the first amendment to the constitution has a "free exercize clause" that was to prevent the government from preventing or interfering with our religious practices, and an "establishment clause" that was supposed to prevent the government from favoring any religion over any other and prevent the churches from seeking money or other support from the government.  What is left of our Constitutional rights are hanging by a thread.

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: reaching4heaven on October 30, 2008, 11:13:38 AM
I thought it would be good to understand how it came about that the first amendment to the constitution has been practically nullified by the Supreme Court and the current administration.

Thanks, Larry, I appreciated reading the history.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on October 30, 2008, 12:20:40 PM
Teresa there is no religious freedom law in California to be hindred because a religious freedom law cannot be passed without favoring homosexual rights over religious freedom.  The point of my post was to explain how this came about. The US Supreme Court eliminated the need for the state to prove a "pressing need" if they decide to interfere with your religious practice.  There is in effect no federal protection for your first amendment right to the free exercize of your religion. You may live in a state that has passed its own religious freedom laws, but if you live in California, you do not. The reason there is no free exercize protection in California is because a law protecting religious freedom cannot be passed unless it gives  homosexual rights over religious freedom rights.

I thought it would be good to understand how it came about that the first amendment to the constitution has been practically nullified by the Supreme Court and the current administration. The "faith based" social welfare programs have esentially nullified the establishment clause.

As a reminder, the first amendment to the constitution has a "free exercize clause" that was to prevent the government from preventing or interfering with our religious practices, and an "establishment clause" that was supposed to prevent the government from favoring any religion over any other and prevent the churches from seeking money or other support from the government.  What is left of our Constitutional rights are hanging by a thread.

from what i understand our constitutional rights were pretty much taken away by this war and fear.

ill have to ask around to see whos religious freedoms have been taken away in california. 

i know about the "faith based iniatives".

sorry, i must not be getting the point.  i really do not see the connection between gay rights and religious freedom, since i dont know what specifically is wanted to be pushed in cali legislation and how gay rights would interfere with that.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 30, 2008, 01:20:02 PM
from what i understand our constitutional rights were pretty much taken away by this war and fear.

ill have to ask around to see whos religious freedoms have been taken away in california. 

i know about the "faith based iniatives".

sorry, i must not be getting the point.  i really do not see the connection between gay rights and religious freedom, since i dont know what specifically is wanted to be pushed in cali legislation and how gay rights would interfere with that.
i can give you a hypothetical situation. Suppose a religious liberty law was passed in California that contains the provision that in any confilict between religious rights and homosexual rights, the rights of the homosexual must be favored over religious rights. Suppose a Seventh-day Adventist academy or another Bible teaching church school hired a teacher and the teacher announced to their class that they were invloved in a homosexual relationship, and that there is nothing wrong with it. The school fires the teacher based on the fact that the teacher does not teach or represent the standards or beliefs of the Church. The teacher could claim discrimination and under such a law as I described, they would win and the church school would be forced to give them their job back and there would be nothing the church could do about it.

The homosexual activists insist that any law protecting religious rights in California must provide that homosexual rights be favored over religious rights if there is a conflict between them. That kind of law would be unacceptable. So as long as the political situation remains as it is, California will likely have no religious freedom protection law. For several years homosexual activists have worked with the liberal majority in Sacramento and supported their candidates and donated plenty of campaign money. They have a lot of influence in California politics.

If you contact the Religious Liberty attorneys I'm sure they could explain it a lot better.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on November 05, 2008, 08:39:20 PM
I was disappointed with most of the results of last night's election, but I am thankful to God that He moved on the hearts of voters in 3 states (Calif, Florida, and Arizona) to stay the winds of the godless immoral forces who would want to force gay marriage into our society.

California was especially surprising since it is such a liberal state. But the prayers and incredible efforts of thousands of volunteers and prayer warriors resulted in a convincing vote to amend the constitution of California banning gay marriage.

Since I live in California, I am especially thankful that the people of our state decided to draw a line in the sand against gay marriage--something that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. The gay movement has made giant strides in a very short period of time to bring this monumental change in the very fabric of our society.  There was a school in San Francisco which took the first grade class to a lesbian wedding, and called this a "teachable moment".  The schools in Massachussetts where gay mariage is legal is teaching school children that this is just another acceptable lifestyle.

Any society which accepts gay marriage, and the associated abominable acts associated with it, will not survive long, or be a leader in the world.

Stan
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on November 06, 2008, 04:04:53 AM
I was disappointed with most of the results of last night's election, but I am thankful to God that He moved on the hearts of voters in 3 states (Calif, Florida, and Arizona) to stay the winds of the godless immoral forces who would want to force gay marriage into our society.

California was especially surprising since it is such a liberal state. But the prayers and incredible efforts of thousands of volunteers and prayer warriors resulted in a convincing vote to amend the constitution of California banning gay marriage.

Since I live in California, I am especially thankful that the people of our state decided to draw a line in the sand against gay marriage--something that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. The gay movement has made giant strides in a very short period of time to bring this monumental change in the very fabric of our society.  There was a school in San Francisco which took the first grade class to a lesbian wedding, and called this a "teachable moment".  The schools in Massachussetts where gay mariage is legal is teaching school children that this is just another acceptable lifestyle.

Any society which accepts gay marriage, and the associated abominable acts associated with it, will not survive long, or be a leader in the world.

Stan

Of course, the radical elements of the gay community have already filed a legal challenge to Prop. 8 in the Calif. Supreme Court.  One of their arguments is that the law "removes a 'protected'  constitutional right" from only one group of Californians, and is therefore discriminatory.  This is nonsense, of course, since marriage has never been permitted for just anyone.  It has always been restricted to some extent:  there is an age limit; one cannot marry a sibling, or other close relative; ; polygamy is still illegal; there may be others I am not aware of.

As is normal in this debate, the arguments in favor of same sex "marriage" are illogical and convoluted.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Deborah Risinger on November 06, 2008, 05:36:02 AM
Being born and raised in California, I too am happy to see so many stand up !!

It is heartbreaking to watch something you love dearly get hammered...California has really gotten it (in a matter of speaking) for many years....but as we can all see....there are still some left that are standing. Amen

God Keep Us All
Deborah

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 12, 2008, 05:03:23 PM


Any society which accepts gay marriage, and the associated abominable acts associated with it, will not survive long, or be a leader in the world.

Stan

just curious how much longer you think we have? 

will the global economic situation somehow right itself now? 
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on November 12, 2008, 06:14:14 PM
just curious how much longer you think we have? 

will the global economic situation somehow right itself now? 

Any speculation on these two questions, especially the first one, would be pointless.  The point is not how much time we have, but rather, are we ready now?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 15, 2008, 02:08:15 PM
 there was an email sent out saying, among other things, that the fires in cali were not just a coincidence given the allowance of a certain  kind of marriage.

not many days ago a new law was enacted in california defining marriage.  just days later, another devastating fire has wiped out over 100 homes and still isnt stopped.  another lie blown out of the water!!

maybe we should stop blaming the "judgments" of God on other peoples sins and start looking to our own sins that are causing these judgments across the land.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on November 15, 2008, 03:02:14 PM
there was an email sent out saying, among other things, that the fires in cali were not just a coincidence given the allowance of a certain  kind of marriage.

not many days ago a new law was enacted in california defining marriage.  just days later, another devastating fire has wiped out over 100 homes and still isnt stopped.  another lie blown out of the water!!

maybe we should stop blaming the "judgments" of God on other peoples sins and start looking to our own sins that are causing these judgments across the land.

It's interesting that you would say that.  Sister White says that when the angels loose the 4 winds of strife, the wicked will blame us for all the judgments in the land.  But you seem to be blaming us now.  Would you care to enumerate these sins of ours which are responsible for the hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires?  It was our fault that these fires broke out in Calif., that hurricanes ravaged Texas, and tornadoes brought widespread destruction in other parts of the country?  The perversions of the wicked had no bearing on it?  Isn't it just possible that God has been removing some of His protection (as He has in the past), and allowing the devil to have his way in some areas.  When the wicked cities (like San Francisco) are visited with judgments, as SF was in 1906, and as it will again, according to the SOP, will that also be caused by our sins?

Every disaster is not necessarily a judgment of God, but I'm not convinced that they should always be passed off as coincidence.  Never before in the history of Calif. have there been anywhere near that many lightening caused fires at one time.  It should cause an honest hearted person to wonder if something more than coincidence was involved.  The recent fires (this past week) were not that unusual, when compared with past history.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: colporteur on November 15, 2008, 04:35:59 PM
there was an email sent out saying, among other things, that the fires in cali were not just a coincidence given the allowance of a certain  kind of marriage.

not many days ago a new law was enacted in california defining marriage.  just days later, another devastating fire has wiped out over 100 homes and still isnt stopped.  another lie blown out of the water!!

maybe we should stop blaming the "judgments" of God on other peoples sins and start looking to our own sins that are causing these judgments across the land.

While we are not able to look behind the scenes or know all the particulars about why certain clamaties are happening in certain areas we are told that wicked cites will be and are being visited by the judgments of God. Because California did not go with homosexual couples as being legally married does not mean there is not gross iniquity there which includes much homosexual perversion.

Could you clairfiy your last statement ? It sounds very much like how the Great Controversy depicts the world's views against SDAs. Are you saying that SDAs are causing the disfavor of God upon the land?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on November 17, 2008, 09:43:15 PM
We had a close call with the fires, as we live in Anaheim Hills. The 90+ degree heat plus the fierce hot winds fanned the flames. Orange County is one of the most conservative and evangelical counties, and voted in strong opposition to gay marriage or pro Prop 8. I doubt this had anything to do with the fires that we nearly had to evacuate from.

I did not notice the parallel thread on this topic that was locked earlier. In a way I am glad it was locked. The arguments of those defending gay marriage on that thread were very sad indeed.

There was one using very high sounding intellectual arguments throwing all kinds of court decisions at us to try to impress us with his intellectual acumen to try to support such an evil distortion of God's most basic law for all society to follow.

It is absolutely ridiculous to conclude that this is a matter of separation of church and state. Proposition 8 is a fight for the very survival of civilization as we know it.

It is only a matter of time that those vocal voices on here supporting gay marriage will get their way, as the courts are very likely to overthrow what WE THE PEOPLE have decided.

Stan
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 17, 2008, 10:11:13 PM
We had a close call with the fires, as we live in Anaheim Hills. The 90+ degree heat plus the fierce hot winds fanned the flames. Orange County is one of the most conservative and evangelical counties, and voted in strong opposition to gay marriage or pro Prop 8. I doubt this had anything to do with the fires that we nearly had to evacuate from.

I did not notice the parallel thread on this topic that was locked earlier. In a way I am glad it was locked. The arguments of those defending gay marriage on that thread were very sad indeed.

There was one using very high sounding intellectual arguments throwing all kinds of court decisions at us to try to impress us with his intellectual acumen to try to support such an evil distortion of God's most basic law for all society to follow.

It is absolutely ridiculous to conclude that this is a matter of separation of church and state. Proposition 8 is a fight for the very survival of civilization as we know it.

It is only a matter of time that those vocal voices on here supporting gay marriage will get their way, as the courts are very likely to overthrow what WE THE PEOPLE have decided.

Stan
Soli, I'm glad that you were not one of those who lost their homes in the fire. It is amazing how something like a fire, over which we have absolutely no control can make us realize how dependent we are on God for His daily care and protection.

We need to be careful about trying to put blame for catastrophies on someone's sin. Jesus warned against doing that. When I read about the 4 PUC kids killed in the car crash.  I started wondering if they were out drinking that late Sat night. We hear such negative things sometimes about our schools and some of the behavior of the students these days. But that was not the case. They had been playing basketball in the college gym. I was a bit ashamed of myself when I read the article that described each one of them. They were good kids, all committed Christians and involved in outreach and preparing themselves for careers in which they could serve God.

(1)There were present at that season some who told Him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
(2) And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the gallileans because they suffered such things?
(3) I tell you nay, but except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.
(4) Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, adn slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all that dwell in Jerusalem?
(5) I tell ye nay, but except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.
(Luke 13: 1-5)

Regardless of who He may have been speaking to, there is a principle that we should notice. I thought of those verses when the tsunami killed over 200 thousand people in the South Pacific. 
But I do believe we should pay close attention to the obvious escalation of earthquakes, and fires, and wars, and famines , and financial collapse, and the steady transformation of our nation into something much different than it was a few years back. The stage is certainly set for a rapid series of end time events which will come as an "overwhelming surprise" to the world.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 18, 2008, 05:39:55 AM
Since we don't live in a theocracy, I would like to have some evidence supporting Prop8 from a non-religious view that still supports the separation of church and state with out using religious definitions. I was not trying to "impress you with intellectual acumen to support an evil distortion of God's most basic law for all society to follow." I used the previous court decisions to show also that the 1st Amendment goes the other way to separate state from church as well as church from state. You can not have laws that prefer one religion over another. This country is setup to be religiously neutral when making laws. You can not create laws catering to a certain religion or what it wants. That is what is taking place here. A question I have is; when is it a violation of church and state then? Only when the state "establishes a religion"? Rather than us try to define separation of church and state as we see fit or as we want, please let us look at objective evidence such as court cases that have dealt with the issue of separation of church and state. Please read the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) in which it: "Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion." Did Prop8 have a secular purpose or agenda? Who was it that supported Prop8 with money, advertising, volunteers...etc.? Did it advance one religions viewpoint over anothers? Did it entangle government and religion?

Another question is why don't we continue to fight for prohibition? You can just as easily argue that is a fight for the "very survival of civilization as we know it." If EGW mentioned we should stand for it in her time, why not now? The truth is truth, no matter when, right? Or is it only when we decide it is so? Or when it is convenient to do so? To pick and choose what moral issues to create political laws for is a sad sad thing. No one has said the church can not define marriage in its own setting, the church. This issue at its core is separation of church and state from my opinion.

Note: I do not support homosexuality. I believe it is a sin and the Bible clearly states this fact. I am not trying to defend homosexuality in anyway by my position.

Respectfully, your use of the Lemon test really doesn't prove anything. If you want to apply Lemon to Prop. 8, you need to examine how the Supreme Court has applied that test since 1971. You also need to examine how the various Federal circuit courts have applied Lemon. Unless you do that, you haven't really conducted a legal analysis and injecting Lemon into the argument is not all that helpful.

You previousliy mentioned several different views on constitutional interpretation. Under the textualist/originalist view, which is the only legitimate position in my opinion, there is no way that the First Amendment prohibits Prop. 8.  In other words, there is no way that the Framers would have seen the establishment clause as a bar to a state's effort to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. To think that Washington, Adams, Franklin, Madison, etc. would have ever dreamed that First Amendment could be used to argue for same-sex marriage boggles the mind.

There is another fundamental problem with your position: marriage as defined and regulated by the various states in this country clearly has Judeo/Christian origins.  Under your logic, the state's very acknowledgment and regulation of marriage constitutes a violation of the establishment clause.

I will close by saying that I am somewhat disturbed by the Church's resorting to the political process to achieve an end (protecting the sanctity of marriage).  Giving the prevailing mood the existence of activist, out of control courts, I am not sure what other course the Church could take.

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 18, 2008, 07:37:53 AM
Slingshot, I appreciate your view point.

Thank you, and I yours.

In regard to Lemon, the principles of separation of church and state were further explained by that case; that is the importance of it historically. I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't really prove anything"?

My point was that the Lemon test is just that: a test. In order to fully understand the test, you have to examine how the Court and the Federal circuits have defined and expounded on each of the three Lemon prongs. There are a multitude of cases in courts have more fully explained how the Lemon test is applied. Until you your hands around those, then Lemon doesn't really mean anything. The opinion is 37 years old. There is a lot of legal water under the bridge since then.

In my opinion it proved the courts opinion of the definition of separation of church and state.
Yes, it is the Court's definition. As to whether that's the right definition....that may be another matter.  

One might disagree with this definition if one likes, however that is how the court viewed it. The US Supreme Court itself has applied the Lemon test as recently as 2000 in the case of Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). In examining the court case as you requested, the Court decided that it was illegal for student lead prayer to take place during a football game. Due to the three tenets that the Lemon case setup for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state. The action to have prayer at football game did not have a secular purpose, it attempted to advance religion, and there was entanglement between religion and government.

That's one case. You only have about another 150 to go!  :-D

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 18, 2008, 07:39:09 AM
ahillock wrote:

Many would argue that the textualist/strict constructionist view has many faults of its own. If you literally take this view point, you have problems with certain circumstances. Take the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. If you take a textualist view, then there are no limits to freedom of speech.

I can see why you might think that but that's not the case. Legislatures may impose appropriate limits on speech but may do so only as long as they stay faithful to the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers. (Incidentally, I think the best analysis is that the 1st Amendment protects only political speech. Sorry, People don't have a constitutional right to express themselves through being a stripper.) The language of the text and the intention of the Framers, as evinced through things like the Federalist Papers and legal principles and systems of their day, is readily discernible. Once you break away from the text, the law becomes whatever a judge says it is.  That is what is happening today as judges "discover" prinicples like the "right" to marry whoever you want.

So what about being in a crowded hall and yelling a false warning on purpose of "Fire, Fire" or "Bomb, Bomb." Would you not be held responsible for your actions if people were trampled to death? Under a textualist/strict constructionist view you would not.

That is incorrect. As this speech is not political, it is not protected under the First Amendment. Don't worry: religious speech is protected under the Free Exercise Clause.

While many of the country's founding principles and laws were founded upon Judeo/Christian origins, we now live in a pluralistic and polytheistic society. We also live in a society were people are free to be areligious and not be branded as witches and lunatics. So to take the examples of 300 years ago and say that is how things should still work today, I believe is a false assumption.

I never said that the we should apply 18th century religious standards. I said that we need to be faithful to the language of the Constitution. Under the language of the Constitution, Wicca is  protected from government interference.

The church has the right to define what it wants in its own context of the church, the state has the right to define what it wants in the context of the state.

Agreed.

The two should not mingle. As far as your statement that "state's very acknowledgment and regulation of marriage constitutes a violation of the establishment clause" I believe that to be false. The Christian church does not have a monopoly on marriage as Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Wiccaism...etc. believe in marriage as well; even if they don't believe in the creation story of Genesis. So to say only Judeo/Christians have the "right view" of marriage is false. The state also has the right to define marriage as the church does not have a monopoly on this.

You missed my point. I did not say that the Judeo/Christian view of marriage is the only "right view" legally. What I said is that American marriage has an undeniable Judeo/Christian basis. (Unless you want to argue that North Carolina's laws on marriage are based on Buddhist notions of marriage.)  So, again, using your logic, our civil marriage laws are a violation of the Establishment Clause because they are based on Judeo/Christian principles.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 18, 2008, 01:06:11 PM
i must be missing the point because i understood marriage was "invented" long before there were any "jews" and was practiced generally by every society.  according to the bible even before the flood, and by those who were not "judeo/christian",  meaning followers of God, i guess the assumption is.

when israel was set up by God as a people and theocracy a man was allowed to have multiple wives.  certainly appears to be a distortion of marriage and its original intention to me.  perhaps others see it differently.   did God see that as a perversion of the institution along with the pain and suffering it caused all parties?   
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 18, 2008, 01:10:07 PM

Could you clairfiy your last statement ? It sounds very much like how the Great Controversy depicts the world's views against SDAs. Are you saying that SDAs are causing the disfavor of God upon the land?

im at a loss.  can you explain how you got from my statement below to your conclusions above?

Quote
maybe we should stop blaming the "judgments" of God on other peoples sins and start looking to our own sins that are causing these judgments across the land.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 18, 2008, 01:10:49 PM
i must be missing the point because i understood marriage was "invented" long before there were any "jews" and was practiced generally by every society.  according to the bible even before the flood, and by those who were not "judeo/christian",  meaning followers of God, i guess the assumption is.

when israel was set up by God as a people and theocracy a man was allowed to have multiple wives.  certainly appears to be a distortion of marriage and its original intention to me.  perhaps others see it differently.   did God see that as a perversion of the institution along with the pain and suffering it caused all parties?   

I am afraid that you did miss my point. Marriage as an institution in the United States is firmly grounded in Judeo/Christian principles. I think that this point is indisputable.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 18, 2008, 04:27:54 PM
I am afraid that you did miss my point. Marriage as an institution in the United States is firmly grounded in Judeo/Christian principles. I think that this point is indisputable.

what was/is marriage as an institution based on in other societies?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 18, 2008, 05:00:51 PM
what was/is marriage as an institution based on in other societies?
Teresa, according to what we read in history and descriptions of other cultures, I would say that tradition, plus economic and political considerations have played a big part.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Thomas on November 18, 2008, 05:54:17 PM
Hello everyone. I have been following this discussion and have found it to be quite interesting. Thank you for the variety of points of view.

Larry, thanks for your post. When you mention that "tradition, plus economic and political considerations have played a big part" in marriage, couldn't one argue that if tradition changes or political considerations change so could the definition of marriage?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 18, 2008, 06:28:14 PM
what was/is marriage as an institution based on in other societies?

I don't understand what that question has to do with this discussion. We are discussing marriage in an American context and under American law. What do how other cultures and other political systems address these issues have to do with the Church's stance on Prop 8? Help me out!  :-D
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 18, 2008, 07:50:46 PM
Teresa, according to what we read in history and descriptions of other cultures, I would say that tradition, plus economic and political considerations have played a big part.

so, the marriage institution in america originated/is based on judeo-christian principles,  but the marriage institution in other societies is based on/originated from something else?


what im hearing is that the marriage institution practiced whereever by whomever did not originate/is not based on creation along with the sabbath?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 18, 2008, 08:05:40 PM
I don't understand what that question has to do with this discussion. We are discussing marriage in an American context and under American law. What do how other cultures and other political systems address these issues have to do with the Church's stance on Prop 8? Help me out!  :-D

im trying to follow the logic that the marriage institution in america is based on judeo-christian ethics and not at the creation along with the sabbath.  im also trying to figure out that makes it any different from marriage anywhere else.

Quote
You missed my point. I did not say that the Judeo/Christian view of marriage is the only "right view" legally. What I said is that American marriage has an undeniable Judeo/Christian basis. (Unless you want to argue that North Carolina's laws on marriage are based on Buddhist notions of marriage.)  So, again, using your logic, our civil marriage laws are a violation of the Establishment Clause because they are based on Judeo/Christian principles.


did anyone know that the founding fathers never coined the term judeo-christian ethics?  that eisenhower made it popular in the 1950s?  are we curious as to why?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 18, 2008, 09:00:40 PM
im trying to follow the logic that the marriage institution in america is based on judeo-christian ethics and not at the creation along with the sabbath.  im also trying to figure out that makes it any different from marriage anywhere else.
 

did anyone know that the founding fathers never coined the term judeo-christian ethics?  that eisenhower made it popular in the 1950s?  are we curious as to why?

We are talking about Prop 8 and American law and not about law or marriage in other cultures.

Obviously, we know that Marriage originated at creation.  American law does not acknowledge that fact. Nonetheless, American laws regarding marriage have, until the gay marriage laws, been based upon Judeo/Christian notions of marriage.  Thus, even though the laws do not overtly make references to Genesis or Leviticus, for example, they are based upon general Biblical ideas regarding valid and invalid marriages and relationships.

I know that the Founders did not use the phrase "Judeo/Christian." What do the origins of the term have to do with this discussion? Teresa, I don't understand your last two questions. If you'd like to make a point why not just make it without the rhetorical questions? Thanks.  :-)
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 18, 2008, 10:54:33 PM
im trying to follow the logic that the marriage institution in america is based on judeo-christian ethics and not at the creation along with the sabbath.  im also trying to figure out that makes it any different from marriage anywhere else.
 

did anyone know that the founding fathers never coined the term judeo-christian ethics?  that eisenhower made it popular in the 1950s?  are we curious as to why?
What are getting at Teresa? Are you trying to make a point about proposition 8? I don't understand.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 19, 2008, 12:12:21 AM
Hello everyone. I have been following this discussion and have found it to be quite interesting. Thank you for the variety of points of view.

Larry, thanks for your post. When you mention that "tradition, plus economic and political considerations have played a big part" in marriage, couldn't one argue that if tradition changes or political considerations change so could the definition of marriage?
Yes, and it is always a deterioration like during the French Revolution. That is the only instance that comes to mind.  But after the people got weary of war and terror and a complete disruption of society, they reverted back, more or less, to their previous traditions and religious views, which would include marraige. 
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Deborah Risinger on November 19, 2008, 08:15:11 PM
Adam and Eve.....be fruitful and multiply....gloves are made for "hands"....men are made to fit women....vice-versa

Basic anatomy.... :- :lol: :lol: :lol:

This conversation reminds me of those who do not want to except the obvious....(I am from San Fran...I know of what I speak).

If it is soooo difficult to except the obvious, how does one except "Biblical truth" that makes "no sense" to the natural man?

Forgive me for expressing myself this way....I am just supprised by "some parts" of this conversation....

I expect non-christians to wrestle with this topic....Perhaps I am not understanding.  Is there an effort to solve this (definition of marriage) in a "legal" fashion...or is there something else going on? 


Thanks for the help.

God's Blessings'
Deborah
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: teresa on November 19, 2008, 08:56:41 PM
We are talking about Prop 8 and American law and not about law or marriage in other cultures.

Obviously, we know that Marriage originated at creation.  American law does not acknowledge that fact. Nonetheless, American laws regarding marriage have, until the gay marriage laws, been based upon Judeo/Christian notions of marriage.  Thus, even though the laws do not overtly make references to Genesis or Leviticus, for example, they are based upon general Biblical ideas regarding valid and invalid marriages and relationships.

I know that the Founders did not use the phrase "Judeo/Christian." What do the origins of the term have to do with this discussion? Teresa, I don't understand your last two questions. If you'd like to make a point why not just make it without the rhetorical questions? Thanks.  :-)

american law does not acknowledge creation and marriage but it acknowledges judeo/christian "notions of marriage".  doesnt that still make it based on religion?  and who and when decided that it was based on "judeo-christian ethics?

Quote
by slingshot Posted on: November 18, 2008, 08:39:09 AM:
You missed my point. I did not say that the Judeo/Christian view of marriage is the only "right view" legally. What I said is that American marriage has an undeniable Judeo/Christian basis. (Unless you want to argue that North Carolina's laws on marriage are based on Buddhist notions of marriage.)  So, again, using your logic, our civil marriage laws are a violation of the Establishment Clause because they are based on Judeo/Christian principles.

Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 19, 2008, 10:52:41 PM
Adam and Eve.....be fruitful and multiply....gloves are made for "hands"....men are made to fit women....vice-versa

Basic anatomy.... :- :lol: :lol: :lol:

This conversation reminds me of those who do not want to except the obvious....(I am from San Fran...I know of what I speak).

If it is soooo difficult to except the obvious, how does one except "Biblical truth" that makes "no sense" to the natural man?

Forgive me for expressing myself this way....I am just supprised by "some parts" of this conversation....

I expect non-christians to wrestle with this topic....Perhaps I am not understanding.  Is there an effort to solve this (definition of marriage) in a "legal" fashion...or is there something else going on? 


Thanks for the help.

God's Blessings'
Deborah

Thank you Deborah!
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on November 20, 2008, 01:56:35 AM
Adam and Eve.....be fruitful and multiply....gloves are made for "hands"....men are made to fit women....vice-versa

Basic anatomy.... :- :lol: :lol: :lol:

This conversation reminds me of those who do not want to except the obvious....(I am from San Fran...I know of what I speak).

If it is soooo difficult to except the obvious, how does one except "Biblical truth" that makes "no sense" to the natural man?

Forgive me for expressing myself this way....I am just supprised by "some parts" of this conversation....

I expect non-christians to wrestle with this topic....Perhaps I am not understanding.  Is there an effort to solve this (definition of marriage) in a "legal" fashion...or is there something else going on? 


Thanks for the help.

God's Blessings'
Deborah


I will join Larry in thanking you for this funny and timely post on this thread. We don't need to quote bunches of court cases to determine the obvious.

Stan
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 20, 2008, 02:27:37 AM
I will join Larry in thanking you for this funny and timely post on this thread. We don't need to quote bunches of court cases to determine the obvious.

Stan
I do appreciate slingshot for not allowing the attempt  to use legal arguments to try to support the claim that the church was violating the concept of separation of church and state by its support of prop. 8. It was good to have a real attorney to deal with that.

The election has been over for quite awhile. Maybe we can move on.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 20, 2008, 05:52:49 AM
american law does not acknowledge creation and marriage but it acknowledges judeo/christian "notions of marriage".  doesnt that still make it based on religion?  and who and when decided that it was based on "judeo-christian ethics?

Of course it's based on religion. The entire Western legal system has religious roots. Our ideas of tort, contract, and criminal law all derive, at least in part, from the Bible, which means that our legal system has Judeo/Christian roots. No one "decided" it -- Christian societies constructed legal systems that reflected their values hence the legal system has a decidely Christian perspective. Since the conversion of Europe to Christianity, it has always been that way. It has been that way in America since our founding.

Which leads to my earlier point: Marriage is a fundamentally religious institution. In the West, it's a Christian institution. In other parts of the world, it's based on other religious worldviews. In any case, for the state to regulate or even acknowledge marriage is to acknowledge an institution based on religion.

Those who oppose Prop 8 on the ground that it violates the separation of church and state have a problem. Their position is that it's OK for the state to acknowledge and regulate a religiously-based institution (marriage). They also believe that the state cannot prevent homosexual marriage because that prohibition has a religious basis. Their position is fundamentally illogical.

Another problem with their position is that if followed to its logical conclusion, anybody can marry anybody. Bans on marriage between father and daughter, brother and sister, etc. have religious bases. In the homosexual lobby's brave new world, brother could marry brother and sister marry sister! Are these barriers to be eliminated as well because they violate the separation between church and state? 

Teresa, I must confess that I'm getting a bit frustrated....I still don't understand what your point is. If you'd like to make a point, please just make it. I get the feeling that you're asking questions to get me to see something but I guess I'm just too dense to get it. If I have misunderstood, please forgive me.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 20, 2008, 05:53:22 AM
I do appreciate slingshot for not allowing the attempt  to use legal arguments to try to support the claim that the church was violating the concept of separation of church and state by its support of prop. 8. It was good to have a real attorney to deal with that.

The election has been over for quite awhile. Maybe we can move on.

You are very welcome. To whom shall I send my bill?  :-D
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: colporteur on November 20, 2008, 07:36:53 AM
At the risk of sounding crude...and for all the mechanics,.... The mfg of the Yugo did not develop what was to be exclusively the exhaust pipe to work as the intake manifold. It is a no brainer. Sorry if this analogy is too graphic. And you thought, Deborah, that your expression was questionable.  :roll:
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Slingshot on November 20, 2008, 07:45:10 AM
At the risk of sounding crude...and for all the mechanics,.... The mfg of the Yugo did not develop what was to be exlcusively the exhaust pipe to work as the intake manifold. It is a no brainer. Sorry if this analogy is too graphic. And you thought, Deborah, that your expression was questionable.  :roll:

That is funny. And creative.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: newbie on November 20, 2008, 10:19:43 AM
At the risk of sounding crude...and for all the mechanics,.... The mfg of the Yugo did not develop what was to be exlcusively the exhaust pipe to work as the intake manifold. It is a no brainer. Sorry if this analogy is too graphic. And you thought, Deborah, that your expression was questionable.  :roll:

Can I use that?  Cp you are a master at words to make a point very clear and cutting.  :-D
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Deborah Risinger on November 20, 2008, 12:21:28 PM
 :lol: :lol: :lol: to-shay'   Cp...

Deborah
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 20, 2008, 01:15:06 PM
You are very welcome. To whom shall I send my bill?  :-D
Send it to  Alan Reinach, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Director for the Pacific Union Conference.   :-D
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: colporteur on November 20, 2008, 08:12:06 PM
Send it to  Alan Reinach, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Director for the Pacific Union Conference.   :-D

  Why not ? :-D
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: colporteur on November 20, 2008, 08:17:11 PM
Can I use that?  Cp you are a master at words to make a point very clear and cutting.  :-D

I don't know that it was that special my friends but there is no copyright.  :-D  Besides... Deborah inspired it.  :-D
When it comes to analogies my mind sometimes flows in peculiar channels. In terms of posts that are clear and cutting, that's the nature of the topic. Sometimes it hurts. :wink:
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ejclark on November 21, 2008, 07:41:06 AM
I've not been following this thread very closely, so forgive me if I repeat something already mentioned.

Why would our society make legal homosexual marriage when the activity underwhich it is based is the root of HIV and Aids?

Biblical and religious reasons aside, until the homosexual community can rid these two problems, I don't see how they can even have a leg to stand on in the arena of debate.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on November 21, 2008, 11:07:20 AM
I do appreciate slingshot for not allowing the attempt  to use legal arguments to try to support the claim that the church was violating the concept of separation of church and state by its support of prop. 8. It was good to have a real attorney to deal with that.

The election has been over for quite awhile. Maybe we can move on.

Just to clarify that my quote "We don't need to quote bunches of court cases to determine the obvious," was not a reference to the helpful legal defense that Slingshot brought to this discussion. I was actually referrring to another post on a parallel thread. Sorry for the any misunderstanding.

Stan
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 22, 2008, 08:25:58 PM
I've not been following this thread very closely, so forgive me if I repeat something already mentioned.

Why would our society make legal homosexual marriage when the activity underwhich it is based is the root of HIV and Aids?

Biblical and religious reasons aside, until the homosexual community can rid these two problems, I don't see how they can even have a leg to stand on in the arena of debate.
ej, There was a PR campaign directed at society at large, starting several years ago to divert the attention away from the connection between AIDs and homosexual promiscuity, and emphasize the danger the disease poses to heterosexuals.  I believe that it worked to the extent that it is scarcely mentioned in AIDs awareness programs. There is definately a possibility of being sternly confromted by a self appointed "politically correct thought police officer" if the connection is mentioned. 
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: ejclark on November 23, 2008, 08:54:37 AM
There is definately a possibility of being sternly confromted by a self appointed "politically correct thought police officer" if the connection is mentioned. 

So does this mean that we should just sweep it back under the rug? :evil:(I'm playing devils advocate)
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: colporteur on November 23, 2008, 09:40:30 AM
So does this mean that we should just sweep it back under the rug? :evil:(I'm playing devils advocate)

The devil has enough advocates already.  :-D    I agree with the point.

There has already been so much swept under the rug that you need a ladder to step onto it.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: newbie on November 23, 2008, 10:09:11 AM
The devil has enough advocates already.  :-D    I agree with the point.

There has already been so much swept under the rug that you need a ladder to step onto it.

By faith we can remove mountains..........
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 23, 2008, 11:50:01 AM
The PR campaign was a clever strategy. It purpose was to generate more money for AIDs research to find treatment and a cure. The activists correctly figured if they could sell the idea that heterosexuals were also catching it, (and they were to some extent) there would be more money for AIDs research and treatment programs.  It worked. I have read that there is more money spent on AIDs research than most of the other diseases.

Its true that in some parts of Africa the disease has swept across all parts of the population homosexual and heterosexual, but I don't think they benefit much from the treatment and research funds. There was widespread sexual promiscuity in general, not just homosexual.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Raven on November 23, 2008, 04:50:43 PM
The PR campaign was a clever strategy. It purpose was to generate more money for AIDs research to find treatment and a cure. The activists correctly figured if they could sell the idea that heterosexuals were also catching it, (and they were to some extent) there would be more money for AIDs research and treatment programs.  It worked. I have read that there is more money spent on AIDs research than most of the other diseases.

Its true that in some parts of Africa the disease has swept across all parts of the population homosexual and heterosexual, but I don't think they benefit much from the treatment and research funds. There was widespread sexual promiscuity in general, not just homosexual.

One of the most easily prevented disease on the planet, and billions of dollars are spent on the search for a cure.  At the same time, malaria, which kills far more people each year, and is much more difficult to prevent, doesn't get the attention it should.  Forgive me for being blunt, but these people only care about perpetuating their decadent lifestyles, not preventing aids.  It costs very little to publicize the best way to prevent the diesease--but they don't want to hear that.  Thus the frantic search for a cure.  Where is the funding and sense of urgency to find a cure for malaria?
Title: Re: Prop 8 and the SDA church's stance
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 23, 2008, 05:34:52 PM
One of the most easily prevented disease on the planet, and billions of dollars are spent on the search for a cure.  At the same time, malaria, which kills far more people each year, and is much more difficult to prevent, doesn't get the attention it should.  Forgive me for being blunt, but these people only care about perpetuating their decadent lifestyles, not preventing aids.  It costs very little to publicize the best way to prevent the diesease--but they don't want to hear that.  Thus the frantic search for a cure.  Where is the funding and sense of urgency to find a cure for malaria?
Good question Raven. I recall when Magic Johnson announced publically that he was HIV positive because of his heterosexual promiscuity.  A physician who was very knowledgable about the disease told him that he did not have to die early. He told him that if he made every effort to protect his general health and make some lifestyle changes that would support his immune system, he could remain healthy and not develop AIDS. I don't recall all of the details of the doctors message, but Magic Johnson is said to have taken care of his health, and follows medical advice, and is still alive and apparantly in good health.  It has been about 17 years since he found he was HIV positive.

Magic Johnson came from a family that has a Seventh-day Adventist connection. I read about an Adventist pastor who was asked by Johnson's mother to come to the house and talk to him. If I remember right is was just before he signed with the Lakers. He was drafted as a first round pick our of college. Magic was not at home when the pastor came and he never got to talk with him.