This comes from reading some of the 'other' thread.

Should Churches be publicly silent on issues they view as moral?
Should only non-Churches group speak up?

How does Religiously fit in?

I've been seeing the same trend and asking myself the same question.

I've been an Adventist for almost 4 years. If it wasn't for 3ABN's local affiliate in my city, I wouldn't be here.

Before my conversion, I never even heard of the SDA church.

Why is that?

If we really believe that these are the last days, shouldn't we be proclaiming Jesus and the 3 Angels messages at the top of our lungs? Shouldn't we be standing firmly with our God and His commandments? What are we afraid of?

Deuteronomy 12:3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Remember, Deuteronomy has special signifigance in the last days. Moses was speaking to Isreal just before they entered the Promised Land AND he's speaking to us before WE enter the REAL Promised Land.

That's what I think. We need to reach anyone who'll listen and ignore those who won't.

I appreciate the stand that our church now has on this issue.

For those that are not aware, as of the first post, Religiously is short for Religious Liberty, you read that first here.

I think we need to focus on spreading the gospel and helping people. I do not think we should be worried about proclaiming certain behaviors as sinful except as is required to help people impacted by certain sin (alcoholism, homosexuality, fornication, domestic abuse, etc.)

I think it is a mistake for us to be so paranoid of Sunday laws that we get politically involved to protect the rights of groups that are not religious or suffering religious persecution like those involved with gay rights and abortion. I think that dilutes our message of religious liberty. Religious liberty is to protect religious freedom not abortion of gay activism.

Shane, you can take religious liberty only so far. I don't make a stand for gay marriage for these reasons. Not that I don't believe that a guy couple can not raise a child, but the point is that they can't physically conceive one. Gay marriage is not a religious argument, but a biological one IMO. If it is not, then why shouldn't I be able to marry my cat and claim all of the benefits? (rhetorical question BTW)

On the other hand, I think it should be up to churches to decide who they are going to "marry" and who they will not. The marriage conducted by the state IMO is on the par with homosexual "marriage"... it is not one. Calling something black... does not make it so.

But what is the gospel without a message of sin? It's IMPOSSIBLE for Adventists to present their message without touching on that subject extensively. Think about. The official position of Adventist denotes wearing jewelry and eating shrimp as sin. How do you reconcile the above with the doctrine?

I understand Religious Liberty (or the freedom NOT to believe or participate in a religion) to apply to all people, not just those we agree with or like.

aldona

My point is that I don't think the Adventist church should go out of its way to crusade against certain behaviors like Pat Robertson and James Dobson do.

However I don't think we should go to the other extreme and go on a crusade to protect certain sinful behaviors such as abortion or homosexuality either.

Rather I think we should focus on carrying the gospel to the world. Which, of course, will involve talking about sin.