Spirituality
29 Jul 07
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
03 Aug 07
Originally posted by Rajk999I agree....100%
The church should enforce the same rule that applies to a member living with a woman and not being married. I think in most cases they do nothing. The purpose of a church is to encourage members to improve their lives spiritually over time, sometimes it happens immediately and sometimes takes 20 years. When the church starts to impose judgement and expel mem ...[text shortened]... ondemning someone Christ would accept, like the case of the adulterous woman about to be stoned.
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo he should stay with his partner and child but stop engaging in sexual intimacy with his partner? Why? Do you have some argument that demonstrates that homosexual acts are categorically wrong?
The thing he needs to do is to stop performing homosexual acts.
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeOtherwise ? ....... What ?
The thing he needs to do is to stop performing homosexual acts.
Whether its homosexuality or adultery, the principle remains the same. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone "
DO you think there are any senior members of any Church that can say they are without sin ? In the time of Moses they 'stone' and now they 'expel'. Christ says ..... IF YOU HAVE ALSO SINNED YOU CANNOT TOUCH THE SINNER.
The reason should be obvious.
04 Aug 07
If he becomes "saved", finds Jesus, the whole nine yards, then I would expect him to repent of his sin; turn in the opposite direction. Since the bible is very clear on homosexuality being a sin, this would mean breaking his union and living a holy life devoted to Gods will and not his own.
That change may take time, and any real church would love this person while NOT supporting their sin. If he "joined" the church, as a member I assume, then he is in "the family" and should benefit from their loving him. Eventually all Christians find out that the path to heaven is one continuous fall down/get up til you get there. There are none that are without sin, ever. But we are all forgiven if we "find Jesus".
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by NemesioMay I ask what his joining any type of church matters if he did in deed
Let's say two committed homosexual partners from a state within the US that recognizes same-sex
unions adopted a child. Let's say they've lived together for 10 years and the child is say 5.
Let's say one of the couple becomes 'saved' in the fundamentalist sense -- you know finds Jesus, confesses
Him as Lord and God and the whole nine yards. Let's say ...[text shortened]... tisfaction of his partner, likely resulting in the dissolution of their union?
Nemesio
find Christ, what do you think that means?
Kelly
05 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I am saying is that both the Mosaic law and the law of grace are both designed to destroy sin. Christ's method, however, is superior in nature because it allows mercy to be shown. The sins in question continue to be sins, however, the method for breaking such cycles of sin have changed for the better.
You seem to be changing your position. First you say they have the right to stone the woman then you say they haven't.
Are you saying that the law that adultery is wrong remains but the prescribed punishment has been changed? Is the new punishment to leave her alone as Jesus did? Should the same apply to homosexuals?
What about other sins like murder?
When you ask what should be done with "sinners" there are two parties to consider whch are the state and God. By in large most "sins" are adressed by the state such as stealing, killing, slandering etc. However, other sins are not covered such as adultry, homosexual sex etc. Despite this I think that sins that are recognized by the state should have its focus on stopping the cycle of sin as well. Does this mean inprinonment, capital punishment, a fine of some kind etc?
In terms of God, however, we must find mercy on his own terms when it comes to sin in our own lives and it has nothing to do with the state. Notice that Christ never spoke out against stoning or even crusifixian yet I am sure he disdained both. His focus had more to do with our standing with God than our standing with other men and the state.
05 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999What about Christians who do not do good works? Should they be embraced as equally as those that do?
Otherwise ? ....... What ?
Whether its homosexuality or adultery, the principle remains the same. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone "
DO you think there are any senior members of any Church that can say they are without sin ? In the time of Moses they 'stone' and now they 'expel'. Christ says ..... IF YOU HAVE ALSO SINNED YOU CANNOT TOUCH THE SINNER.
The reason should be obvious.
11 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey😴
What makes something wrong?
We've been over this. For some strange reason, you think moral claims are made true or false based on whatever related propositional attitudes the mightiest agent holds (where you also equivocate on what exactly constitutes 'might'😉. I thought you knew by now that I don't take anything you say on these matters seriously since your own stance entails morality is at bottom arbitrary; and since you never have any arguments that don't invoke some form of the naturalistic fallacy. (To first order, I think whether or not a claim is true has to do with whether or not the propositional content corresponds to a fact about the world -- which I guess answers your question.)
Back on topic, do you have some sound argument that demonstrates that homosexual acts are categorically wrong? Well, of course you don't. Does ivanhoe? Does josephw? Well, of course not. You guys merely take it as an entailment of what are basically rules handed down that are treated as inviolable -- nevermind if they have any justification or good reasons backing them.
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by vistesdI can’t resist the opportunity to agree with both you and Rajk in a single post!
Personally, I don’t view homosexuality as sinful (even Biblically, reading carefully the Hebrew and Greek texts, which I have argued before).
Nevertheless, I can’t resist the opportunity to agree with both you and Rajk in a single post! 😉
Believe it or not, if you'll notice, I agreed with Rajk, too (page 1). Much to my surprise...
All of us together make strange bedfellows, so to speak. 🙂
Personally, I don’t view homosexuality as sinful (even Biblically, reading carefully the Hebrew and Greek texts, which I have argued before).
I'm curious about your exegetical perspective on this point. If you find the time, it would be kind of you to elaborate.
12 Aug 07
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn regards to sins in the Bible, it is evident as to why most things are considered a sin. For example, the command to love your neighbor as yourself and to to unto others as you would have them to unto you are pretty sound moral positions and are based with the idea that sin is simply violating the law of love. Perhaps we can both agree to this?
😴
We've been over this. For some strange reason, you think moral claims are made true or false based on whatever related propositional attitudes the mightiest agent holds (where you also equivocate on what exactly constitutes 'might'😉. I thought you knew by now that I don't take anything you say on these matters seriously since your own stance entai ed as inviolable -- nevermind if they have any justification or good reasons backing them.
Then comes sexual sins. Are there any? I suppose regarding the former law that one would say that as long as the other party/parties are consensual and of age then anything goes, no? This has been my observation in regards to rebuttals about homosexuality. I suppose adultery could even be considered a sin by the "do unto others" command. After all, it can be a very devestating sin to the other party, especially in light of taking vows in marriage to be faithful and feeling as though you have been betrayed. However, what if there were no vows to be faithful? What if both parties agreed to be swingers? Is it moral? I suppose you would have to conceede that you have no arguement for such promiscuous behavoir because no one is getting hurt and both parties are doing unto each other what they would have done unto them. Are we in agreement thus far or have I put you to sleep once again?
12 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell argued and thought out. But you only lists one of the great commandments. We are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, but we are also to love God with all our heart.
In regards to sins in the Bible, it is evident as to why most things are considered a sin. For example, the command to love your neighbor as yourself and to to unto others as you would have them to unto you are pretty sound moral positions and are based with the idea that sin is simply violating the law of love. Perhaps we can both agree to this?
Then ould have done unto them. Are we in agreement thus far or have I put you to sleep once again?
Sins that involve wronging or hurting others violates the "do unto others" rule. But there are other sins that do not involve anyone else. Those sins are ones that hurt yourself or prevent you from growing in your relationship with God. Usually one does not realize that they are hurting themselves, for the sin is something they want. Often, they are at a point in their lives where their relationship with God is not a priority, and therefore don't realize that they have created this spiritual obstacle.
To truly love God is to remove from our lives all things that are ungodly. Sometimes it may be very difficult to determine what those things are. I believe that if you truly ask God, he will provide an answer, but we can also find direction in the Bible. Take drunkenness for example. There are angry drunks who may harm others when intoxicated, but there are also very mild drunks. Becoming passed-out drunk for them does not harm anyone else, but is it wrong? The Bible says it is.
The Bible spells out for us what is a right way to live. A Godly way to live. This includes a husband and wife remaining faithful to each other alone. Are they hurting each other? Maybe not, but they are hurting their relationships with God, individually and as a couple.
I don't want to make this too long. If I haven't made my point, I can elaborate...
12 Aug 07
Originally posted by NemesioWhat kind of business do these partners own?
Let's say two committed homosexual partners from a state within the US that recognizes same-sex
unions adopted a child. Let's say they've lived together for 10 years and the child is say 5.
Let's say one of the couple becomes 'saved' in the fundamentalist sense -- you know finds Jesus, confesses
Him as Lord and God and the whole nine yards. Let's say ...[text shortened]... tisfaction of his partner, likely resulting in the dissolution of their union?
Nemesio