Should Adventists Support

Homosexual Marriage?

by Nic Samojluk

Why Adventists Should Consider Supporting Gay Marriage

By Jared Wright


Today is an historic day in the history of the State of California and in the history of the United States as a whole. Today is the day when a ban on homosexual marriage will be lifted in accordance with a decision of the California Supreme Court. Homosexual couples from across the United States will descend on California in the coming days and weeks, and will receive the legal rights and responsibilities that accompany marriage.

Today's removal of the ban on same-sex marriage is part of a larger debate in America over the definition of marriage. Because at stake in the discussion are issues of morality, justice, ethics, and separation of church and state, Adventists cannot and must not remain silent on the issue. Adventists have always insisted on speaking the truth, demonstrating God's love, and working for justice. For those reasons, I suggest several reasons below that voters in California and elsewhere should stand in firm opposition to any constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage. Below, I enumerate my reasons and provide a starting place for further conversation on the topic. ... Read More: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/06/16/why_adventists_should_consider_supporting_gay_marriage#comment-8015

*********
Jared and Company: After reading all these comments, I must confess that, had I known that one day the church I considered to be God's "Remnant" would one day defend what the Bible cearly condemns, I might have had second thoughts about joining such a Christian organization over half a century ago.

The more I compare our SDA moral stand and behavior with those of other religious organizations, the less morally "fallen" the other religious organizations seem to me, and the less "beastly" does the Roman Church appear to me. As I ponder our attitude toward sexual immorality, adultery, cohabitation, homosexuality, abortion, and divorce, I have a hard time pushing away the temptation to conclude that we are as a religious organization "Remnant no More!"

Please, help me believe that I am wrong! Help me discover the way in which we are still unique in God's eyes! We keep the Sabbath, of course? Didn't those who crucified the son of God hold in high esteem the sacredness of Holy Time? Didn't they rush, after killing their Messiah, to make sure they would be home before sunset?

Yes, we care about health, and we are helping smokers live four or five years longer, but we justify the killing of the unborn, thus depriving them of their entire life span! Shall I also make reference to the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine? Do you think that defending a doctrine which is rather obscure and questionable has moral value in the sight of God if we ignore and deny what is crystal clear in the bible such as sexual sins and the shedding of innocent blood, which are undeniably condemned in Scripture?

Please, help me unravel this tremendous conundrum!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 18 June 2008 at 5:09

*********

A. Way, You stated the following on 18 June 2008 at 6:35

"But in the end, does it matter whether gay marriage is legal on not from a government of earth point of view to God? No. Does it matter if abortion is legal or not from a government point of view, ultimately? No. The only thing that matters is how YOU will respond to the gay person or the 17 y.o. girl who has been kicked out of her house by Christian parents who can not accept the fact that she is pregnant."

I hope you agree with me that governments do not exist in a vacuum. They were instituted by God for the protection of human life and property. This is implied in the U.S. "Declaration of Independence" where we find the following assertion:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice the reference to the Creator. The founders of our great nation did acknowledge that we owe our existence to a higher power than that of the government or the governed. We are the result of a careful design, and common sense indicates that sex was designed with an heterosexual relationship in mind. Said Designer has given us a manual to help us function in accordance with said design.

If we are careful in following a car's manual, the same principle applies to our bodies, which were designed to be "the Temple of the Holy Spirit." Any deviance from what God intended for us affects society, our taxes, and the government. The Creator gave specific instructions regarding the proper use of sex, and when adultery, fornication, and abortion takes place, the entire society has to suffer the consequences of such deviant behavior.

Marriage is a sacred institution, and it has been recognized as such for thousands of years. It was instituded at Eden, and it was honored with the presence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If it is sacred, then it should not be desecrated by altering it beyond recognition. The profanation of the marriage institution is akin to what Antiochus Epiphanes did to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Maccabees gave their lives to restore the dignity of said sacred building.

The material Solomon used to build the Jewish Temple did not possess any intrinsic sacred value. Once the building was erected and dedicated to the worship of God, it became sacred. Adam and Eve were the product of dust with no intrinsic value. Nevertheless, once they were blessed by God, their marriage became sacred. Said institution of marriage was recognized as a gift of God for the happyness of human beings and the stability of nations. Whatever harms the marriage institution, harms the welfare of the nation.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 18 June 2008 at 10:06

*********

Elaine, you stated the following on 18 June 2008 at 5:37:

"it is not good that man be alone."

I have a question for you: What did the Lord do after asserting that it was not good for Adam to be alone? Did he give Adam a Steve for companionship, or an Eve?

What else did God do regarding sexual deviancy? He made it clear that same-sex activity was an abomination to him. How can you jump from these facts to the desecration of Holy Matrimony by elevating this anomalous relationship to the category of sacred marriage?

If the government wants to be merciful and grant cohabitation legal rights to homosexuals, this should not degenerate into the desecration of a sacred institution which has served civilization for thousands of years.

Jesus was merciful to repentant sinners, but he never presided over nor honored with his presence a homosexual marriage. There is no recorded blessing in Scripture for this type of activity, but rather clear statements that those who engage in it are forfeiting eternal life. How can we, the "Remnant of God," bless what God has cursed?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 6:17

*********

Jared, You stated the following on 18 June 2008 at 7:09:

"Having said all of that, I would like you to know that I have personally spoken with many homosexuals, and I'm sure that in my conversations with people as a minister, I will talk with many more homosexuals. And you know something, not a single one feels that their homosexuality is a benefit."

It is true that some of those affected by homosexuality were born that way. No doubt! Nevertheless, it is also true that others are the result of aculturation. Even Jesus recognized that some eunuchs were born that way, while others were made that way by men.

Now my question to you: Would you grant that, by elevating this type of deviant sexual behavior to the category of sacred marriage, the result will be that many who would otherwise prefer to follow nature, will be enticed to adopt this type of lifestyle?

You state that none of those homosexuals you have talked to are really happy with their anomalous and unnatural sexual desires. If that is the case, then, why do you want to bless the desecration of the marriage vows which will contribute to the increase of the number of those afflicted by homosexuality?

Should society norms tend to augment the number of those afflicted by homosexuality? Does this make sense to you? Should the government assist in the spread of homosexual behavior or do the opposite?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 6:42

*********

Carrol,You stated on 18 June 2008 at 10:38 the following:

"Shall we continue to insist that all gays and lesbians live a celibate life from start to finish? Haven't we seen enough evidence that, as we have always been fond of saying, a celibate priesthood is an unnatural lifestyle?"

The question we are trying to elucidate is not whether society should interfere with homosexual behavior, but rather whether the government should bless what the Lord has cursed. Most homosexuals will continue to cling to their deviant lifestyle regardless of what we say or do. The question of this blog is whether we as members of the "Remnant" church should approve the desecration of the marriage institution for the sake of granting homosexuals certain legal rights.

There are many ways of granting homosexuals the legal rights they are fighting for without profaning the sacred marriage institution. What homosexuals want is for society to elevate their deviant sexual behavior up to par with what the Lord has designed, created, and blessed, which is the holly state of matrimony. Humans will never be able to bless what the Lord has never blest.

This is akin to what the Catholic church has tried to do with Sunday. God never blessed the first day of the week, and it will never have God's blessing! Likewise, God has never blessed homosexual activity, and it will never be blest.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 7:00

*********

A. Way:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 5:43:

"Would you advocate that SDA's push for laws that we all keep the Sabbath? It is a holy institution set up by God just as marriage was."

My answer is "NO." Notice that I am not advocating the prosecution of those who are living a honosexual lifestyle. I am not saying that those who are living with another individual of the same sex should be deprived of their legal rights.

What I am saying is that the government has no busines granting a marriage license to homosexuals. For thousands of years marriage has been defined by civilization as a union between heterosexuals, not homosexuals. God did bless the marriage institution, and government has no right to desecrate what God has blessed.

The author of this blog has admitted that gays are not exactly happy with their predicament. Granting them a marriage certificate will have the tendency to entice others who are sexually normal individuals to adopt the homosexual lifestyle. The government duty is not to spread the misery experienced by homosexuals to others who were not born with said propensity to sexual deviancy from what nature has designed as the proper and normal sexual role.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 8:40

*********

Jared:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 6:59:

"We cannot go on arrogantly speaking on behalf of other people as if we perfectly understand what they think, feel or experience. We talk as if we are standing in their shoes without even knowing what kind of shoes they wear. We must stop it. For God's sake stop it."

You are asking me to "stop it" while giving me reasons not to stop. Have you forgotten the title of your blog: "Why Adventists Should Consider Supporting Gay Marriage"? Notice that the topic you asked us to blog on is not simpathizing with the plight of the homosexuals, but rather supporting granting homosexuals the honorary title of legally married.

Marriage is a sacred institution blessed by the Creator, and recognized as such by civilization for thousands of years. You want me and other Adventists to declare that homosexual behavior should be considered normal and entitled to the same honor granted to those engaged in normal sexual behavior.

You admitted that in your conversation with homosexuals you have documented the fact that these individuals are not exactly happy with their abnormal sexual desires and preferences. This means to me that, by granting them the honorary state of legally married, this will be an incentive for many sexually normal people to adopt the homosexual lifestyle. Is this what you want? Really? You want the misery experienced by homosexuals to spread to the general population?

Jared: Do you realize the fallacy of your faulty logic? And you want me to adopt your erroneous way of thinking? You want me to talk to homosexuals and walk in their mocassins. What will that do to alter my perception of the problem? I do agree with you that they are in fact not exactly "gay" in the original sense of the word. Do I want to ameliorate the problem or to spread the misery to the general population?

Please, encourage Adventists to vote for an amendment to the Constitution in November defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman! Such a move will discourage those with normal sexual tendencies from adopting a lifestyle which tends to make them unhappy! Unless you really prefer that said misery experienced by those practicing the homosexual lifestyle be shared by more and more normal individuals who were not born with deviant sexual preferences.

I know that Jesus loves homosexuals, and I will grant that his love for them far surpasses those not affected by such abnormal tendecies. This is no reason to grant them a state they are not entitled to. Desecrating a sacred institution for the sake of sinners does not make sense to me!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 9:18

*********

Niemand:

You asked the following question on 19 June 2008 at 7:22:

"How does someone else's same-sex marriage or Sunday church attendance desecrate your marriage or your Sabbath?"

Good question! Bear in mind that the marriage and the Sabbath institutions do not belong to me, but to the Creator. He is the one who blessed both, not I, and is the one who gave us rules for proper sexual conduct. This was done with our happyness in mind.

Please, read my response to Jared, the author of this blog. He did admit that gay individuals are not exactly "gay" in the original meaning of this term. This means that by granting a marriage certificate to those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, the temptation to adopt a similar way of life will spread to many others who were not born with an abonrmal sexual preference. This means that the government will be engaged in spreading the misery experienced by homosexual individuals to the general population!

Increasing the number of people suffering this type of abnormality does not make sense to me. As Adventists we do not encourage the government to grant a special status for the observance of Sunday as a day of worship. Likewise, we Adventists should discourage the government from granting marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Both the Sabbath and the marriage institutions were created and blessed by God. We should discourage the government from engaging in desecrating either one of them. This is different from suggesting that the government prosecute either Sabbath breakers or those practicing the homosexual lifestyle.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 9:46

*********

Donna:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 7:22:

"I would urge you both to be very, very careful. It has been well documented that persons who strongly react negatively to gays have latent homosexual tendencies."

Thanks for your diagnosis. This is why I have determined to vote for an amendment to the California Constitution in November defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in order to prevent myself from being tempted to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, to which, according to you, I have unborn tendencies!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 11:29

*********

Jared:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 7:52:

"What do you have to lose by becoming acquainted with homosexual people? Homosexuality will not rub off on you. There is nothing to be afraid of there."

Evidently you do not trust the authoritative opinion of Donna Haerich posted on 19 June 2008 at 7:22 in which she warned me about my "homosexual tendencies." As you can see, there is much to dread for me, if Donna is right. Tell me why you ignore her "wise" opinion! And tell me why you want me to run the risk of joining those who, according to you, feel miserable about their unnatural condition.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 11:40

*********

Frank:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 8:04:

"How is it that the passages from Torah and Paul's statements regarding homosexual behavior are not reflecting a more primitive cultural understandings of God's character of love, but the idea of Jesus as a substitute for sin does?"

Good question! There is no doubt that there exists an apparent contradiction between my defense of the marriage institution and the opinion I advanced in another Spectrum blog dealing with the theory of the Atonement.

The reason is very simple: I am for protecting the sacredness of the marriage institution on the basis of morality, religion, and the U.S. Constitution. I see no reason to desecrate Holy Matrimony for the sake of granting legal rights to homosexuals. This can, and is being done without destroying what has been revered and protected for thousand of years by civilized societies.

The Declaration of Independence acknoledges the Creator is the foundation of our democracy. The government does not exist in a vacuum. It acts under God's blessing for the protection of its citizens and their properties. The author of this blog admitted that homosexuals are not exactly happy with their abnormal tendencies.

If we grant them a marriage certificate, this will have the tendency to elevate to normalcy what is sexually deviant, and described as such in Holy Writ. Many sexually normal individuals will be enticed to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. I do not believe that the government should encourage the spread of misery to the general population.

The case of the Atonement is quite different. I do not find any support in the Bible for encouraging others to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, but I see ample support for the moral view of the Atonement.

The last book of the Bible describes Jesus as "the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world;" The Messiah is described in Is. 53 in the past tense instead of the future one; Besides, Ellen White tells us that the Cross was a window for our dull senses that we might have a glimpse of the suffering God was subjected to since Lucifer rebelled in heaven, and she adds that Jesus' suffering did not begin nor did it end with the Cross of Calvary.

All this means to me that all those biblical statements describing Jesus death from a legal point of view reveal a lack of understanding the metaphorical meaning of biblical language. If you prefer the legal model which requires a payment in terma of suffering, then consider that such payment was amply made by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Understood this way, the cross was in fact an overpayment. The Lord predicted a bright future for the nation of Israel in the event they were faithful. They opted to reject their Messiah, which forced God, out of love, to allow the death of Jesus, knowing that this would entice many to opt for God instead of joining Satan's rebellion and thus be saved through the shedding of his blood. In other words, God did not require the death of Jesus, but rather permitted it for the salvation of many.

To all the readers of this blog: If you are tired of reading what I have stated before, I need to apologize. I feel duty bound to answer all the questions directed at what I have posted. The moment those questions cease, my need to repeat myself will cease as well!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 12:23

*********

Jason:

I will attempt to respond to a few ideas you included in your long posting on 19 June 2008 at 8:19. I will precede my comments with some of your quotations:

You said: "There have been a lot of comments, and it was impossible to go through them all."

True! Unfortunately, since you did not take the time to read what has been discussed before, this should not force everybody else to repeat what they have previously argued already.

You stated: "I am in agreement with Pastor Wright. For us to support the legal banning of gay marriage is antithetical to the principles of church and state separation and the gift of free will that God has imparted."

I have answered this argument already more than once. It would be unfair for the readers if I were to repeat everything one more time. Please, take the time to read what has gone before!

You said: "Let's be clear - the support for a religious definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is a religious argument. There is no other foundation."

Wrong! There is another foundation. Please, read what I have already stated about this!

You stated: "We as Christians are not called to exert pressure on people by force of law to follow God's edicts."

Nobody is asking the government to prosecute those who are living the homosexual lifestyle. The issue is whether we should grant homosexuals a marriage certificate. Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the union between a male and a female. I see no valid reason to alter this.

There was a time when only the church was allowed to issue a marriage certificate, which the state would recognize. Society did hold that marriage was a sacred institution that originated by the Creator, who is included in our Declaration of Independence.

You said: "Banning gay marriage is quite simply human beings trying to combine the church with the state. I don't think that there is any argument against that."

Wrong! Marriage was originally considered a sacrament in the West, a sacred act. The church's right to issue marriage licenses was taken away from the church, and now the government wants to totally desacralize what was at first a religious duty and privilege.

You stated: "So while secular societies can dictate law against murder and robbery (which impinge on another person's right to live or possess property), secular governments should not be in the business of making laws that would decide questions that do not impinge on the rights of others and involve a human being's ability to decide life's great questions for themselves (ie, who should I marry, or when life begins).

Wrong again! If the government has no right to determine when human life begins, then how can the government determine when a murder has taken place? Some argue that human life begins at birth; others when the baby can survive outside the birth chamber; while still others like Peter Singer, 30 days after birth, to give parents a chance to decide whether they really want to keep the baby.

Which of these options should the government use to determine when a murder has taken place? Sometimes, when a pregnant woman is killed, the legal system determines that a single count of murder has taken place, while other times it considers this to be a double murder. Isn't this rather confusing and inconsistent?

You stated: "We allowed something spiritual to become secular and now that it is about to become to secular we want it back. That's just not fair. Marriage is a religious, spiritual institution, but we allowed it to have secular benefits."

We allowed? Are you serious? A few years ago the people of California approved an Initiative defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The current change was not "allowed" by the people, but rather dictated by unelected judges of the Supreme Court. This is called judicial activism? A few unelected liberal judges adjudicating to themselves the power to make new law.

Making new law is the task of the Legislature, not the Supreme Court. This is why we need to amend the Constitution. The same thing happened with Roe v Wade! We have spineless legislatures both in the state and Washington who allow judges to usurp their power.

You stated: "Here's how I think you could fix it. From now on, make everyone do two ceremonies. Leave marriage to the religious realm where it truly always belonged. If you want tax benefits and other secular rights, then all couples, gay and straight, have to go before a judge and get a civil union."

Amazing! Great conclusion based on a Solomonic decision. I fully agree with this. A vote for an amendment to the California Constitution will help us move in this direction, I believe!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 4:16

*********

Jason:

You added the following on 19 June 2008 at 8:27:

"Support for opposition to a ban on gay marriage IS NOT support for gay marriage, much in the same way that support for the abortion rights IS NOT support for abortion."

I have to disagree! By granting homosexuals a marriage certificate, you are sanctioning what has historically been a sacrament. The moment you honor homosexuals with a sacrament, you entice many people who have not been born with the homosexual tendency to adopt such a lifestyle; which, according the the author of this blog, represents an unhappy state of existence. Why would you encourage the spread of misery to the general population?

Something similar we could say about the legalization of abortion. Following the legalization of unborn-baby killing, the number of abortions mushroomed to one million and a half per year overnight.

You also stated: "A woman believes that life doesn't begin in the first three weeks of her pregnancy so she wants to terminate it, I believe in her right to make that decision, even if I wish that she wouldn't terminate her pregnancy."

Please read my previous post! Your solution is problematic: How can the government decide when a murder has taken place if the decision of when human life begins is left to the whim of every individual?

You ended with: "God Bless."

The Lord will never bless what he has cursed! There is a curse for the shedding of innocent blood. This is why God allowed the destruction of Jerusalem more than once.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 5:17

*********

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 8:59:

"If we allow secular government to define marriage in a religious way, based on pressure from Christian groups, what argument do we have when they want to define other religious institutions, like the Sabbath, which you said you would clearly be against? Are you arguing that it is ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right?"

Good question! Both the Sabbath and Marriage are sacred institutions. I believe that the government should have never messed with sacraments. I think that your previous Solomonic suggestion is the best solution to this conundrum. Let the church issue sacred marriage certificates, and the government issue legal union contracts.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 5:31

*********

Johnny:

You asked the following on 19 June 2008 at 9:17:

"Nic, What did you think of the comment by Jason A. Hines? He said-'Support for opposition to a ban on gay marriage IS NOT support for gay marriage, much in the same way that support for the abortion rights IS NOT support for abortion. ..."

I did answer that. Check the following posting:

"Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 5:17"

If you have any other question, let me know!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 5:41

*********

Johnny:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 9:40:

"Your attacks on Jared are misdirected. He said very specifically that he does view the discussion of
a. the nature of marriage for the state
b. the nature of marriage for the church
as being mutually exclusive. His views in one sphere do not translate to the other necessarily. It's the point that Jason A. Hines made also."

Fine! Why don't we opt for Jason's Solomonic judgment? Let the church be in charge of the sacred duty of issuing marriage licenses, and let the government issue legal union certificates.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 5:48

*********

A.Way:

You stated on 19 June 2008 at 9:56 the following:

"How does someones homosexual acts affect you personally, assume not violence is perpetrated against you? How does anyone's marriage affect you personally?"

You are asking the wrong question. The right question should be: "How does granting homosexuals a marriage certificate affect the sacred marriage institution?" and, "How does it affect the general population?"

The answer is: Such an action desecrates the marriage institution, it destroys the true meaning of marriage, it lowers what God instituted at Eden to the level of what the Lord abhors, it affects the true function of the family, it deprives many children of the benefit of having a dad and a mom, and it tends to popularize a less desirable lifestyle for our citizens. The backbone of our civilization is a healthy, and stable heterosexual family. Homosexuality tends to weaken and cheapen the family institution.

You also stated: "If you ban gay marriages, should not divorce also be banned to be consistent?"

If banning divorce would diminish family breakup, I would go for it. There was a time when divorce was more dificult to secure, and the family was more stable. The sexual revolution of the sixties forced society to make divorce readily available to anyone.

This represented no progress for society, I believe. When I was young, divorce among Adventists was a rare phenomenon. Nowadays, you see this taking place on a daily basis. Is the church better of for this change?

You stated the following as well: "The Sabbath is a sacred institution, and you have gone on record that you do not think we should enact laws to defend it."

There is a drastic difference between the Sabbath institution and marriage. Most Christians believe that Sunday is the most appropriate time to worship the one who resurrected on Sunday. It would be crazy for SDA's to try to impose Sabbath observance on Christianity.

In the case of marriage, most christians do believe in the sacredness of this institution. If we can persuade people of the importance of preserving what has benefited society for thousands of years, why not?

You stated as well: "Ultimately, it is how you respond to your fellow human that is important. Love your neighbor. Do good to them."

Have you heard the expression: "Love must be tough? God loves us, no doubt, but judgment day will be tough! That is what Jesus said. Do you believe this?

You did ask: "Did Jesus ever work to overturn civil laws of his day?"

Of course he did. He said to his followers: "Moses told you, but I say unto you ..." For the Jews there was no law more sacred than the one written by Moses, and Jesus modified it. Read the Sermon on the Mount and compare it with Jewish laws!

You also said: "Laws of the civil governments of today to enact, will do little to change people."

If that is the case, then why do we have laws? Would you feel safer if there were no laws? Would society be better off without laws? God had granted the power of the sword to keep evildoers in check, and the power of the Spirit to appeal to peoples' good will. Both the government and the church were designed to minister to peoples' need for security and safety.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 9:45

*********

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 10:06:

"Nic: You stated: 'Both the Sabbath and the marriage institutions were created and blessed by God. We should discourage the government from engaging in desecrating either one of them.' Are you sure that's what God has called us to do? I personally believe that the call is to not have the government involved in either of them."

How can the government desecrate the marriage institution? By granting a marriage certificate to those who engage in what the Lord abhors. Homosexuality is against nature, against design, and it cheapens the sacred marriage institution.

How can the government desecrate the Sabbath? By forcing or making it difficult or impossible for Adventists to keep the Sabbath holy, and by denying accomodation rights to Sabbath keepers. This is why I said that I am oppossed to the desecration of those two sacred institutions by the government.

Of course, the government has no business policing the way I keep the Sabbath, and no business checking peoples' bedrroms to detect any homosexual activity that might take place there.

You also argued: "You still have not addressed my question from earlier about whether you would be ok with the government making Sabbath laws if those laws fit the proper definition of the Sabbath."

Read my previous answer!

You stated as well: "The government should not be in the marriage business. They should have civil unions if they want to confer benefits on those who decide to be life partners."

Amen, my friend! I already stated that this suggestion of yours represents the only Solomonic solution which has been advanced so far on this blog!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 10:11

*********

Niemand:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 10:19:

"I guess I consider that the bulk of any unhappiness or "suffering" experienced by members of the gay community would be because of the response of the rest of the community ..."

I agree that your argument is partially true. Nevertheless, God is also to blame for this. He is the one who inspired his prophets to record so many statements condemning the practice of homosexuality.

You also stated: "I would further suggest that if you actually think that all homosexuals are miserable then you need to meet a few and verify that for yourself."

I don't need to do this. I trust in the wise judgment of the author of this blog who has asserted this fact. Besides, if Christians were to keep silent on this issue, and if the Bible were destroyed, there is no way anyone could keep the Holy Spirit from doing its God assigned task, which is to convict people of sin, which is a great cause for their misery.

You stated as well: "I submit that if the institution of marriage and the Sabbath as a concept or whatever belong to God, then let God defend them. I'm sure that She would be much more effective than any of us."

Perhaps we should tell God to send his angels to preach the Gospel of salvation as well. It should be his job, not ours, imperfect and prone to blunder sinners. Why don't you suggest this to Mark Finley, or the Quiet Hour people?

You also stated: "Also, as others pointed out, homosexuality does not appear to be contagious, although I must concur with Donna that you might want to be careful about the possibility of awakening any latent tendencies. . ."

It's either contagious or it is not. It can't be both at the same time. Please, make up your mind!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 10:32

*********

The man in black:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 11:29:

"From the business side of things, when two women come to you looking for a home in Loma Linda, and it is obvious that they are lesbians, do you help them find a home so that they can live in sin, or do you refuse to help them and lose clients that way."

My friend: I have no idea what your occupation is. But let me ask you in turn the following question. Do you discriminate against Sunday keepers? If you are in the health profession, do you refuse to provide your services to Sabbath breakers? Would you recomment that the Loma Linda University admit only Sabbath keepers as patients and students? If this doesn't answer your question, then tell me what is your job, and I will modify my questions to fit your specific situation.

Notice that I have stated in the past that I am not suggesting that the government should start to get into people's bedrooms to verify that no honosexual acts are taking place there. Neither have I suggested that the state should regulate Sabbath keeping.

The business of granting marriage licenses needs to be regulated. Would you grant a physicians license to nurses who do not quelify? Would you issue a lawyer's licence to anybody who requests it? For thousands of years marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is wrong with this? Homosexuals do not qualify! Period!

Now, regarding the implication of your question suggesting that I am ready to sell my integrity for the sake of profit, I forgive you because you don't know me. This forces me to act in my own defense, like Paul did as recorded in the Bible. Let me tell you a few things you don't know about my motivation behind both my business and my hobby.

Back in the nineties, when I realized that the leaders of the SDA church had opted to compromise on the issue of abortion and some of our hospitals began offering elective abortions services, thus breaking the Commandments which clearly forbids the shedding of innocent blood, I made many attempts at coming in defense of the innocent. I got nowhere. Every avenue was blocked to me.

That was before the availability of blogs. I had no way of getting anything published in our SDA magazines. One day, as I was leafing through Spectrum and Adventist Today, I noticed that every article's author's name was accompanied by a Ph.D. designation. Right there, I made up my decision to sign up for a Ph.D. program. It took me ten years to accomplish this on a part time basis. I sacrificed ten years of business profits for the sake of the unborn.

Do you know many individuals who have done this? Consider, before you answer, that at my age, 76, there is no chance of financially recovering my investment in time and money. Who is going to hire someone my age to teach? And if someone did, how long it would take for me to recover the investment I have made? What are my chances of profitting from this hobby of mine? And you are suggesting that I am ready to compromise my integrity for the sake of profit? Of course, you did not know this. Therefore, I forgive you!

I also forgive you for the following cheap pun you included in your comments:

"And also, if you need a new slogan for your real estate business (because "I also run SDA Forum" is not bringing in business), here are some suggestions for you free of charge:

Flamingo Realty: Not as pink as you think!
Flamingo Realty: Keeping the I.E. homo-free!
Flamingo Realty: If you're gay, there's no way!
Flamingo Realty: The back door isn't open!
Flamingo Realty: Don't come out of our closets!"

I have no idea why you have demeaned yourself with this! Nevertheless, I repeat: I fully forgive you!

May the good Lord bless you and me and the church we serve!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 6:30

*********

Gerhard:

On 19 June 2008 at 12:37, you argued that granting marriage licenses to homosexuals doesn't make sense even if you do not believe in a Creator, and prefer the evolutionary theory as an explanation for our existence.

Thanks for your clever reasoning! There is no denying that those who believe in evolution should, for consistency sake, support an amendement to the Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

The theory of the survival of the fittest demands that we grant a privilege status to those who contribute to the survival of the human species. Homosexuals do not qualify! If we deny granting a physician's license to unqualified individuals, we should also deny marriage licenses to homosexuals!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 6:44

*********

Bret:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 2:30:

"... as a Realtor, under the law, Nic CAN discriminate against gays and lesbians. They are NOT a protected class, ... But I doubt seriously if he is a good business man he would do that. Gays and lesbians have the highest disposable income compared to the average US citizen. Therefore it would make great business sense to have financial dealings with them.

You know when it comes to the almighty dollar, as the saying goes "money talks and bull...walks!" I wonder how many "good" Christians have taken the opportunity to turn away a profit from gays and lesbians?? But since they are NOT a protected class, Nic and anyone else can discriminate at will without ramifications. How sad for them. As my Dad used to say though, "busines is business." Funny how when money is involved, some of the moral convictions of "the saints" falls by the way side."

Bret: How sad for you to impugn my integrity without knowing me! I invite you to read my response to "The man in black" on 20 June 2008 at 6:30. Please, read it! Scroll up and read it, and then tell me whether you still believe that I am ready to sell my soul for profit. I expect your response from you on this!

My business is real estate, and I have sacrificed ten years of profit from real estate for the sake of the unborn, and I am 76, with no chances of ever recovering my investment, and you are questioning my integrity? May the good Lord forgive you for this! I already did!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 7:08

*********


Nic,
I will humbly apologize for questioning your integrity. Not because you "expect" a response from me, but because I feel compelled to do so, and you're right I don't know you personally. I only know of you by what you have written in this blog. I am sorry and I do ask your forgiveness. I also congratulate you on "giving up" ten years of your life for a cause you believe in, the unborn. Just a question, do you feel as strongly about the US going to war unprovoked and having our men and women DIE too?? Killing is killing as far as I'm concerned, but that is WAY off topic!!

I'm just curious, do you do business with helping gays and lesbians find housing?? A sincere question here.

Again, my sincerest apologies for assuming you would or would not do business with gays and lesbians. My words were unwarranted.

Peace,
Bret
Posted by: bret belko (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 7:22

*********

Nic

Courage, The first sign of a lost argument is to attack the opponent rather than the issue. You may have noticed that several have suggested that those who oppose homosexual rights are in fact border-line homosexuals--now that is pushing the envelope. It certainly indicates that they have at least lost the argument if the best they can do is to impugn their opponent.

The basic problem with the entire thread is the presumption that anyone should unilaterally "tell" the Church what to do!

Why not simply say, This is how I feel about inclusion and why. Furthermore, I personally think it consistent with Christianity, certainly of brotherhood. After that, if you can organized a substantial number to create a petition--have at it! If you lose, you always have at least two choices.

My reading of Scripture assures me that God planned it other.
Thus, it must be an enemy that did this!
Tom
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 20 June 2008 at 7:34

*********
Nic,

I wholeheartedly applaud your commitment to the cause of the unborn, and your sacrifice to get a Ph.D. education in an effort to be taken seriously in the realm of public dialogue. (Thank you for sharing that story; it touched me.) I regard that sacrifice with no less than awe and heartfelt admiration. I have thought of doing the same thing myself.

I haven't, for two reasons. One, I realize I learn far faster and more efficiently on my own, and that I am likely a better writer and thinker for NOT having gone back to school than if I had, where much time and energy would have been expended on material irrelevant to my interests and very possibly antithetical to my values.

The other is that I realized that if one is good enough at writing and thinking, one does not require a Ph.D. for the better outlets to be interested in you. (The two are, of course, connected; writing, as someone once said, is a mirror for the mind.) Do not believe anyone who says you need a formal education to be good at either. If you look closely at history, most of the greats who ended up writing and thinking well did not do so because they went to grad. school, but because they spent their lives reading great material and practicing both.

If you are second-rate at either, yes, you will need an alphabet behind your name. If you are first-rate, you will not. It�s a simple as that. Check out the Wall Street Journal editorial page; they print many unpedigreed authors, as do most mainstream sources. They would very possibly print you. But you�and they�have to be of high quality. (If a journal is sub-par, but you still think it reaches an important audience, your best approach is to simply keep pestering; they might let something through eventually, and you will get a hearing amongst their readership even though their editors won�t respect you because all they know how to respect is degrees.)

Take Dennis Prager as one example. I make no secret that Dennis has and continues to be a valued mentor of mine. He dropped out of his Master�s degree program in International Affairs at Columbia University, because of a values clash with his major professor. He started by writing and publishing his own newsletter. He now has his own radio show, and is the author of several superb books (one hit the New York Times Best Seller list). He writes a weekly column published on at least three major Internet sites and in majojr newspapers all across the country. He is the speaker in highest demand on the Jewish speakership circuit. He has two honorary doctorates. He has never been back to school.

No respectable journal will turn you away if you write well and offer terrific material on a consistent basis. No string of letters after one�s name, however long, will grant entr�e where one is poor at thinking or writing.

You are quite talented at both, in my humble estimation. You make a good showing on this blog, which is pretty off-hand and surely isn�t always one�s best. Some of your probably very well educated opponents here respond to your nicely-phrased arguments with disrespect and/or downright meanness, which usually indicates a weak mind and always loses an argument. So, my advice to you is, tighten up your skills and get to work. You have a real mission. I admire that mission, and the passion with which you pursue it.

God bless you,
Janine Goffar
Posted by: Janine Goffar (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 8:11

*********

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 2:48:

"I may be incorrect in this, but my understanding is that Nic may not be able to discriminate against gays as a realtor for much longer."

I need to make this patently clear: I have never, nor I intend ever to discriminate on the basis of lifestyle. The reason? If I do this, then to be consistent, I would have to refuse real estate services to Sabbath breakers. Would anyone suggest to Loma Linda University to refuse their services to Sabbath breaker or homosexuals? Did Jesus provide his healing services to healthy people only?

Granting marriage licenses is totally different. The government grants physician's licenses only to those who qualify. It should do the same with the granting of marriage licenses. Homosexuals do not qualify. Period!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 8:32

*********

Elaine:

You stated on 19 June 2008 at 4:40:

"Have you read the Supreme Court's ruling? There is no mention of religious ceremony; ergo, all couples can be married before a judge, or other appointed individual without any amendment to the Constitution."

I was referring to the November Initiative proposing an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 8:43

*********

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 4:57:

"Maybe if you could let me know exactly where you address my first two questions, then I can go read them specifically and comment. That seems like a fair solution."

Due to the large number of comments that have been posted here and the large number of comments I have posted, it would take less time for me to answer those questions all over again if you repeat them. Right now I am desperately trying to get caught up with answering the comments I have not have had a chance to answer yet. I did never imagine that blogging on a single topic like this would become a full time enterprise!

You also stated: "As to whether the marriage definition is a religious argument - I have heard other foundations and I see them, as I stated before, as post thought justifications. I think I explained that in one of my posts. Because of this country's Judeo-Christian background, everyone's sensibilities about what is appropriate are informed by that background. But even if there are other justifications, your justification is clearly spiritual and so my argument does apply to you and other Christians, even if it doesn't apply to others."

Our legal system is rooted in the Judeo-christian culture. The Declaration of Indpendence makes reference to God as the Creator. God created the first human couple, and they were designed to complement each other. Even Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest would disqualify homosexuals from being entitled to a marriage license. Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle. This is not for the best interest of our nation.

Can you imagine if everybody adopted such a lifestyle? What would be the future of our country. Right now, the average American woman is not producting enough offsprings to replace the aging population. Were it not for the legal and illegal immigration, our population would implode. The government is foolish in elevating a practice that is detrimental to our future to a state of equality with what civilization has recognized as a sacred institution for thousands of years. Do I have to say more?

You stated as well: "As to not prosecuting homosexual lifestyle - Yes you are prosecuting the homosexual lifestyle. ... To deny them that as a secular option is attacking their lifestyle. To say you can be gay but you can't have civil marriage is like throwing someone in the ocean and telling them not to get wet."

It seems to me that you have misinterpreted what I have stated. What I meant is that I am not suggesting that we should have policemen checking everybody's bedroom to make sure no homosexual acts are taking place there. Your logic here fails me! If I deny a lawyer's licenss to someone who does not qualify, would you argue that I am attacking said applicant's lifestyle? On the basis or either religion or evolution a homosexual does not qualify for a marriage license. Marriage is an old and sacred intitution. Sacred for religion and for those following Darwin. There is no need to sacrifice a sacred cow for the sake of relishing barbecued meat!

You stated: "So right now, there are two types of marriage - civil marriage, and religious marriage. I am for the rights of homosexuals to civil marriage. I am against the rights of homosexuals to religious marriage."

For thousands of years there has been a sacred notion attached to marriage. The moment you grant a marriage certificate to homosexuals, you desecrate this institution. Why sacrificing this when we can accomplish the same by other means: simply having the government issue Civil Union Certificates and reserving the issuing of marriage documents to the church--or Darwin Scholars if you prefer.

You also stated: "But really my argument is that our marriage (religious marriage) is not being extended to homosexuals."

True, but there is an aura of sacredness historically attached to the term "marriage." I am oppossed to sacrificing such a sacred cow when there are other ways of granting homosexuals the legal benefits they demand.

You stated as well: "As to Judicial activism - In my opinion, there is a difference between laws and rights. ... The Constitution to me has to be a living document ... "

Your view of the Constitution has allowed unelected judges to thwart the wish of the people. Some years ago the citizens of California approved an Initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Now a group of judges decided that the will of the people has no bearing and voided it.

Likewise, back in 1973, a group of unelected Justices of the Court invented a privacy concept in order to legalize the slaughter of 50 million unborn babies. This is the result of your concept of a "Living Document." Altering the Constitution is the prerogative of the people, not the courts. Creating laws out of thin air is the role of the Legislature, not the courts!

You also stated: "As to my way to fix the problem - Glad you agree!! However, I can't see how voting for a ban on gay marriage is a step in the direction of my solution. Once you lock homosexuals out, why would the heterosexual majority ever revisit the issue and make everyone go get civil unions?"

If we opt for the idea of the govenment issuing a Civil Union Certificate, and the church a Marriage document, then the first document would take care of the legal rights, and the second of the spiritual benefits.

God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

God bless!
Nic Samojluk, Ph.D.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 10:25

*********
Jason:

You stated on 19 June 2008 at 6:03:

"Sin occurred when God gave the right to sin to Adam. Once again we know that doesn't mean that God supported the sin. Same with the abortion argument you make. Just because abortions increased after its legalization doesn't mean that those who are pro-choice support abortions."

My friend: You are ignoring that the Lord attached serious consequences in the event man opted to disobey. The penalty was death. Compare this with the way we as a church treat the abortion issue.

Instead of warning people about the serious consequences of killing our unborn babies, the church justifies the dismemberment and poisoning of innocent human beings in the case of rape, incest, malformation, or if the unexpected pregnancy has a temporary adverse effect on the mental state of the woman.

Is God's attitude toward sin similar to that of the SDA church? Jesus excelled in mercy, but he repeatedly would tell sinners: "Go and sin no more!" We say, "You haven't sinned." This prevents women and the men who take them to have an abortion from repenting and seeking forgiveness!

You also stated: "So gay "marriage" is not the conferral of something sacred, unless you consider civil marriage sacred, which I do not."

I hope you will agree with me that historically there has been an aura of sacredness to the title of "Marriage." As long as this was granted to heterosexual individuals, there was no problem. Now that the government has decided to confer the same honorary document to homosexuals, the situation has been altered. Let the citizens of California decide what their will is regarding this issue!

You ended with: "PS - I agree, God cannot bless what He has already cursed. I don't believe that these homosexual civil marriages would be blessed by God. However, I do believe that God blesses people despite their actions..."

I can drink to that! I mean filtered Evian water.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 10:49

*********
Bret:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 6:58:

"Having a human king was an abomination to God, something that made Him want to puke, yet He accepted Israels decision and blessed the kings when they followed Him in other ways. God also said He would drive the occupying tribes out of the promised land with hornets - He never envisioned bloody wars with man-made weapons, yet He blessed Israels war efforts when they were following Him in other ways. Monogamy was God's ideal, yet He blessed Solomon, Abraham, and David and a whole list of others who had multiple wives. To me, these pragmatic actions by God are the greatest evidence that He will bless gay unions. "Gay" may not have been in His original plan, yet He will honor those gay people who show loyalty to each other and to Him."

I can drink to that also! Nevertheless, why not avoid the less than ideal whenever possible?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 10:57

*********
Jason:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 4:42:

"However, I think most of my posts have been clear about my belief that what the marriage right that government would be conferring on homosexuals is not the religious form of marriage that is holy and sacred. They would be conferring the civil form of the thing called marriage which is not sacred in any way shape or form."

I did answer this in my most recent responses to you. Historically, there has always been an aura of sacredness connected with the Marriage institution. I see no reason to sacrifice a sacred cow when there are other means of granting homosexual couples the legal rights they demand.

You stated: "Are you arguing that it is ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right?"

The answer is "Yes," and "No," depending on the context. Yes if we are talking about defending Sabbath keepers protection from a refusal to gran reasonable accomodation in a work place. No, if we mean their right to refuse church employment to individuals whose lifestyle is offensive to the church.

You also stated: "Ok, so you told me that you think the government should have never messed with the sacraments. I don't know what you mean by that. To me, the government messed with the sacraments when they started giving civil benefits based on marriage."

I disagree. The church has no authority to grant legal protection or legal benefits. That is the role of government. As long as the government was not granting marriage certificates to homosexuals, they were not desecralizing the institution of marriage.

You stated: "Support for a ban on gay marriage seems to be like support for the government to define a religious institution because they have the proper definition."

I don't think so! The marriage institution originated within the church. It was sacred in the eyes of man and God. The government should let the church do what it knows best and what is within its proper role. Spiritual benefits belong to the church, and legal rights to the government.

You stated also: "What I think you're not seeing in my point is that to allow a human, earthly government to define a holy institution (even if they get it right) IS messing with the sacraments. We would never allow them to do this with the Sabbath."

Perhaps I do not see the King's royal attire because the king is naked!

You stated: "My problem is that if we allow them to define one sacrament (even if they are correct), what justification do we have when they want to define other sacraments in ways that we believe to be incorrect? When they come to define the Sabbath (which we know they will), and we raise our voice in protest, their answer will be, 'But you let us define marriage....'"

Your problem is not mine! Letting the church own what it has historically been the prerogative of the church is not defining marriage. It is simply letting the church take care of its spiritual business.

Thanks and God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Thanks and God bless!
Nic Samojluk, Ph.D.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 11:39

*********

brother, you should reconsider being a pastor! being a SDA, being a Christian.

You sound more like a president of a moralist's club.

Reconsider...
Posted by: Hispa (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 11:55

*********

Bret:

You stated on 20 June 2008 at 7:22:

"I also congratulate you on "giving up" ten years of your life for a cause you believe in, the unborn. Just a question, do you feel as strongly about the US going to war unprovoked and having our men and women DIE too?? Killing is killing as far as I'm concerned, but that is WAY off topic!!"

True! It is another topic. Therefore, a quick answer. Before we invaded Iraq, following the president's announcement of his intention to go to war, I wrote the following article, which I published in the www.sdaforum.com. The title and link is here for you: A Preemptive Strike Against Iraq? http://sdaforum.com/test/page14.html. I followed this with two other articles: The Rush to War http://sdaforum.com/page154.html, and The Origin of the Preemptive Strike Doctrine http://sdaforum.com/page35.html.

You also asked: "I'm just curious, do you do business with helping gays and lesbians find housing?? A sincere question here."

I do not discriminate against homosexuals nor Sabbath breakers. I do not ask questions about lifestyle nor religious affiliation.

God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 3:32

*********

Tom:

You stated the following on June 2008 at 7:34:

"Courage, The first sign of a lost argument is to attack the opponent rather than the issue. You may have noticed that several have suggested that those who oppose homosexual rights are in fact border-line homosexuals--now that is pushing the envelope. It certainly indicates that they have at least lost the argument if the best they can do is to impugn their opponent."

Thanks for you comments. The Bible says that "All things work for good for those who love God." So the question is: Do I really love God? My first response is similar to that of Peter: "Of course, I do!" But then I must add. "Lord, you know all things." Only the Lord can read the deep motivation for the things we do and say. This means that those who criticize me might be moved by a deep loyalty towards God. I have to let God be God!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 3:46

*********

Janine:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 8:11:

"I wholeheartedly applaud your commitment to the cause of the unborn, and your sacrifice to get a Ph.D. education in an effort to be taken seriously in the realm of public dialogue. (Thank you for sharing that story; it touched me.) I regard that sacrifice with no less than awe and heartfelt admiration. I have thought of doing the same thing myself.

I haven't, for two reasons. One, I realize I learn far faster and more efficiently on my own, and that I am likely a better writer and thinker for NOT having gone back to school than if I had, where much time and energy would have been expended on material irrelevant to my interests and very possibly antithetical to my values.

The other is that I realized that if one is good enough at writing and thinking, one does not require a Ph.D. for the better outlets to be interested in you.... No respectable journal will turn you away if you write well and offer terrific material on a consistent basis."

Janine: Thanks for you encouraging comments! I entirely agree with everything you have said. When I signed up for a Ph.D. program, I had the feeling that I could be published in some of the general public outlets. That was not my interest. I felt called to address my fellow Seventh-day Adventist believers, and all my efforts were fruitless. I am convinced that the problem was not the quality of my writing, but rather my determination to move upstream instead of downstream.

At that time, there were no SDA blogs. I believe that I was the first SDA to provide readers with the advantage of responding online. I have since discontinued that feature in the www.sdaforum.com because of lack of time to monitor the increased number of spammers. I am no longer concerned about getting published. I can hardly keep up with the opportunity for sharing my views in the Adventist Today and Spectrum blogs. I do not need more than that, since I also need some time to take care of my business!

God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 4:18

*********

Elaine:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 8:31:

"Has anyone made an argument against homosexual marriages that is not supported by the Bible? If so, it has no place in civil courts which separate church and state."

You have asked the wrong question! The church is the one who invented the marriage institution. Besides, our justice system has a Judeo-Christian origin, and our Declaration of Indepenence acknowledges God as the Creator. I conclude that the state has no right to desecralize what the church and God did bless. Let the state take care of legal matters through a Civil Union document, and allow the church to concern itself with the spiritual blessing by means of a sacred marriage ceremony.

You also stated: "Recently, a local church pastor wrote a letter to the newspaper and used the Bible in support against homosexual marriage, quoting Lev. 20:13.

In replying, someone asked about the rules governing the beating of your slaves (Ex. 21:20-21), killing disobedient childrllen (Deut. 21:18-21), killing women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut. 22:13-21), killing people who work on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36), offering up your daughters to be gang-raped (Genl. 19:8), polygamy (Ex. 21:10), incest (Gen. 19:32-36), killing people who worship a different god (Deut. 17:2-5), killing all the men, women and boys in a village but keeping the virgins and prepubescentg girls for yourself (Num. 31:15-18), genocide (1 Sam. 15:2-3), and selling your daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7)."

Elaine: The Good Book also tells us to examine everything and retain what is good. Preserving the sacredness of the marriage institution is good for the church and for the general society as well. It represents an advantage for those believing in the theory of evolution as well, because they are concerned about the survival of the fittest.

Can you imagine if everybody decided to adopt the homosexual lifestyle? Would there be a future for our country? Currently the average American woman produces less offsprings than what is needed to prevent a population implosion. Were it not for the legal and illegal immigration, we would be going downhill already. The situation in Italy, Russia, and Japan is even worse.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 4:43

*********

Elaine:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 10:43:

"'Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle. This is not for the best interest of our nation.'

Please give more than a personal opinion when making such pronouncements. Where is there evidence that has occurred, or that it entices people to become homosexual?"

Elaine: Wrong question again! Granting marriage licences to homosexuals is a new experiment. How can you provide evidence for something that is still in diapers?

The best evidence we can secure is what happened following the Roe v. Wade decision wich opened the fllodgates of hell by declaring an open season for the genocide of the unborn. Overnight the number of abortions mushroomed into a million and a half per year. That is the best example I can think off.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 4:55

*********

Nic

I know of one obstetrician who was miltiantly against abortion on demand, as soom as Roe v. Wade became the law of the land--he became the leading abortionist in Western New York, Penn, and Ohio. His change of mind came about this way. If it is legal and someone is going to do it and for pay it might as ell be me! Tom
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 20 June 2008 at 5:34

*********

Tom

Thanks for posting the following on 20 June 2008 at 5:34:

"I know of one obstetrician who was miltiantly against abortion on demand, as soom as Roe v. Wade became the law of the land--he became the leading abortionist in Western New York, Penn, and Ohio. His change of mind came about this way. If it is legal and someone is going to do it and for pay it might as ell be me! Tom"

Denying that a similar increase in homosexual activity will follow the legalization of marriage is being rather naive.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 10:44

*********

Beth:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 10:24:

"Nic I am continually puzzled by your emphasis on people choosing to be gay. While it's true that we don't understand a whole lot about what goes into orientation, I think it is pretty safe to say that it is usually not something one chooses. We can even set aside all the research on the topic and just rely on common sense. Did you choose to be straight?"

I have not, but others have. I do not believe that common sense should have priority over research! Common sense tells me that it is rather stupid to get addicted to tobacco and crack. Nevertheles research indicates that people quite often, for diverse reason, act against common sense. I do not smoke pot or crack, but others do. Common sense tells me that it is extremely unwise and dangerous to drink and drive, yet lots of people do that.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 11:02

*********

Alexander:

Thank you for posting Rev. Mel White's video on 20 June 2008 at 10:39, in which he relates his personal "journey of coming to understand homosexuality as a gift from God."

I believe that he is sincere in what he believes, but this doesn't mean that he is right! I do not think that it was God who made him gay. It must have been an error in the gene transmission, a result of malformation, the consequence of either aculturation or psychological trauma. If God made him gay, then he would have provided him with another man with the right anathomical plumbing for proper sexual enjoyment.

Neither the mouth nor the rectum have been designed for sexual activity! Heterosexual intercourse, under normal circumstances, provides enjoyment for both partners and allows for the preservation of the human species. This is not true in the case of homosexual relationships. Let us not fault God for abnormality.

When a baby is born with physical or mental deformities, it is an error to fault God for such deformities. God can bless us in spite of our handicaps, but let's not blame the Creator for such undesirable circumstances. It is an error to label as normal what is evidently anomalous!

All these abnormalities are the result o sin: the sin of the ancestors, or the sin of Adam and Eve. None of these malformation would have taken place on earth if Adam and Eve had remained obedient to God. When the first man came out of the hand of the Creator, there was evidence of perfect design, and this was attested by God's verdict.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 11:40

*********

Tani:

You stated the following on 21 June 2008 at 1:24:

"Just how would the granting of a civil marriage contract between two same gender persons make us all into homosexuals? Will a constitutional amendment banning it protect you from enticement and temptation?"

Did someone claim that the legalization of homosexual marriage would entice everybody to adopt a gay lifestyle. or that a constitutional amendment would prevent gays from adopting the same?

Jared Wright, the author of this blog, did admit that homosexuals are not exactly excited about their preference for the same sex. He affirmed that they feel rather miserable being in that condition. My question is: Why making it easier for the spread of a less than desirable condition. There is no doubt that everytime society rewards what is undesirable, some individuals will feel tempted to take advantage of such action. It is the law of positive reinforcement discovered by Pavlov. It works for dogs and it works for people!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 12:00

*********

Elaine:

You stated the following on 21 June 2008 at 12:14:

"I have been misquoted. I did not make this statement:

'Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle. This is not for the best interest of our nation.'

I was questioning the presumption of someone else that it would entice normal people to become homosexual and asked for evidence."

Elaine: You are right in denying authorship for that statement! I was the one who made such claim, and I still believe what I did state. You probably remember Pavlow's discovery. The law of positive reinforcement works for dogs and also for people.

If government rewards homosexuals with a marriage certificate, thus elevating what is abnormal and anomalous to a state of normalcy, the tendency will be for some individuals to adopt such undesirable lifestyle. Homosexuality violates God's original design. The government should protect gays' legal rights, but it is a mistake to encourage others to adopt a deviant way of life!

The evidence you asked for is not available for the simple reason that this is a new experiment for California. The evidence you desire will be availabe with time!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 12:34

*********

Trudy:

You stated the following on 21 June 2008 at 12:24:

"Does anyone seriously, truly believe that a "homosexual lifestyle" is something people choose based on the fact that it's now more convenient and socially acceptable?"

My answer to you is: Does anyone really believe that legalizing marihuana, crack cocaine, and other drugs will entice non-drug uses to try them? I believe that there are quite a few individuals who have never tried the honosexual lifestyle who might be tempted to do this if they are rewarded with a marriage license. This doesn't mean that you will be attracted to this kind of abnormal behavior.

When I was young, homosexuality was a rare phenomenon. Today thousands have adopted said lifestyle. Have you ever wondered why? There are some benefits derived from a homosexual behavior, even if the individual has not been born with a propensity to it.

A self-centered individual can now concentrate on sexual pleasure instead of changing diapers, raising kids, spending a fortune on feeding, clothing, and putting them from kindergarten through college. The individual can afford more toys, travel to more places, unencumbered with the obligations of family life, and still be entitled to all the financial benefits derived from being a U.S.citizen when they get old.

Are you, perhaps, beginning to salivate the blessedness and happiness of a homosexual lifestyle? You will have less obligations, less worries, and more time to enjoy the things you really like to do, knowing that when you get old, those who are raising their families will pay for your needs when you get old.

You save yourself from contributing to the propagation of the human species, but get all the benefits granted to those who do. It's not such a bad deal! Besides, who said that there was a heaven to gain and a hell to shun? That is just a myth created by less enlightened civilizations!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 5:21

*********

Bret:

You stated the following on 21 June 2008 at 2:22:

"Why not just leave the job of changing hearts up to the Holy Spirit???

P.S. I still believe LOVE wins out every time, look what Christ's love did for all of us!!"

What a great idea! What a big mistake did the prophets make: Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the minor prophets, John the Baptist, and even Jesus. They should have know better! Now I can stop sending my hard-earned dollars to the Quiet Hour, Faith for Today, The Voice of Prophecy, and all those ministries who dare to repeat the Bible writer's mistake.

Perhaps even God is guilty of warning about sin. He should have shown more love to Adam and Eve. Love is all sinners need. No more warning about the consequences of disobendience and departure from God's ways. We should, perhaps, edit out all the "Shalt nots" from the Ten Commandments as well! Yeah, the government should learn the power of love as well and stop threatening law breakers with jail time!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 5:46

*********

Elaine:

You stated the following on 21 June 2008 at 6:54:

"Does it not occur to heterosexuals that there are those who wish ALL the pleasures and "better or worse" for themselves, wish to deny it to others on the basis of their sexual expression of love?"

Elaine: Since all these benefits of companionship, intimacy, and legal rights are already available to homosexuals through a Legal Union Contract; I wonder why gays are so desperate and adamant about desecrating what has been set apart as sacred by humans and God for thousands of years!

Isn't this an evidence that what is at stake here is not the benefits I have detailed above, but rather the desire to elevate what is anomalous, abnormal, against nature, against design, and condemned by the Creator, to the same status of normalcy and sacrednes as heterosexual marriage?

I do not think that God is behind this movement, and if the Lord is not behind it, then I wonder who is! I am convinced that God's enemy is doing all he can to destroy what has been the most basic and sacred unit of civilized society: the family.

God designed the family for companionship, for procreation, for emotional stability, and for sucurity. Through homosexuality, divorce, and infidelity, Satan is determined to deprive children of what a loving and merciful Creator has provided for them: a dad and a mom.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 9:45

*********

A.Way stated the following on 21 June 2008 at 9:53:

"Ezekiel 16:49 NIV) "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

A.Way: Do you think that the above quotation contains an exhaustive list of the sins of Sodom? If not, then should we ignore other biblical passages which deal with the practice of homosexuality? How can we set aside the following crystal clear statement by Saint Paul?

"Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. ... Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burnd with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

After reading this, you still want to sanctify this lifestyle by asking the government to desecrate what God did sanctify through the marriage institution? Can the Lord bless what he did curse through his inspired servant?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 10:10

*********

Carrol Grady stated the following on 21 June 2008 at 11:06:

"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

Carrol: Should society continue to discriminate between those who quality for a license to practice medicine? Should the government issue such a license to everybody who applies for one and pays the required fee? How about a pilot's license? or a driver's license. If an individual does not pass a driver's eyesight test, should society grant him/her a licence to drive anyhow?

The Creator clearly stated what the requirements are for a marriage license. Homosexuals do not qualify. Period! This has nothing to do with homophobia. When a medical student fails his/her final examination, would you accuse those denying him/her a license as homophobic?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 10:30

*********

A.Way stated the following on 22 June 2008 at 6:17:

"Oh that the Adventist church would understand that Law of the Universe is Love. And that God is Love. That is the everlasting Gospel. Always has been, and always will be.

A.Way: This same love prompted the loving Creator to warn Adam and Eve: "The day that you eat of the forbidden tree, you shall die." God's love is tender and tough at the same time.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 10:40

*********

Andrew Dykstra stated the following on 22 June 2008 at 7:49:

"The point of the Jared Wright's essay is that homosexual people should have another choice, another way to live responsibly, productively and healthily."

Andrew: The point of Jared Wright's essay is rather that homosexuals are entitled to a marriage license. Society is not telling them how to live. With a Civil Union Contract they get all the benefits they are entitled to. What they do not qualify for is a marriage license.

Marriage is a sacred intitution created and designed by God for companionship, security, enjoyment, and procreation. Homosexuals do not qualify. Jesus stated that even angels do not qualify for marriage! There are many things certain individuals do not qualify.

Most people do not qualify for becoming a prophet. Is this unfair discrimination. Nobody qualifies for Messiahnship. Is this unfair? Most people do not qualify for a medical or nursing license. Is this discrimination wrong?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 23 June 2008 at 10:59

*********

Lorna Brown stated the following on 23 June 2008 at 9:12:

"Jesus was without sin, he was single, pure, a virgin. What if it turns out he is gay? Why was John called the disciple whom Jesus loved?"

Lorna: Had Jesus been a homosexual, he would have been crucified for said reason instead of for his having claimed to be the Son of God.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 6:31

*********

Jared Wright stated the following on 23 June 2008 at 12:34:

"So that you might cease inappropriately appropriating my comments to score points for your unwarranted assumptions, let me be clear about the reason why homosexual Christians I've spoken with feel conflicted and depressed - it is because their Christian brothers have repeatedly pounded the notion into their heads that they are an abomination, that they are sinners by their very being, that their nature and orientation, from which they cannot escape, is abhorrent to God."

Jared: What you stated is true, but only partially true. Did Christian manufacture the idea that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord out of thin air? Are you attempting to silence Christian, or rather the Bible? Have you ever read Leviticus 18:1,22: "The Lord said to Moses ... You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. Such a thing is an abomination."

How about what Saint Paul said about the same issue in Romans 1? ""Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. ... Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burnd with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

Is it fair for you to lay the blame for the depression experienced by gays at the feet of Christians when the Bible is crystal clear that such practice is an abomination to the Lord; and that, according to Paul, God's representative to the gentiles, unequivocally described said sexual activity as degrading, unnatural, lustful, and perverse.

Yet you, a Seventh-day Adventist minister paid by the church, defend such perversion, thus violating what the church teaches about homosexuality. If I were you, I would relinquish my credentials and find another profession.

You also stated: "The only reason they feel condemned this way is that bigoted Christians, misrepresenting Scripture and mischaracterizing God have condemned homosexuals."

Jared: Is it true that "the only reason they feel condemned is" because "bigoted Christians, misrepresenting Scripture and mischaracterizing God have condemned homosexuals." I quoted above two statements from the Holy Book. Show me where did I misrepresent Scripture! Show me where did I mischaracterize what God said to Moses about homosexuality!

You also stated: "I implore you once again sir, before you continue making misleading and inaccurate statements, get to know at least one homosexual person for yourself. Having done so, you will have a little more credibility when making claims about homosexuality. Until that time, your comments continue to be revealed as passionate but ignorant conjecture."

Jared: You are a young pastor. I have done what you are doing. I am 76 now. I could probably be your grandfather. Do you think that I have never talked to a homosexual? Do I need to say more? Do I really need to keep talking to homosexuals to gain some additional credibility? I may not know everything that there is to know about homosexuality, and I may be innocently "ignorant" about a few things, but I would venture that you are wilfully ignorant about what Scripture states about this issue.

You also stated: "And for all of you who continue to insist that as Christians we have some sort of obligation to block same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment, I ask you what part of "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord" remains ambiguous to you?

Jared: I have a question for you. Was it it wrong for Ellen White to participate in the abolition movement? Is it wrong to warn the world about sin? When was the last time you read Ezequiel 3? "Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman ... If I say to the wicked man, you shall surely die; and you do not warn him ... I will hold you responsible for his death."

Have you also read Isaiah 56:10? "My watchmen are blind ... they are like dumb dogs. They cannot bark." I would add: They can bark, but they won't. They prefer to keep silent, or else even help the intruder carry out his evil mission of harming those who are unaware of the consequences of sin and rebellion.

You also stated: "We cannot and we must not try to establish what we feel is God's will by force through law. It is always wrong to do so. For that reason, we have a responsibility to oppose legislation that would impose religious views on all of America."

Jared: Marriage laws do affect the welfare of our children. Consequently, this is something that concerns both the state and the church. Do not forget that we have religions responsibilities, and civic duties. As citizens, we have the obligation to protect the welfare of our children.

Children fare much better when they are emotionally secure in the love and protection of a mom and a dad. When I exercise my civic duty, I am not imposing religion on others, but I am rather fulfilling my God-given responsibility as a citizen of the country I live in.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 12:35

*********

Carlitas posted the following on 23 June 2008 at 1:53:

"Pavlov's experiments usually centered around conditioned response and not positive reinforcement. In fact I can't find one reference to any experiments with positive reinforcement."

Carlitas: "Reinforcement as a theoretical concept in psychology can be traced back to Russian scientist Ivan P. Pavlov (1849�1936), who studied conditioning and learning in animals in the early 1900s." http://www.scienceclarified.com/Qu-Ro/Reinforcement-Positive-and-Negativ...

Whether Pavlov did or did not experiment with positive reinforcement, I am not sure. But the concept of reinforcement goes back to him.

You also stated: "Aside from that, your understanding of attraction and love seems off base. No one chooses a mate based on the "prize" of a marriage certificate. ... There has been same gender marriage in the Netherlands for 7 years and there is no evidence that greater numbers of people have been choosing to be gay because of marriage laws there!"

Can you document this for the benefit of those who think otherwise? What happens in the Netherlands may not be a valid predictor for what will happen in America. Religion is more strongly ingrained in the American psychis.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 4:25

*********

Elaine Nelson stated the following on 23 June 2008 at:

"Nic keeps repeating, to convince himself? that by "rewarding" gays in giving them equal rights, that we will encourage more to copy them."

Elaine: You guessed wrong. I have no need to convince myself! I am doing this to convince Elaine, but it seems that so far my efforts have been fruitless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 4:32

*********

E.Vieira stated the following on 23 June 2008 at 5:31:

"Every heterosexual writing here shows how brainwashed they've been by their acquired bad interpretation of the bible texts."

E.Vieira: Have you ever read Leviticus 18:1,22: "The Lord said to Moses ... You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. Such a thing is an abomination."

How about what Saint Paul said about the same issue in Romans 1? "Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. ... Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burnd with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

If my intrpretation of these two biblical statements is incorrect, then would you please explain which is the correct interpretation of these inspired condemnations of same gender sex? Please tell me what do the following inspired terms mean: "impurity," "lusts," "degradation," "unnatural," "shameful" and "perversity."

For me they are crystal clear, but for you, evidently they are not. How would you rephrase these biblical texts?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 4:51

*********

Carrol Grady stated the following on 23 June 2008 at 9:29:

"A population "implosion" sounds like what our world needs today. We need less people to use earth's resources, not more."

Carrol: You missed my point. America does not need a population implosion! I read a report stating that the average American woman produces 1.3 babies during her lifetime. This means that the deficit is made up by both legal and illegal immigration. Is this the best for our country?

When a population implosion takes place, the load of feeding and clothing a growing number of retirees falls on the shoulders of a diminishing number of workers. This is already taking place in Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, and politicians there are worried.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 5:06

*********

Rodney stated the following on 24 June 2008 at 12:00:

"As a reader but not often commenter on this site, I'd like to give you some friendly advice: you're making yourself look a bit ridiculous with your continual commenting. I think you started to repeat yourself about a dozen posts past. People are more likely to give you some credibility is you don't seem to be ranting and raving."

Rodney: Thanks for your timely advice. I have repeated myself, true, but so have those who are defending the opposite view. Unfortunately, I am in the minority, which means that my comments tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Most of those Seventh-day Adventists who share my beliefs, do not even bother to read Spectrum. One of these days I may be tempted to follow their example.

All I am trying to do right now is to respond to all those who have directed their comments at what I have been posting. The moment those who oppose my views cease their uneven struggle, I will cease as well.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 5:32

*********

A.Way stated the following on 24 June 2008 at 1:55:

"Why is your focus on homosexuality? Why should we not have the government ban divorce? That is much more common than homosexuality. ... Why not have the government enforce the 7th-day Sabbath? It is one of the "The 10"?"

A. Way: This question should be directed at the author of this blog, not me. I did not choose the topic. He did! I have been merely reacting to his suggestion that Adventists should support what the SDA disapproves. This is unacceptable for a pastor who is paid by the church to defend its officially approved doctrines. We do not need a fifth column inside the organization!

Regarding your suggestion that we also ban divorce, this had been done in the past. There was a time when securing a divorce was rather difficult, families tended to be more stable, and children benefited from such an arrangement.

As far as making Sabbath keeping mandatory, this was done by the Jews, and those who were more determined to regulate it are the ones who crucified the author of the Sabbath. No matter what you try, the enemy will distort what is good and turn it into a curse.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 5:53

*********

A.Way stated the following on 24 June 2008 at 1:59:

"Is God being tough, or just stating the facts? The wages of sin is death. Sin pays its wage. Nic - are you saying God will kill the sinner? Are you saying that God is saying, "Love me, or I'll kill you" ???"

My Answer: Did God kill Adam and Eve when they opted to disobey? He did not. Nevertheless, who killed the pre-flood generation, and the inhabitants of Sodom, and Anananias and Saphira; and who will kill the sinners with the light of his presence, and who will finally destroy the Devil and his angels? It seems to me that the answer to your question is not that simple.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 9:12

*********

Aage Rendalen stated the following on 24 June 2008 at 5:21:

"This debate illustrates the intellectual and moral cost of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy."

My Answer: If you have been reading my postings, you might be surprised by what I am going to say now. I agree with your statement. If that is the case, then why don't those who defend the homosexual's right to get married simply admit that the Bible contains errors connected with moral judgment, instead of persisting in telling me that I am misinterpreting the Scriptures.

The Scriptures are very clear in its condemnation of homosexual acts. If Jared and company would admit that Saint Paul made a moral blunder, and that Moses lied when he stated that the Lord told him that same gender sex was an abomination to him, or that this was inserted by copyist, then this debate would be over!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 9:32

*********

Lorna Brown posted the following on 24 June 2008 at 7:24:

"To say that all homosexuals are perverts is like saying all hispanics are lowriders, all whites are supremacists or all blacks are Muslim

My comment: I agree. We should not confuse perversion with the born preference for the same sex.

My question not to Lorna, but to those who this applies only: Who said that those practicing homosexuality are perverts? Saint Paul did! Here it is: "Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." So don't blame this on Christians who are merely quoting Paul.

Blame it on the Bible! Do not pretend that you do believe the Bible and that you are interpreting it correctly, while those who oppose gay marriage are bigots who are misinterpreting Scripture! Just admit that you do not believe what Saint Paul stated, and say that the Bible is not inerrant, and that it contains moral errors.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 9:51

*********

Elaine Nelson posted the following on 24 June 2008 at 1:07:

"Nic, you have provided abundant scripture in support of your position. This is more than sufficient to realize that this IS a religious, and not a civil issue. ... please state why you believe that the state should intervene and support religion or religious beliefs.

My answer: I have done this on several occasions, and some of the participants do not want me to repeat what I have stated before, but you insist that I do. I believe this is both a religions and a civil issue. The state has the duty to protect the best interest of children.

The best interest of the children is served when they have both a mom and a dad. Families are the backbone of our civilization. Whenever the govenment institutes policies which tend to harm the family institution, children are the first to suffer. The state should discourage both divorce and homosexual marriage.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 10:08

*********

Andrew Dykstra posted the following on 24 June 2008 at 2:20:

"To RDS & Nic: I am sorry I have not been able to share your point of view that homosexuality is a chosen behavior. You have been unable or unwilling to accept my assertion that it is not chosen."

My Answer: My response will be brief, instead of a long one, as you suggested. I have no need to answer all those questions you did pose. The reason? They do not apply to me. I do not believe that the homosexual preference for the same sex is chosen in every case. Even Jesus did admit that some were born "eunuchs" while others were made so by men.

I believe that many were born with the tendency towards homosexuality, while others acquired said preference for cultural, psychological, or emotional reasons. What I am oppossed to is the notion that society needs to elevate homosexuality to the honorific status of Married.

Gayness is an aberration of either nature or of conditioning. There is no need to grant it the state of normalcy. It is anomalous and deviant from what is normal. It is against God original design. The state can grant homosexual their legal right without desecrating the marriage institution. The best interest of our children demands this!

Posted by: Andrew Dykstra | 24 June 2008 at 2:20
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 10:25

*********

A.Way posted the following on 24 June 2008 at 6:39:

"Nic, trying to deflect direct questions to him said:

'As far as making Sabbath keeping mandatory, this was done by the Jews, and those who were more determined to regulate it are the ones who crucified the author of the Sabbath.'

Bingo - And might those who want to regulate one aspect of life, gay marriage, be in the same condition as those who crucified Christ? The most devout "adventists", who kept the law outwardly, crucified Christ. Interesting, is it not?"

My Answer: Yes, interesting indeed! I knew that someone would use my answer to come back with this comment you made. I agree that this is possible. Just think about what Adventists did with abortion. Jesus said that anybody offending these little ones, it would be better for them to tie a rock on their necks and to throw themselves into the ocean. Jesus also said that our final destiny will be determined by the way we treat these little ones.

How are we Adventists treating the little ones? Our official Guidelines on abortion state that it is alright to abort them--meaning poison or dismember them--before they have a chance to see the light of day in the event they are the result of rape, incest, malformation, if the pregnant female is a minor, if the pregnancy interferes with the woman's study program, and even if it affects her mental health.

The result? Some of our medical institutions have been offering even elective abortions where there is no evidence of abnormal development of the baby. My friend, we have already, and are already crucifying our Savior again in the lives of the unborn. Contrast this with what Catholic hospitals do: They refuse to perform abortions. Period! And we have been labelling the Pope as the beast of Revelation. My question is: Who is acting in a beastly fashion?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 10:47

*********

Jared Wright posted the following on 24 June 2008 at 7:58:

"For my part, I feel as though this is a good point for me to end my participation in the give and take, and let the chips fall where they may, as we say. Thank you to all those - ALL those - who have contributed to this discussion. Certainly, we all have a lot to learn as we work toward living together in Christian community. I look forward to continuing that process with all of you!"

My Reaction: I say amen to the above. I feel that I have learned much from this exchange of ideas and opinions. Especially, I have learned from Jared Wright, that winning a debate is not the most important thing in life. In this I often fail, and I apologize. May the good Lord bless each one of us, and help us to better represent the one who was meek and lowly in spirit.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 25 June 2008 at 5:22

*********

A.Way posted the following on 25 June 2008 at 5:18:

"Nic - when Jesus spoke about children, was he speaking about the unborn child? In the Old Testament, what was the penalty for murder? Death, right? Did the OT treat abortion as murder?
(Exodus 21:22 GNB) "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. The woman loses her child - - no death penalty?"

My Answer: You quoted the GNB version of the Bible. Have you noticed the way the NIV rendered the same passage?

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you must take life for life."

I ask you: Which translation fits better with the Bible's insistence that we should not shed innocent blood? Notice that if you stick to the NIV rendering of this text, then abortion becomes murder, and a violation of the Sixth Commandment. Bear in mind also, that James and Ellen White, as well as our early Adventist pioneers, did condemn abortion in the strongest terms.

They also condemned fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and divorce. In this we modern Adventists are failing and are no longer entitled to be considered by heaven as the "Remnant of God," until we repent and void our "Guidelines on Abortion." The Catholic Church has no guidelines on abortion. Their hospitals simply do not provide abortion services!

In the event you are interested in this subject, to which I have devoted thousands of hours with no expectation of renumeration, please read my doctoral dissertation dealing with the altered Adventist position on abortion. Here is the link: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html. God bless!

You also stated: "What is important is how we treat the woman that finds herself in need. Do we give our life for them? Or do we shun them, criticize them, lecture them? Just like we do the homosexual. Micah 6:8 tells us how we should be, treat people, all people with respect, have mercy on all people. And ourselves, be walk humbly with God."

My Response: I say Amen to that! Warning must be given with love. That is the hardest part. Nevertheless, it must be done. Ezequiel states that if we do not warn the sinner, God will hold us responsible for his fate. This is scary business. Jesus was merciful to sinners, but he quite often would say to them: "Go and sin no more." We, on the contrary, say to them: "You haven't sinned!" The result is that sinners feel no need to repent and secure forgiveness and healing.

God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 25 June 2008 at 5:54

*********

Albert Way Posted the Following on 25 June 2008 at 7:13:

"Premature birth without modern medicine is death for the child. ... Jared is right, and he is right - time to move on."

My Response: According to the NIV version of the Bible, if the baby dies, then the penalty is "life for life." Evidently in Old Testament times, not all premature births ended with the death of the baby. My conclusion that abortion is equivalent to murder seems to stand.

If Jared is right, and it is time to move on, how come you refuse to move on?
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 25 June 2008 at 10:00

*********

A.Way posted the follwoing on 25 June 2008 at 12:16:

"Others think the NIV translators made an honest mistake, but it is clearly a mistranslation of the Hebrew."

My Answer: What seems so clear to you is terribly dark to me. Biblical knowledge has increased since the KJV was first printed. The original Hebrew is not specific in its meaning. It can be translated as either "miscarriage" or else "premature birth. This means that we have a choice, and that the NIV is not a mistranslation as you claim it to be! The NIV translators made a wise choice, because "premature birth" harmonizes with the biblical injunction against shedding the blood of innocent human beings.

Besides, common sense dictates that in case of doubt, we need to err on the side of caution. It amazes me that when dealing with fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and abortion; while the Adventists pioneers opted to err on the side of caution, modern SDA's prefer to err ignoring all caution. If you were driving on a foggy night and noticed what could be a child, a dog, or a skunk, it would be foolish for you to say: "It could be a skunk. I will just keep going. Nobody will care about a dead skunk."

Most abortions are performed when the developing baby has two legs, two arms, a head, and a heart pumping blood. They possess all the basic characteristics of a human being, but we say: "It's probably not a human being yet, so I'll take a chance and either have it dismembered, or else poisoned." Is that the way God looks at that baby? On one occasion I asked a bright young SDA physician whether he would have performed an abortion for Mary, the mother of Jesus. "Of course," he answered. She had that choice.

Do you, by any chance, know how we got entangled with this business of killing babies? It was done for filthy profit. I discovered this while preparing for my doctoral dissertation. This took place back in 1970. The State of Hawai had decided to legalize abortion. Half of the staff at our Hospital there were non SDA's, and they demanded the right to perform abortions, and threatened to take their patients elsewhere if their demands were not met. The hospital administrator panicked and the church yielded to the pressure.

The then president of the North American Division explained the situation this way: "The church is leaning towards abortion because there is too much hunger and overpopulation in the world." Can you imagine this: The leader of "God's Remnant Church" on earth, the one keeping God's Commandments, arguing in the richest country on planet earth, that killing innocent human beings was justified because there were too many people and to much hunger in the world!

Some years later, five of our hospitals were providing elective abortions to their patients. One of the Loma Linda graduates who had planned to become a minister, opted for a medicanl career, got into the lucrative abortion business, and became a millionaire. Today, he owns over 20 abortion clinics. When asked why he was doing this, he responded: "If I refuse to provide abortion services, somebody else will."

Catholics hospital administrators did not sucumb to the temptation of choosing filthy lucre over the lives of the unborn. The Catholic church might be wrong about the state of the dead, but they are right about the state of the living! Our church used to preach the Gospel and also the validity of the Ten Commandments, while Evangelicals would ignore the Decalogue.

The other day, I received an Email with a picture of Evangelical pro-lifers in front of an abortion clinic with the picture of the Ten Commandment conspicuosly displayed on the sidewalk. How times have changed. This reminds me of the story told by Jesus of the two sons of a farmer. The first one promised to work in his father's vineyard, while the other refused. At the end, the second one is the one who eventually did work, while the first one did not.

You may think that you are reading what I posted by sheer accident. Who knows, perhaps God is enticing you to join me in this crusade to awaken our church members about the seriousness of what we are doing. There is still time to repent before it is too late.

Not long ago, the German and Austrian SDA leaders issued a joint apology for the Adventist cooperation with the Nazi regime while Hitler was exterminating six million Jews. Today we as a church are repeating the same mistake, this time in the case of the genocide of the unborn. Satan's harvest this time is tenfold bigger than the one he secured under Hitler: 50 million so far. May the Lord have mercy on his church and the unborn!

God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 25 June 2008 at 10:09

*********

A.Way Posted the following on 25 June 2008 at 12:16:

"A little internet review yields this:

'Most of the English Bible translations except the NIV make it clear that God shows a fetus is not life. The NIV says "premature birth" and in a note it says miscarriage. The NIV translators got heat from anti-choice people with an agenda to prove life begins at conception, so the translators changed scriptures to their agenda. Others think the NIV translators made an honest mistake, but it is clearly a mistranslation of the Hebrew.'"

My Response: A more careful internet research yields this: [Please read carefully the entire article. Your liberal and incorrect interpretation of Exodus 21:22 is refuted in a scholarly manner.]

"What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion

Gregory Koukl
The Torah's teaching about accidental "miscarriage"; has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.

divider

Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in the Scripture, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.

Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. God�s personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God �knows� us even before we�re conceived.

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers I�ve discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant--even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If I�m right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.

Dead or Alive?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman�s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[1]

This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is �life for life.� In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, �the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.�[2]

At issue is the phrase translated �she has a miscarriage.� There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word �miscarriage� implies the death of the child. Webster�s New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, �The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.�[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.

Here�s the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word �miscarriage� is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. There�s a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Let�s look at it.

Yeled and Yasa

A word�s meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a word�s range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

The relevant phrase in the passage, �...she has a miscarriage...,� reads w yase � ye lad�h� in the Hebrew. It�s a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means �the child comes forth.� The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

The Hebrew noun translated �child� in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means �child, son, boy, or youth.�[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning �to bear, bring forth, or beget.� In the NASB yalad is translated �childbirth� 10 times, some form of �gave birth� over 50 times, and either �bore,� �born,� or �borne� 180 times.

The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means �to go or come out.� It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It�s translated with some form of �coming out� (e.g., �comes out,� �came out,� etc.) 103 times, and some form of �going� 445 times.

What�s most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:
Genesis 1:24 �Then God said, �Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind�; and it was so.�

Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] �Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....�

Genesis 15:4 �This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....�

Genesis 25:25-26 �Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau�s heel, so his name was called Jacob.�

1 Kings 8:19 �Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.�

Jeremiah 1:5 �Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.�

2 Kings 20:18 �And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.�

As you can see, it�s common for yasa to describe the �coming forth� of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, �Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother�s womb!�

Note here, that we don�t infer the child�s death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (�whose flesh is half eaten away�), and doesn�t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated �miscarriage� in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?

Clues from the Context

This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.

This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that �comes forth� is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word �further� in the NASB is not in the original):
�And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman�s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....�

The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that �there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.�[9]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:
�There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...�[10]

Two Rejoinders

Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can�t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldn�t prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesn�t mean the slave is sub-human.

Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that�s what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel[11] means �miscarriage� or �abortion,� and is used three times:
Job 3:16 �Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.�

Eccl. 6:3-4 �If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, �Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.��

Psalms 58:8 �Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.�

The verb sakal[12] means �to be bereaved� and is used four times, including one time when it�s actually translated �abort:�
Genesis 31:38 �These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.�

Exodus 23:26 �There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.�

Hosea 9:14 �Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.�

Job 21:10 �His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn�t use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesn�t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated �miscarriage.� Why? Because the word doesn�t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.

Three Questions

When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word �miscarriage� entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn�t mean miscarriage; it means �to come forth.� The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it�s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There�s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn�t indicate that the child wasn�t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn�t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

Regardless of the translation, it�s clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.

[1] The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, �If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined...� etc.

[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

[3] Webster�s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984).

[4] Strong�s Index word #3206.

[5] Definitions come from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. For further documentation, see the Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew.

[6] Strong�s Index word #3205.

[7] Strong�s Index word #3318.

[8] The New International Version is correct in rendering this passage, �If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman�s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.�

[9] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 556.

[10] Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.

[11] Strong�s Index word #5309.

[12] Strong�s Index word #7921.

[13] Again, in the Numbers passage the context indicates the death, not the word yasa itself.

Internet Source: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700"

*********

Similar conclusions from other internet sources:

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus2122.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/786-does-exodus-21-sanction-abo...

*********
Notice the Following: Your "Little internet review" was taken from a website entitled "Liberated Christians" [http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/exodus.html] with an abortion agenda in mind.

*********
Notice also that the NIV translation of the Bible was done with the use of the most original sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 26 June 2008 at 6:32

*********

A.Way Posted the Following on 26 June 2008 at 5:16

"So, those in California, if given the chance to vote on Gay marriage in November, do vote your conscience. But voting will be the easy thing to do. How you treat the Gay person, marriage or not, chaste or not, with AIDS or not, is the most important thing. It is always dangerous when we Chief Sinners become the Moral Guardians."

My Answer: I agree! Nevertheless, do not exhaust all your love, your concern, and your Christianity on the homosexuals. Leave some love and care for the unborn who has been victimized by the liberated pro-abortion "Christian" crowd.

God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 26 June 2008 at 6:41

*********
To read the entire exchange between all blog participants, please click on the Internet link listed below:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/06/16/why_adventists_should_consider_supporting_gay_marriage#comment-8015

The Debate Ends Off-Line With One

\of the Bloggers

At 06:51 AM 6/26/2008, you wrote:

I would be interested in your thoughts on the following sermon by Greg Boyd, in a series called the Cross and the Sword, which was the basis for his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation.

5/2/2004 � Abortion: A Kingdom of God Approach, Greg Boyd  �  sermon length 38:41

The Cross and the Sword series continued with this sermon, which covered two more consequences of fusing the kingdom of God with the kingdom of the world. To illustrate the damage this can cause, Greg discussed using the Kingdom of God approach with abortion: don't limit ourselves to the options given by the kingdom of the world, but ascribe unsurpassable worth to others (mother and baby) at cost to ourselves. This is the unique mission of the Kingdom of God, and it's not easy.

Audio - 4.43 mb

High-Quality Audio - 17.7 mb

Presentation Slides

Study Guide

[Blogger ]

Hi!

I did what you asked me to do! Greg sounds like a great preacher. In this sermon he describes what the duty of the church toward pregnant women is. I fully agree with what he said about this. Nevertheless, besides being an active member of God's church, I am also a citizen of my country. I have both duties as a church member and obligations to society. My priority is the Kingdom of God, my family comes second, and then I have obligation to my country.

Suppose there was a referendum regarding slavery. Would you discourage church members from voting against slavery? I doubt that you would! Slavery is cruel and unfair, but most slaves did survive. In the case of abortion, the developing child is killed. Peter Singer, a Harvard professor, is of the opinion that parents should have the right to kill any unwanted baby in the first month after birth. Suppose there was a law being considered implementing Singer's philosophy, would you argue that we are supposed simply to love the mother and help her, but not to be concerned about exercising your right to oppose such law.

Greg's illustration about Dorothy, the woman who helped a pregnant woman before and after birth is impressive. There should a program like that in the Adventist church. Some years ago, a young man and his wife started such a program in Loma Linda. The apathy was so great, that he joined the Seventh-day Baptist Church in Riverside, and relocated his Dorothy like Pro-life office to Hemet.

On several occasions I sent donations both to my local SDA church and to the General Conference office, and designated such donations as Pro-life. Each time my money was returned to me with the following note: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not have a Pro-life program." This prompted me to split my tithes and offerings between the SDA church and other Pro-life ministries. It was not easy for me to take this drastic action, and my spiritual pilgrimage dealing with this issue is described in a literary allegory I wrote and published many years ago in my http://www.sdaforum.com website. Here is the Internet link to it. I would like you to read it and let me know what you think about it: http://sdaforum.com/page38.html

Nic Samojluk

Hi!

Thanks for your reply. I will insert my comments  here and there.

At 07:46 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote:

If you have not read Greg Boyd's book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation", I highly recommend it.

*********
I may read his book some day, but I feel no extreme urgency to do this. I have probably a hundred outstanding books I have either purchased or were given to me which are waiting their turn to be read. My regular business and my mission to the unborn does not allow me as much spare time for reading as I wish I had. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The pilgrims came to America searching for freedom from religious tyranny. No nation on earth has ever been Christian in the pure sense of the term, which means that Boyd is right. But it also means that he is wrong. Today, liberals and agnostics are attempting to rewrite American history.

*********

In the article I sent you, Greg said, if you get a chance to vote, do vote your conscience.  But you need to understand his terms, "power over" and "power under".  Power over, is  Satanic principle.  You force your will on others. 

*********
"Power over" can be Satanic or it can also be guided by God. Paul states that the government does not wield the sword in vain, and that it is God's minister for punishing evildoers. The church was granted the Sword of the Spirit, but the government the physical sword. When used properly, it does the Lord's work of protecting citizens from harm. In a hostage situation, you do not call the pastor, but rather the police, and sharpshooters. The mission is to save the victim from harm. It is "power over," and properly used by the police. It would be wrong for the pastor to wield said sword, but not for a policeman in such a situation.

*********

You may say the unborn has no choice.  We could get into arguments about when does a child become a real human.

*********
The pregnant woman does always have a choice, unless she lives in China, and she is taken by force and the abortion is performed against her will. In America, she can always give her baby for adoption and thus avoid shedding the blood of her own child. The unborn, on the other hand, is given no choice. The rapist is allowed to live, while the life of the innocent is sacrificed for the sins of its father. This is forbidden in the Bible. I have no need to tell you when human life begins. The answer is found in all biology books which were printed before abortion was legalized. I do know this for a fact: Most abortions are performed when the unborn already has a torso, a head with two ears, two eyes, a mouth, two legs, two arms, and a heart that is pumping blood. To me this creature is a human being. Would you deny this? If you are not sure whether the unborn is a human being, you should err on the side of caution. Common sense requires this.

*********

 I certainly have my thoughts, but the ONLY thing that is relevant is how am I going to treat the woman in need. 

*********
Wrong! Dead wrong! What is really relevant is how I treat both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. Both were created by God and for his glory. The physician's duty is to save both, whenever possible, instead of killing one for the convenience of the other. Both have the same moral value in the sight of the Creator.

*********

The example of "Dorothy" is how the church should respond.  It is how Jesus would respond. 

*********
Yes! And the Adventist church is not doing this. It does not have a Dorothy like Pro-life program. The only thing it has is a document justifying the conditions under which it is justifiable to kill unborn children with impunity. The abortion business is our Moloch counterpart for the sacrifice of children to the Devil. Pagans did burn children in honor to this god in Old Testament times, we burn them with poison today. They did this after birth, we do it before they have had a chance to see the light of day.

*********

Did Jesus ever speak out against the capital punishment of his day?  I'm sure you are absolutely against capital punishment.  You would have to be to be consistent. 

*********
I hope you are wise enough to see the difference between executing a murderer and killing the innocent! I do not condemn the death penalty. I am opposed to it, but for another reason: The DNA test has provided ample evidence that the death penalty has been imposed in the past on people who were in fact innocent of the alleged crimes. If you discover that a prisoner is innocent, you can free him. If you execute an alleged criminal, the penalty is irreversible. This is why I oppose the death penalty. Otherwise, I have no problem if society executes a guilty individual, and there is no inconsistency here on my part. Executing an innocent baby is a totally different story!

*********

Did Jesus speak out against slavery of his day? 

*********
Did Ellen White speak against slavery? Was she wrong in doing so? Did not Jesus say: There are many things I have to say to you, but you are not ready. Truth is progressive. There are things the Lord did not reveal in Old Testament times, which he did in the new. Jesus said: Moses told you, but I say unto you. The patriarchs practiced polygamy. David had half a dozen wives, and God never condemned him for this. Today it is illegal to have more than one wife, and Christians agree with this policy. Are you opposed to monogamy? Our society has a new polygamy today: serial monogamy. But God says that he hates divorce! He also hates the modern way of sacrificing children for the sin of the parents: abortion.

*********

Did Jesus get involved in the politics of his day? 

*********
When Jesus was on earth, the Saducees and the Pharisees were in charge of politics. Moses' teachings were the law of the land for the Jews. Jesus did challenge the status quo. This is why they crucified him. I do not think you are reading the Gospels right! At his triumphal entry, he did not refuse the homage due to kings. Had the Jews accepted him as their promised Messiah, he would have been crowned as king of the Jews.

*********

What did he do?  He did the "Dorothy" thing.  And if the Adventist Church was known at "Dorothys", then the Adventist Church would be doing the right thing, and its influence in the world would be incredible. 

*********
Yes!

*********

Voting for or against abortion is a cop out, and does not accomplish anything ultimately.  Same thing with gay marriage. 

*********
Wrong again! Dead wrong! Had the Supreme Court refused to create an inexistent abortion right our of thin air, this would have saved the lives of 50 million innocent children. How can you say that voting against abortion would not accomplish anything? If society were to outlaw abortion, we would be saving a huge number of innocent victims of said devilish practice. The Seventh-day Adventist church has been championing the war against smoking. Why? Because, by doing so, we can extend the lives of smokers by four or five years.

Some years ago, SDA members were collecting voters' signatures for the California smoking initiative right in front of the Loma Linda University Church, and the pastor made an announcement right from the pulpit encouraging members to participate in this endeavor. When several months ago I asked the pastor to make an announcement about my report dealing with my doctoral dissertation and  our SDA attitude towards abortion, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was out of line in making such a request. In other words, assisting people quit the smoking habit is acceptable because we help people live longer, but trying to help the unborn live longer is totally out of line. I don't understand! Do you?

*********

If the Church treated ALL gays like Dorothy treats people, think of the influence the SDA church would have.   You have observed the apathy.  You know what I'm talking about.

*********
Yes!

*********

Do you think pushing a civil law on people would change SDA members into Dorothys?

*********
You are confusing the role of the church with that of the government. The church's duty is to preach the Gospel. The church was given the Sword of the Spirit. While the government mission is to protect citizen's right to life and property with the sword, and they "do not wield the sword in vain."

*********

(Revelation 3:17 KJV) Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

*********
Amen!

*********

As to your Spectrum comment on Gays and saving some love for the unborn, I don't think that is that was thought about in:
(1 John 3:16 KJV) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. There is no qualifier there.  We need to be Dorothy to everyone.  I think you would agree.  No holding back.

*********
Yes, and be willing to lay our lives for the homosexuals, the pregnant women, and the unborn. There are many ways of laying down our lives, one of them is by offering our lives in a living sacrifice: a life which is consumed in service to others.

*********

No judgementallism. 

*********
Please, do not confuse judgmentalism with judgment. The Bible encourages us to exercise proper judgment. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we need to distinguish between right and wrong. Were it not this the case, preaching would be superfluous.

*********

Power under people.  Lift them up.  Really show them Christ. 

*********
Yes!

*********

Power over takes away freedom, even freedom to do the wrong thing.

*********
When the law forbids murder, I am still free to shoot at the president, but there are serious consequences. Many have tried, and they end up in jail or the electric chair. One abortionist admitted he killed approximately 60,000 innocent unborn babies. He is till free to continue the bloody business. No consequences! Does this make sense to you?

*********

(James 1:25 NKJV) But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Suppose Singer's Law became the law of the land, and a young mother choose to kill he young daughter.  It is perfectly legal because it is the law of the land.  Would you shun that mother?  Or would you love her? 

*********
God loves even murderers. But unless they repent of their sin, God cannot promise them eternal life. When the church tells a woman that taking the life of her unborn baby is no sin, the woman will have no need to feel guilty, and will not likely repent and seek forgiveness. The same could be said about the abortionist, and the boyfriend who takes her pregnant girlfriend to the abortionist.

*********

I read your allegory.  I think your comments about the apathy, the non-Dorothys is more telling than any law in the church manual.  Words don't mean much. 

*********
Yes!

*********

Voting for or against does not mean much.  Both certainly do not save the unborn child. 

*********
They don't? How come the incidence of abortion mushroomed into a million and a half per year following the legalization of abortion?  Perhaps voting against burglary, child abuse, stealing, and rape does not accomplish much either, and we should legalize those criminal activities as well! Right or wrong?

*********

Dorothy-like attitudes and works do wonders.  Save an unwanted child from an abortion and that child may grow up in a home atmosphere that will create a monster, a little Hitler. 

*********
Yes, or that child, raised in a less ideal environment may become a saint. Of Jesus it was said: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Have you read the biography of Beethoven?

*********

Save an unwanted child from an abortion in an atmosphere that treats the unwed mother with care and respect, and the child may have more of a chance at being a pillar in the temple of Christ.  You can not produce this with legislation.  Only by personal, self-sacrificial giving. 

*********
You have forgotten the obvious alternative to abortion: adoption! With adoption, everybody wins, the baby, the mother, the rapist, and the adoptive parents! The Bible says: "Choose life!" Satan prefers death, because he was a "murderer from the beginning!

*********

          Respectfully

          [Blogger]

*********
God bless!

Nic Samojluk

Hi:

I will insert my comments between a series of XXXXXXXXX

At 10:38 AM 6/27/2008, you wrote:

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Nic Samojluk <nicsamojluk@adelphia.net> wrote:

Hi!

Thanks for your reply. I will insert my comments  here and there.

At 07:46 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote:

If you have not read Greg Boyd's book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation", I highly recommend it.

*********

I may read his book some day, but I feel no extreme urgency to do this. I have probably a hundred outstanding books I have either purchased or were given to me which are waiting their turn to be read. My regular business and my mission to the unborn does not allow me as much spare time for reading as I wish I had. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The pilgrims came to America searching for freedom from religious tyranny. No nation on earth has ever been Christian in the pure sense of the term, which means that Boyd is right. But it also means that he is wrong. Today, liberals and agnostics are attempting to rewrite American history.

*********

#######
You have not read Boyd's book and have no basis for saying it is wrong.  As for American, you limit your view to only a tiny part of the planet.  With America and its manifest destiny, and the destruction of 10s of millions of native people, that was the Christian thing to do?  There are so many other examples.  American is not a Christian nation.
#######

XXXXXXXXX
I have read similar ideas elsewhere. You misread my statement. What I said was that Boyd is both right and wrong. Let me illustrate: If someone claims to be a Christian, the statement is usually right and wrong at the same time. Your definition of Christianity is to be like Jesus. Many sincere Christians are loving individuals, but none will ever copy the character of Jesus one hundred percent. The U.S. Declaration of Independence traces our right to liberty to the Creator. Many other documents make reference to God. Even our coins do so. There is no question but that the founders of this nation recognized God as the Creator and the foundation of our rights. On that basis, we can say that our nation is a Christian nation. Our nation has acted on many occasions in a Christ-like fashion. At the same time, it has misrepresented his holy name on multiple instances. This is why I am saying that Boyd is both right and wrong.
XXXXXXXXX

In the article I sent you, Greg said, if you get a chance to vote, do vote your conscience.  But you need to understand his terms, "power over" and "power under".  Power over, is  Satanic principle.  You force your will on others. 

*********

"Power over" can be Satanic or it can also be guided by God. Paul states that the government does not wield the sword in vain, and that it is God's minister for punishing evildoers. The church was granted the Sword of the Spirit, but the government the physical sword. When used properly, it does the Lord's work of protecting citizens from harm. In a hostage situation, you do not call the pastor, but rather the police, and sharpshooters. The mission is to save the victim from harm. It is "power over," and properly used by the police. It would be wrong for the pastor to wield said sword, but not for a policeman in such a situation.

*********

#######
No question that the civil government has a purpose and a role.  I've never denied that.  But no government on earth looks like Jesus.
#######

XXXXXXXXX
Right, I just said the same! And that is exactly what I meant with my previous comments.
XXXXXXXXX

You may say the unborn has no choice.  We could get into arguments about when does a child become a real human.

*********

The pregnant woman does always have a choice, unless she lives in China, and she is taken by force and the abortion is performed against her will. In America, she can always give her baby for adoption and thus avoid shedding the blood of her own child. The unborn, on the other hand, is given no choice. The rapist is allowed to live, while the life of the innocent is sacrificed for the sins of its father. This is forbidden in the Bible. I have no need to tell you when human life begins. The answer is found in all biology books which were printed before abortion was legalized. I do know this for a fact: Most abortions are performed when the unborn already has a torso, a head with two ears, two eyes, a mouth, two legs, two arms, and a heart that is pumping blood. To me this creature is a human being. Would you deny this? If you are not sure whether the unborn is a human being, you should err on the side of caution. Common sense requires this.

*********

#######
The unborn child does not have reasoning power and have not developed a character.   Is a fertilized egg fully human?  I have no need to discuss this further also.
#######

XXXXXXXXX
If the fertilized egg is not human, then what is it? Inhuman? It is not part of the pregnant woman's body, because it possesses its own DNA. It is a totally unique entity. Its identity cannot be included in any other being in the universe. When an Alzheimer patient looses his/her mental abilities, does he/she cease to be a human being? Does size determine humanity? Are Vietnamese of less moral value because most of them are smaller in size? Does a just-born baby possess reasoning powers? Can a newborn distinguish between right and wrong and make moral choices? Can you tell me exactly at what stage of development a baby becomes a human being? Is it morally right to kill a mentally disabled child?

Your argument remind me of what for many years a former religious SDA liberty  leader, John Stevens Jr., has been teaching: That babies are not human until they take the first breath after birth. He also argued that Jesus died in order to grant humans "freedom of choice." " Well, if that is the case, then perhaps Jesus also died to grant us the freedom to steal, rape, and abuse little children. We are free to sin, but there are serious consequences if we do. The government's job is to curtail our freedom to harm others. These morally repugnant ideas advanced by Stevens were included in our SDA officially sanctioned "Guidelines on Abortion." Not long ago, The "Pacific Union Recorder" published his Devil inspired errors, but when I asked  for equal time to write in defense of the unborn, I was told that they did not allow controversial subjects to be published. I am surprised that Spectrum did not force me to shut up in the blog thread about homosexuality. It took me twenty years before I was allowed to say anything in defense of the unborn in Adventist publications.
XXXXXXXXX

 I certainly have my thoughts, but the ONLY thing that is relevant is how am I going to treat the woman in need. 

*********

Wrong! Dead wrong! What is really relevant is how I treat both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. Both were created by God and for his glory. The physician's duty is to save both, whenever possible, instead of killing one for the convenience of the other. Both have the same moral value in the sight of the Creator.

*********

######
Do you have no other option?  What if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother (eisenmenger's physiology for example).  Does the unborn child trump the mother, a fully functioning human being?
######

XXXXXXXXX
If the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, which is extremely rare nowadays, then the only one who can make a decision is the mother. This does not mean that the mother possesses a higher moral value in God's eyes. But there is no way for the baby to make a choice. Therefore the pregnant woman must be the one to decide who should live. There have been documented cases where both the mother and the baby lived in spite of the doctors' opinion that both would die. If there is no serious threat to the life of the mother, then there is no morally acceptable excuse to kill the baby. The duty of doctors is to save both, whenever possible. A temporary inconvenience for the woman does not justify taking the life of an innocent human being!
XXXXXXXXX

The example of "Dorothy" is how the church should respond.  It is how Jesus would respond. 

*********

Yes! And the Adventist church is not doing this. It does not have a Dorothy like Pro-life program. The only thing it has is a document justifying the conditions under which it is justifiable to kill unborn children with impunity. The abortion business is our Moloch counterpart for the sacrifice of children to the Devil. Pagans did burn children in honor to this god in Old Testament times, we burn them with poison today. They did this after birth, we do it before they have had a chance to see the light of day.

*********

#######
The church may not have an official program, but there is nothing from stopping you from having one. 
#######

XXXXXXXXX
I do have one. I have been using my voice and my pen to warn my fellow Adventists about our moral mistake of having sided with baby killers. Mother Teresa used to see the face of Jesus in the face of every child, including the unborn. She may have been wrong on the state of the dead, but she was right about the state of the living. She might have believed in some theological erroneous dogmas, but she lived as a saint. Isn't this what you say is the most important consideration for Christians? Did the Seventh-day Adventist church ever produce a saint like this one?
XXXXXXXXX

 Did Jesus ever speak out against the capital punishment of his day?  I'm sure you are absolutely against capital punishment.  You would have to be to be consistent. 

*********

I hope you are wise enough to see the difference between executing a murderer and killing the innocent! I do not condemn the death penalty. I am opposed to it, but for another reason: The DNA test has provided ample evidence that the death penalty has been imposed in the past on people who were in fact innocent of the alleged crimes. If you discover that a prisoner is innocent, you can free him. If you execute an alleged criminal, the penalty is irreversible. This is why I oppose the death penalty. Otherwise, I have no problem if society executes a guilty individual, and there is no inconsistency here on my part. Executing an innocent baby is a totally different story!

*********

#######
Just think if David was executed after he committed murder.  And you otherwise have no problem with the death penalty?  Amazing. 
#######

XXXXXXXXX
If King David were alive today. I would not be a threat to him, because, as I stated above, I am against the death penalty because death is irreversible. Over 100 prisoners have been exonerated on the basis of a DNA test. Nevertheless, if the state executes a murderer, I will not condemn the executioner, because there is a huge moral difference between executing a murderer and killing an innocent human being. Do you see, or do you fail to see the moral difference? You have been asking me a lot of probing questions, but, quite often, you fail to address the questions I am asking!
XXXXXXXXX

Did Jesus speak out against slavery of his day? 

*********

Did Ellen White speak against slavery? Was she wrong in doing so? Did not Jesus say: There are many things I have to say to you, but you are not ready. Truth is progressive. There are things the Lord did not reveal in Old Testament times, which he did in the new. Jesus said: Moses told you, but I say unto you. The patriarchs practiced polygamy. David had half a dozen wives, and God never condemned him for this. Today it is illegal to have more than one wife, and Christians agree with this policy. Are you opposed to monogamy? Our society has a new polygamy today: serial monogamy. But God says that he hates divorce! He also hates the modern way of sacrificing children for the sin of the parents: abortion.

*********

#######
Again you are American centric.  What would you say to an African with multiple wives, or a Muslim from any muslim country with multiple wives that accepts the Gospel of Christ.  Would you tell them, you know, you can only have one wife, you need to divorce the others?  That would be barbaric.
########

XXXXXXXXX
Monogamy is morally superior to polygamy. God's ideal is monogamy for human beings, and I am glad that the U.S. did declare illegal the practice of polygamy. This is because the founders of our nation derived their laws from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Had this been not the case, we would all have sided with polygamous Mormons. Unfortunately, the government legalized both abortion and easy divorce, which harms and kills innocent children.
XXXXXXXXX

Did Jesus get involved in the politics of his day? 

*********

When Jesus was on earth, the Saducees and the Pharisees were in charge of politics. Moses' teachings were the law of the land for the Jews. Jesus did challenge the status quo. This is why they crucified him. I do not think you are reading the Gospels right! At his triumphal entry, he did not refuse the homage due to kings. Had the Jews accepted him as their promised Messiah, he would have been crowned as king of the Jews.

*********

######
The Saducees and Parisees were in charge of politics?    Tell that to Herod.  Tell that to the Romans who had to be persuaded to crucify Christ.  They had no king but Caeser, a Roman. 
######

XXXXXXXXX
As usual, you are partially correct. The Jews were under the domination of the Roman Empire, but Rome did allow them a certain degree of freedom, and permitted them to have their own laws. When Jesus was apprehended, was he taken to a Roman court? He was taken to the Sanhedrin, presided by the high priest. Have you ever read the book of the Maccabees? It contains references to the sale of the priesthood to the highest bidder. Aspirants to said political and religious position paid a high sum of money to the Romans for the privilege of holding said office. The high priest was the one who presided over the Sanhedrin. Was the Sanhedrin a Roman institution? The Roman political power resided in the Senate, not a Sanhedrin. Do you still insist that the Jews did not possess political power? Jesus was not taken to a Roman court, but in front of the highest Jewish political and religious authority. The only reason Jesus had to appear in front of Pilate was because the Jews had no power to impose a death sentence on Jesus. This is why when Pilate told them to judge Jesus according to their own laws, they responded that they had no authority to impose the death penalty. Had the Jews been bereft of all political power, they would never have been able to persuade Pilate to kill a man he considered to be innocent of any crime. You are misreading and misinterpreting both the Bible and historical facts.
XXXXXXXXX

What did he do?  He did the "Dorothy" thing.  And if the Adventist Church was known at "Dorothys", then the Adventist Church would be doing the right thing, and its influence in the world would be incredible. 

*********

Yes!

*********

Voting for or against abortion is a cop out, and does not accomplish anything ultimately.  Same thing with gay marriage. 

*********

Wrong again! Dead wrong! Had the Supreme Court refused to create an inexistent abortion right our of thin air, this would have saved the lives of 50 million innocent children. How can you say that voting against abortion would not accomplish anything? If society were to outlaw abortion, we would be saving a huge number of innocent victims of said devilish practice. The Seventh-day Adventist church has been championing the war against smoking. Why? Because, by doing so, we can extend the lives of smokers by four or five years.

Some years ago, SDA members were collecting voters' signatures for the California smoking initiative right in front of the Loma Linda University Church, and the pastor made an announcement right from the pulpit encouraging members to participate in this endeavor. When several months ago I asked the pastor to make an announcement about my report dealing with my doctoral dissertation and  our SDA attitude towards abortion, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was out of line in making such a request. In other words, assisting people quit the smoking habit is acceptable because we help people live longer, but trying to help the unborn live longer is totally out of line. I don't understand! Do you?

*********

######
Was the smoking initiative only to raise the taxes, not an out right ban on smoking?  As for abortion, absolutely vote your conscience, just as with smoking.  But in the end, it is not how you vote that will matter, but how you treat all people.
######

XXXXXXXXX
What difference does that make? By encouraging SDA's from the pulpit to vote on something that did not deprive anybody of life, the church was using what Boyd calls "power over," the power of the state on American citizens. The same can be said about the liberation of the slaves. Adventists did participate in the endeavor to help slaves achieve their freedom. That was also the use of the "power over." When Paul was persecuted, he appealed to his right as a Roman citizen, and he eventually appealed to Caesar. Was this wrong? If Saint Paul had the right to appeal to the civil government for his own protection, then it follows that we have the same right to appeal to the civil government for the protection of the unborn. The government is duty bound to protect the life and limb of every human being under its jurisdiction. There is no reason to exclude the unborn. This is why Scott Peterson was convicted of a double count of murder when he killed his pregnant wife. As you can see, the state is not totally morally blind as some Christians who insist that the unborn have no right to life before birth.
XXXXXXXXX

If the Church treated ALL gays like Dorothy treats people, think of the influence the SDA church would have.   You have observed the apathy.  You know what I'm talking about.

*********

Yes!

*********

(Revelation 3:17 KJV) Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

*********

Amen!

*********

As to your Spectrum comment on Gays and saving some love for the unborn, I don't think that is that was thought about in:

(1 John 3:16 KJV) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. There is no qualifier there.  We need to be Dorothy to everyone.  I think you would agree.  No holding back.

*********

Yes, and be willing to lay our lives for the homosexuals, the pregnant women, and the unborn. There are many ways of laying down our lives, one of them is by offering our lives in a living sacrifice: a life which is consumed in service to others.

*********

#####
I think the way you put in on Spectrum, is to hold back some of your love for the unborn.  I don't think that is what the scripture says.
#####

XXXXXXXXX
Please, explain or rephrase your statement. It is not clear to me what you are trying to say here! I can't respond if I don't understand what you are referring to.
XXXXXXXXX

No judgementallism. 

*********

Please, do not confuse judgmentalism with judgment. The Bible encourages us to exercise proper judgment. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we need to distinguish between right and wrong. Were it not this the case, preaching would be superfluous.

*********

###### 
To one person what is right, it wrong to another person.  Civil laws shape that opinion.  (Don't think just american here).  What is the Gospel?  That is an important questions.  THE GOSPEL, is the truth about God, as the book Steps to Christ puts it, that he is not arbitrary, vengeful, unforgiving and severe.   Note the "severe" part?  
######

XXXXXXXXX
The Lord is merciful and loving. Whenever he chastises, he does so moved by infinite love. The final destruction of Satan and the wicked will also be done out of love towards both saints and sinners. The Bible talks quite a bit about God's vengeance, but properly understood, it is a type of controlled anger which moves him to do what is best for everybody concerned. Sinners could never be happy in the presence of a holy God.
XXXXXXXXX

Power under people.  Lift them up.  Really show them Christ. 

*********

Yes!

*********

Power over takes away freedom, even freedom to do the wrong thing.

*********

When the law forbids murder, I am still free to shoot at the president, but there are serious consequences. Many have tried, and they end up in jail or the electric chair. One abortionist admitted he killed approximately 60,000 innocent unborn babies. He is till free to continue the bloody business. No consequences! Does this make sense to you?

*********

######
From a civil law point of view, abortion is not murder. 
######

XXXXXXXXX
Human law is subject to change. God's law is immutable. For thousands of years, abortion was illegal. The legalization of abortion is a new experiment by the U.S. Satan, who has been a "murderer from the beginning," is always using his deceptive power to induce those in power to deprive certain groups of people of personhood. For centuries, both women and slaves had no right. Before the Civil War, when some states were free while others were not. One man moved from a slave state to a free one, and took his slave with him. The black man, seeing the opportunity to acquire his freedom, appealed to thecourts. The presiding judge's opinion was that blacks had no right to freedom, and that they were morally on the same level with animals, bereft of any legal right. They were mere property of their owners. It took a lot of "power over" to free the slaves and grant them what they were entitled to by the Creator.
XXXXXXXXX

(James 1:25 NKJV) But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Suppose Singer's Law became the law of the land, and a young mother choose to kill he young daughter.  It is perfectly legal because it is the law of the land.  Would you shun that mother?  Or would you love her? 

*********

God loves even murderers. But unless they repent of their sin, God cannot promise them eternal life. When the church tells a woman that taking the life of her unborn baby is no sin, the woman will have no need to feel guilty, and will not likely repent and seek forgiveness. The same could be said about the abortionist, and the boyfriend who takes her pregnant girlfriend to the abortionist.

*********

######
How about the divorcee?  They have committed an equal crime against God's law.  Divorce happens all the time in the church.  Again, it is how we treat the divorcee that matters, just as it does the abortionist, or the coveter.
#######

XXXXXXXXX
In the event there was a referendum dealing with divorce laws, I would vote for a return to what we had before. I lived for many years in Argentina. I do not know what the legal situation is there today, but when I left, divorce was still illegal. Divorce harms the children more than the parents. It is unfair. The emotional damage inflicted upon the children is enormous. Jesus had the right understanding of divorce. It is against God's design for the family. Divorce inflicts a great harm on children. Nevertheless, it does not kill them. Abortion imposes the ultimate penalty on the innocent: It deprives them of life. You seem to solve all the moral problems with love. You forget that love must be sometimes tough. The Bible says that God chastises those he loves, and that we should not complain when we are disciplined by the Lord. This is precisely why we have a church, to dispense God's love, and the government to dispense God's justice. A spineless understanding of love does more harm than good. Loving, protecting, defending, and justifying the murderous actions of abortionists; while failing to love, protect, defend, and speak on behalf of those who cannot speak on their own behalf is a misdirected form of love.
XXXXXXXXX

I read your allegory.  I think your comments about the apathy, the non-Dorothys is more telling than any law in the church manual.  Words don't mean much. 

*********

Yes!

*********

Voting for or against does not mean much.  Both certainly do not save the unborn child. 

*********

They don't? How come the incidence of abortion mushroomed into a million and a half per year following the legalization of abortion?  Perhaps voting against burglary, child abuse, stealing, and rape does not accomplish much either, and we should legalize those criminal activities as well! Right or wrong?

*********

######
Gay marriage is what started this discussion.  It is the law of California now where you live, right?  Does this mean you will not honor the law?  Are you free to pick and choose which laws the government is entitled to enforce?  Can you have it both ways?  (provocative question - I understand)
######

XXXXXXXXX
I have no power to prevent civil magistrates from issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. This means that your question is not applicable to me. The only recourse I have is to use my influence to alter this unwise law by voting accordingly in November.
XXXXXXXXX

Dorothy-like attitudes and works do wonders.  Save an unwanted child from an abortion and that child may grow up in a home atmosphere that will create a monster, a little Hitler. 

*********

Yes, or that child, raised in a less ideal environment may become a saint. Of Jesus it was said: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Have you read the biography of Beethoven?

*********

######
And you still want to argue in favor of capital punishment?   Amazing.
######

XXXXXXXXX
I did argue against the capital punishment. Did you miss that. At the same time I pointed to you the huge difference between executing a convicted murderer and taking the life of an innocent  and defenseless human being. Do I need to say more?
XXXXXXXXX

Save an unwanted child from an abortion in an atmosphere that treats the unwed mother with care and respect, and the child may have more of a chance at being a pillar in the temple of Christ.  You can not produce this with legislation.  Only by personal, self-sacrificial giving. 

*********

You have forgotten the obvious alternative to abortion: adoption! With adoption, everybody wins, the baby, the mother, the rapist, and the adoptive parents! The Bible says: "Choose life!" Satan prefers death, because he was a "murderer from the beginning!

*********

#####
You certainly can read my mind if you know I have forgotten anything. 
#####

XXXXXXXXX
I wish I could. I lost that gift a long time ago!
XXXXXXXXX

Respectfully

[Blogger]

XXXXXXXXX
God bless!

Nic Samojluk
XXXXXXXXX

At 08:21 PM 6/27/2008, you wrote:

I read this tonight.  It is very powerful.

We live in a hard, unfeeling, uncharitable world. Satan and his confederacy are plying every art to seduce the souls for whom Christ has given his precious life. Every one who loves God in sincerity and truth, will love the souls for whom Christ has died. If we wish to do good to souls, our success with these souls will be in proportion to their belief in our confidence in them and appreciation of them. Respect shown to the struggling human soul is the sure means through Christ Jesus of the restoration of the self-respect the man has lost. Our advancing ideas of what he may become is a help we can not ourselves fully appreciate. We have need of the rich grace of God every hour, then we will have a rich, practical experience, for God is love. He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God. Give love to them that need it most. The most unfortunate, those who have the most disagreeable temperaments, need our love, our tenderness, our compassion. Those who try our patience need most love. We pass through the world only once; any good thing we can do, we should do most earnestly, untiringly, with the same spirit as is stated of Christ in his work. He will not fail nor be discouraged. The rough, stubborn, sullen dispositions are the ones who need help the most. How can they be helped? Only by that love practiced in dealing with them which Christ revealed to fallen men. Treat them, you say, as they deserve? What if Christ had treated us thus? He, the undeserving, was treated as we deserve. Still we are treated by Christ with grace and love as we did not deserve, but as he deserved. Treat some characters as you think they richly deserve, and you will cut off from them the last thread of hope, spoil your influence, and ruin the soul. Will it pay? No, I say no, a hundred times no. Bind these souls who need all the help it is possible for you to give them close to a loving, sympathizing, pitying heart, overflowing with Christ-like love, and you will save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins. Had we not better try the love process?  {SpM 144.2}

Think about what is written here, with your attitude towards those who do not see the world are you see it.  The gays, the abortionists.   here is a most telling sentence: "Treat some characters as you think they richly deserve, and you will cut off from them the last thread of hope, spoil your influence, and ruin the soul.".  Repent Nic.  Love your neighbors.  By the way, I'm sure you know what repent means, right?  metanoeoÌ„ - literally, to change your mind.  Change your mind about what?  Your attitude even toward abortionists, as I sense a lack of true love.  Would you give your life for an abortionist? 

Blessed Sabbath

[Blogger]

Hi!

Thanks for the Ellen White's quotation. I have read most of her books, and I am quite familiar with her writings. The important thing is to know how to apply what she has written, and to use a balanced approach to her writings. She was superb whenever she talked about love. She was also superb in her condemnation of sin as revealed through the direct testimonies she sent to members of the Adventist church. Those testimonies were directed at particular individuals, and they cut directly at the root of sins manifested by  those persons. Many of those whom she admonished and reprehended, felt that she lacked genuine Christian love. They were wrong! When those testimonies were published, the names of the recipients were omitted, of course.

Would you say that Ellen White evidenced a lack of love in those personal rebukes? Have you ever read them? You enjoy talking and emphasizing Christian love, especially love towards the perpetrators and murderers, but you seem to be totally unbalanced, because I have not heard a single word of sympathy towards the victims of abortionists. Jesus was the most loving individual, and he showed incredible mercy towards sinners. Nevertheless, you seem to forget that he was very harsh with the rich and powerful Pharisees who oppressed and fleeced the simple folk. Have you read Matthew 23 lately. Please, read it one more time before you respond to this email!

You do not know me, and you have no idea what I have done for others, yet you claim that I need to repent! You must either be a clairvoyant individual, or else God has directly revealed to you the details of my life. Instead of answering directly to your appeal, let me use an allegory instead:

"This happened in the Island of "How I." The sheriff office got a frantic 911 telephone call from a citizen of the island. There was a hostage in progress. A man named Nathan Sun [http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html ] was threatening to kill an innocent child if his demands were not met. The sheriff dispatched immediately a couple of sharp shooters and crisis police negotiators. They managed to establish contact with Mr. Sun by cell phone and asked him about terms for ending the crisis. He demanded an authorization to end the life of any unwanted children on the island. They asked him how many children would be affected under such a scheme and he answered that, according to his estimate, it would mean the killing of approximately 75,000 unwanted children.

The sheriff contacted the Mayor of the city, and the Mayor decided to secure the opinion of a couple of men of the cloth: The first one, Rev. Boy Dee, a man highly respected by the island community, gave the following advice: "Before you give the sharp shooters the order to shoot, make sure you ask them whether they are willing to die for the hostage taker, since he is also a child of God and needs the love of God." Of course, the sharp shooters thought that the Mayor was out of his mind, and refused to express their willingness to die for the hostage taker. They were willing to risk their lives in the line of duty for the victim, but not to die for the crazed criminal!

Then the Mayor asked the same question to Rev. Will San, who argued that doing away with the unwanted children would alleviate the hunger and the overcrowding on the island.This suggestion seemed to be quite reasonable to the Mayor, and the killing started. When all the unwanted children had been executed, Mr. Sun experienced a change of heart, and felt that he was responsible for the murder of 75,000 innocent human beings. He decided that the law allowing the murder of unwanted children was extremely cruel and needed to be voided. Unfortunately, by that time the scheme  had been adopted by the mainland, and the lives of 50 million children had been sacrificed.

Many people in the mainland sympathized with Mr. Sun's desire to put a stop to the genocide. One of them, named Same Luck got busy blogging for the reversal of the law that allowed the killing of unwanted children, and one day he received an email from a man named Away Love, who after citing a prophetess name Eileen Waite, argued that Mr. Luck should repent of his desire to put an end to the killing. He asked him the same question the sharp shooters had been asked: "Are you willing to die for the murderers?" Mr. Luck felt that Mr. Love's suggestion made no sense, given the circumstances, and responded that he had no intention of using his limited influence to encourage policy makers to continue with the murder of unwanted children. Now, Mr. reader, you have the chance to decide whether Mr. Love's request makes sense to you or not."

My friend: I hope the above allegory provides an answer to your request. True love forces me to respond Christ like, but not the way you imagine. Read Matthew 23, and you might understand. Read also the story of Elijah, the prophet. Would you condemn this man of God for murdering 250 prophets of Baal? Would you condemn Prophet Samuel for killing the king of the Amalekites, for whom King Saul showed mercy? Would you condemn the Lord for destroying the inhabitants of Sodom?

Would you have insisted that Samuel be willing to die for the King of the children of Amalek? Would you have argued with Elijah that he needed to repent and be willing to die for the prophets of Baal? You seem to be out of touch with God's love for children. Now it is my turn to ask you: Are you willing to give your life for the unborn? I am literally doing this. Not in a single act, but rather investing my time and money for the sake of the unborn. I have been doing this for the last three decades, and you fault me for lacking the love of God? You are trying to dissuade me from the mission the Lord has given me!

Methinks that you have been mesmerized by the preaching of an unbalanced man of the cloth. You need to understand that true love must be tough sometimes. This is the way God has revealed himself throughout Scripture. The Bible states that those whom God loves, he chastises. Love prompts the Lord to discipline those he loves. We must emulate this kind of love under special circumstances like the ones we are faced with as a result of the ongoing genocide! Hitler was also a child of God, and was entitled to God's love, but the love he needed was the tough kind! This need was met by what the U.S. did in response to that terrible crisis. Hitler annihilated six million. We exterminated 50 million in the U.S. alone. You seem to be oblivious to the enormity of the crime that is being committed.

When the Adventist church was put to a test in Nazi Germany, it failed miserably, and decades later the leaders of the German and Austrian SDA church issued a public apology for their cooperation with Hitler while the Jews were being exterminated. We as a church have failed a similar test today, and are cooperating with the child killers. King Herod killed his thousands, but we excelled him with the murder of more. May the Lord have mercy on his chosen church! My guess is that, had you been alive while Hitler was engaged in his killing spree, you would have asked the U.S. whether Americans were willing to die for Hitler! I am asking you to reconsider your attitude towards the unborn!

God bless!

Nic Samojluk

At 07:31 PM 6/28/2008, you wrote:

You do not know what I think about the new born.  That is what I mean about the way you judge people.  You are really amazing.   You are the clairvoyant, as you know men's hearts.  Peace to you brother.  AW

[Blogger]

Hi!

You asked me to repent. I did seek God's guidance regarding this, as I always do; and I asked the Lord that If  in I needed to repent for my efforts in defense of the unborn to let me know in no uncertain terms, and I would stop. The Lord led me to the book of Job. Job's friends used all the wisdom of the world to convince him that he needed to repent, but failed. Then Job prayed for his friends. We need to pray for each other.

God bless!

Nic Samojluk

Hi!

Thanks for your response. Here is my reaction to it.

At 08:08 AM 6/29/2008, you wrote:

I was not speaking of efforts to stop abortion. 

Great. Thanks for clarifying!

I was speaking about your view of abortionists and gays.  Do you hold that any one how has or who performs an abortion is a murderer? 

The answer is "No." If a physician is trying to save both the life of the mother and the baby, and only one of them can survive, and he lets the baby die in order to save the life of the mother, there is no way the doctor could be reasonably labelled as a murderer.

Are they a murder in the sight of the civil government?  

Again, the answer is "No." Nevertheless, you will agree with me, I hope, that the there is a higher moral law; and this law forbids the killing of innocent human beings, and the shedding the blood of innocents.

If they are unchurched and have an abortion, are they murderers? 

If a physician does not believe in God, and he honestly thinks that killing innocent human beings is morally acceptable, then God will take this into account in the day of judgment.

Does God still love them? 

Yes! God loves even Satan, but he hates his evil deeds.

Should not we? 

Of course! We must love all sinners, and hate their evil deeds!

But you say, don't give them all your love (spectrum).  

Please cite the exact text and the context. I cannot respond otherwise in an intelligent manner!

Back to the story of Dorothy, she accepted the young girl, without judgment.  So should we.  Hard, isn't it......   Just like Jesus: (John 8:4 ff NIV)  "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.  ...."  Hard, isn't it....

[Blogger]

Dorothy is a good example all Christians should try to emulate!

Nic Samojluk

But you say, don't give them all your love (spectrum).  

Please cite the exact text and the context. I cannot respond otherwise in an intelligent manner!

"So, those in California, if given the chance to vote on Gay marriage in November, do vote your conscience. But voting will be the easy thing to do. How you treat the Gay person, marriage or not, chaste or not, with AIDS or not, is the most important thing. It is always dangerous when we Chief Sinners become the Moral Guardians."
Nic's answer:
"My Answer: I agree! Nevertheless, do not exhaust all your love, your concern, and your Christianity on the homosexuals."

Hi!

Thanks for providing the Spectrum reference. Unfortunately, you did not include the full text of my answer to your comments, and you failed to identify the reference with the date and time. It took me a long time to locate what you cited, and I had to wade through the never ending  list of comments. I finally did locate it. Here is what I wanted to see, including the text and the full context. Not a short portion of it:

*********

"[Blogger] Posted the Following on 26 June 2008 at 5:16

"So, those in California, if given the chance to vote on Gay marriage in November, do vote your conscience. But voting will be the easy thing to do. How you treat the Gay person, marriage or not, chaste or not, with AIDS or not, is the most important thing. It is always dangerous when we Chief Sinners become the Moral Guardians."

My Answer: I agree! Nevertheless, do not exhaust all your love, your concern, and your Christianity on the homosexuals. Leave some love and care for the unborn who has been victimized by the liberated pro-abortion "Christian" crowd.

God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 26 June 2008 at 6:41

*********
Now that we have the full exchange of comments, please tell me what do you see wrong with my answer! Please, be very specific and try to avoid generalities. Unless I clearly understand your objection to my response, I will not be able to provide you with a clear answer. Thanks.

God bless!

Nic Samojluk

I am still waiting for the Blogger to respond to my last comment!

Back to the Top? Click Here ==>

Free Mailing List Club!

 

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.