# Lutheran assembly elects first openly gay bishop



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

*Lutheran assembly elects first openly gay bishop*

June1, 2013

LOS ANGELES (AP) â The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America elected its first openly gay bishop to a six-year term on Friday at an annual assembly in Southern California, officials said.
The election of Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin comes after the church's controversial rule change in 2009 that allowed gays and lesbians to be ordained in the nation's largest Lutheran denomination. More than 600 congregations have left the denomination since the change.
http://news.yahoo.com/lutheran-assembly-elects-first-openly-gay-bishop-173713724.html


I am Lutheran and am not anti-gay but I am against this. I have been expecting this to happen for years and if there was another church in another synod close by, I would not ever attend another ELCA church.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

gapeach said:


> *Lutheran assembly elects first openly gay bishop*
> 
> June1, 2013
> 
> ...


Is your church one of the 600 that has left the denomination?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

gapeach said:


> I am Lutheran and am not anti-gay but I am against this.


Why?

Just curious.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Just goes to show, that our nations tribulation is very near!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Here is what happened just a few months ago to a Lutheran Church in my area because of what the ELCA did.


> EAU CLAIRE, Wisc. (WEAU) - A judge ruled a majority of the Grace Lutheran church in Eau Claire are now *non-voting members, forcing them to hand over their keys to the building.*
> 
> âIt's very sad whenever a church is fragmented in this manner. Sixty-seven people, a clear minority, to determine that 1,700 people are not members of the church, is absolutely unheard of,â David Irgens at Grace Lutheran Church said.
> 
> ...


http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Judge-rules-Eau-Claire-church-congregation-to-hand-over-keys-removing-membership-204588871.html
Its been a bad deal when the ECLA merged with the ALCA and is sad indeed.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Good for them! It's way past time these barriers came down in Christian Churches. I'm Episcopalian and we've been struggling with this issue for many years. Yes, it's been a hard row to hoe at times, but I truly do see a new movement of the Holy Spirit in the churches giving us an opportunity to be stretched to include "all manner and sorts of people". Now if the churches would heed the Spirit's call to truly minister to the downtrodden of all kinds instead of building fancy churches and "institutions", we'd be one step closer to walking in the footsteps of Jesus.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I cannot for the life of me understand why any gay or bi person wants any part of a religion that considers them an abomination. :shrug:


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand why any gay or bi person wants any part of a religion that considers them an abomination. :shrug:


Attention, turmoil and rocking the boat, so to speak. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Pugnacious said:


> Attention, turmoil and rocking the boat, so to speak.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


You hit the nail on the head for sure. Like hanging a sign hanging around the head. "Hey Look At Me I Am Special, And You're Not".


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand why any gay or bi person wants any part of a religion that considers them an abomination. :shrug:


Black people used to pine, to sit at the front of the bus, just like whites. 

Go figure.

Obviously he loves his church and his God., so he should just "go away", verses fight, for what he believes is right?

That's been the problem all along. They just want the gays (just like folks did the blacks), to simply _go away_. Out of sight - out of mind.

They are not going away.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> You hit the nail on the head for sure. Like hanging a sign hanging around the head. "Hey Look At Me I Am Special, And You're Not".



Since when , is equality, being "special"?

Just curious.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> Black people used to pine, to sit at the front of the bus, just like whites.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> ...


There is a chasm separating a group forced by the force of law into a subservient role and those who voluntarily become members of a group and voluntarily agree to abide by its' tenets. Other than the right to worship as one sees fit, membership in any church is not a civil right. Freedom of Religion is not Freedom to remake Religion to fit an agenda. Freedom of Religion does entitle one to start a new religion or sect.


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> Since when , is equality, being "special"?
> 
> Just curious.



When someone is asking others to accept something that violates the tenants of their faith. Would you expect people to approve of churches who had pastors who openly had a mistress? Or pedophiles? Or any of the other blatant sin named in the bible? The issue isn't the single act. All men sin. The issue is the lifestyle. I wouldn't accept it any sooner than I'd accept an alcoholic or drug addict for a pastor. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

bjba said:


> There is a chasm separating a group forced by the force of law into a subservient role and those who voluntarily become members of a group and voluntarily agree to abide by its' tenets. Other than the right to worship as one sees fit, membership in any church is not a civil right. Freedom of Religion is not Freedom to remake Religion to fit an agenda. Freedom of Religion does entitle one to start a new religion or sect.


All religions change over time, especially to change what is not right.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Pugnacious said:


> When someone is asking others to accept something that violates the tenants of their faith. Would you expect people to approve of churches who had pastors who openly had a mistress? Or pedophiles? Or any of the other blatant sin named in the bible? The issue isn't the single act. All men sin. The issue is the lifestyle. I wouldn't accept it any sooner than I'd accept an alcoholic or drug addict for a pastor.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


They still allow adulterers, thieves and hypocrites, to attend these churches, right?

thoguht so.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> All religions change over time, especially to change what is not right.


Who is you to tell a church what is Right? The Good Book tells them what is what.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> They still allow adulterers, thieves and hypocrites, to attend these churches, right?
> 
> thoguht so.


Attend yes, lead not usually.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Obviously he loves his church and his God., so he should just "go away", verses fight, for what he believes is right?


He may love this god, but said god sure don't love him -- it considers him an abomination! Why buy into something like that?

Same for women -- why follow a faith that requires you to be subservient? 

There easily are 10,000 philosophies in the world (if not more) -- why choose to follow one that considers you a second-class citizen and always will?

The only reason I can think of is folks are indoctrinated into these sorts of faiths at an impressionable age, and feel guilty if they attempt to break away later. I'm thankful my folks spared me that!


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> All religions change over time, especially to change what is not right.


Who or what made you the arbiter of Christianity?


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> They still allow adulterers, thieves and hypocrites, to attend these churches, right?
> 
> thoguht so.


Absolutely,but I have never once heard an adulterer,a thief or a hypocrite complain, when the Pastor preached these things were wrong.
I have also never heard one try to get the Church,Pastor or Christians to except their sins as being OK.

Could be that they try to keep their sinful lifestyle in the closet so to speak, and not flaunt it for all to see, while daring someone to say its wrong.

Some sinners including myself, still have whats known as respect and will call our sins exactly what God calls them, and what they are ..SIN.

I have to, because I have to repent of them on an on going basis.

*(Don't want that recording Angel to have to use that eraser on that recording pencil and erase my name out of the Book of Life)*:angel:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

bjba said:


> Who or what made you the arbiter of Christianity?


God did, when he gave me a brain. 

The Crusades - which included an awful lot of killing, which is supposedly a no-no, seemed okey-dokey, until it became politically incorrect. But that's just history, right?

Catholic Priests touched little boys, while their actions were swept under the rug - for decades.They are still defended today, for fear of massive lawsuits, which of course, will cost the church money.

Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, had matching Roll Royce, air conditions dog house and gold bathroom fixtures, because they though that's what God wanted them to have.

The bible outlaws birth control, bit Christians are fine with it. Even the Catholics bought in, when they saw the congregation thinning.

Please.


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> God did, when he gave me a brain.
> 
> The Crusades - which included an awful lot of killing, which is supposedly a no-no, seemed okey-dokey, until it became politically incorrect. But that's just history, right?
> 
> ...


Your examples would be similar to a foreigner using celebrities to demonize ALL Americans. Its silly. Please quote the bible verse banning birth control. ......

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> Is your church one of the 600 that has left the denomination?


No, it isn't. I would have to drive 25 miles to the closest one that has left.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Black people used to pine, to sit at the front of the bus, just like whites.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> ...


You really don't get the point at all. The Lutheran Church has never turned anyone away regardless of race or sexual preference. Being a Bishop is an entirely different matter. We should never have merged and become the ELCA. I would love to go to a Missouri Synod Lutheran church but it is too far away. I am not leaving the church. The church has left me. I have gay family members and gay friends.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

gapeach said:


> No, it isn't. I would have to drive 25 miles to the closest one that has left.


Well, that sounds doable anyway, though inconvenient. I guess the alternative would be to form a new church with like-minded parishoners, which would be much more difficult.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

That would be very difficult in South Georgia. I can always go to the Catholic church just like others I know do just to sit and pray. Their service is very similar to ours too.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Black people used to pine, to sit at the front of the bus, just like whites.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> ...


That is not even a good comparison.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> God did, when he gave me a brain.
> 
> The Crusades - which included an awful lot of killing, which is supposedly a no-no, seemed okey-dokey, until it became politically incorrect. But that's just history, right?
> 
> ...


God gave you free will and with it the right to choose your path. It is for God to judge, not you or me. God stands ready to forgive anything and the only 
price is repentance. There are no excuses for sin only repentance. If Jim and Tammy Fae repented they are forgiven whether we like it or not.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Pugnacious said:


> Or pedophiles?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


Apparently the Catholics do. Not much action on their part to stop it.


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

Dutchie said:


> Apparently the Catholics do. Not much action on their part to stop it.


Again. Where is the evidence the church goers knew?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

We still have the Freedom of Religion, if I do not agree with the ELCA and I have the freedom to go to any church I want to. I believe in the Theology of Martin Luther. I can always go to a liturgical church of my choice whether just to pray or worship.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,and born of the virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died and was buried.He descended into hell.On the third day He rose again from the dead.He ascended into heavenand sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and the life everlasting. Amen
and goodbye, for this thread.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Belfrybat said:


> Good for them! It's way past time these barriers came down in Christian Churches. I'm Episcopalian and we've been struggling with this issue for many years. Yes, it's been a hard row to hoe at times, but I truly do see a new movement of the Holy Spirit in the churches giving us an opportunity to be stretched to include "all manner and sorts of people". Now if the churches would heed the Spirit's call to truly minister to the downtrodden of all kinds instead of building fancy churches and "institutions", we'd be one step closer to walking in the footsteps of Jesus.


Sigh. . .just how much 'stretching' do you think God allows? When you read the Bible you learn about how He views things. If you like it or not has nothing to do with it. God set down the standards for bishops and deacons. I ask you to point out to me how a homosexual can meet those standards.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> They still allow adulterers, thieves and hypocrites, to attend these churches, right?
> 
> thoguht so.


As a preacher told me one time; there's a big difference between falling down in a mud hole, getting up, cleaning up and moving on and deliberately jumping into one and wallowing around in it like a happy pig. 

The Bible tells us how we are to handle someone who claims to be a Christian and is continuing in an adulteress relationship. And I can tell you this it doesn't say we are to put them into leadership in the Church.

You don't seem to know the difference between the church (small "c") and the Church (capital "c"). The church is nothing more than a building where people go to hear the word. The Church is the body of believers. A person still in sin is fully welcome to "attend" church but he can NOT be a member of the Church.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bjba said:


> Who or what made you the arbiter of Christianity?


There are some things which have shades of grey and there are some things which are black and white. There are those who want to make everything grey so they don't have to change.

Of course there will be many who show up all packed for Heaven only to be told to go away because they were not true followers of Christ.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gapeach said:


> That would be very difficult in South Georgia. I can always go to the Catholic church just like others I know do just to sit and pray. Their service is very similar to ours too.


Don't take this wrong but why are you so stuck on Lutheran? There are a few true Bible following churches out there (too bad there seems to be more which don't) go out and find one. My wife was raised in the Lutheran church but she feels our current church is closer to the church Christ preached about.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> God set down the standards for bishops and deacons.


Actually, I believe a fellow named Paul did. So it is one man's opinion as to what is right and wrong. You are, of course, welcome to follow that man if you wish. Me, I'll make up my own mind about things, thank you. :cowboy:


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

oh... i know i shouldnt have read this thread. but since we recently started attending an ELCA church i couldnt help myself. 

so this is the same thread over and over... 
i have friends that are gay but i dont think they should be allowed to __________.
Please dont compare being gay to being black and to civil rights, but its okay for me to compare gay people to pedophiles, adulterers, etc.
I am right and you are wrong because the bible tells me so, (irregardless of that the fact that it has been translated numerous times by human beings).
I plan on ignoring the fact the Jesus said whatever you do to the least of my people you do unto me. because even though he supposedly took in the lepers and tax collectors , I can sit behind my key board and spew hatred about the neighbors i am supposed to love. 

oh and i am sure this is some how all Obama's fault

WE GET IT!


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

mrsgcpete said:


> oh... i know i shouldnt have read this thread. but since we recently started attending an ELCA church i couldnt help myself.
> 
> so this is the same thread over and over...
> i have friends that are gay but i dont think they should be allowed to __________.
> ...


Obama has nothing to do with this thread but politics does. Churches are hurting for members and money. The possibility of churches accepting gay pastors has been a hot topic for many years. It is the act of sex itself between 2 men or 2 women that has always been the catch 22. However, the standards have been lowered now. It is not hatred. This is a very historical event and Martin Luther would have have been happy about this, I would never think. These man is a leader of the church, not just a member. His votes will set the standard.
I love the Lutheran Church and it's ancient traditions. Yes, I can find another church. Many of them now have changed with drums and keyboards on the altar because the churches are trying to bring the younger group in.
I prefer the traditional service that has served so well throughout the years. 
I could ignore your post and it would not make any difference to me. However, I don't agree with your interpretation of what I am saying at all.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

watcher said:


> Don't take this wrong but why are you so stuck on Lutheran? There are a few true Bible following churches out there (too bad there seems to be more which don't) go out and find one. My wife was raised in the Lutheran church but she feels our current church is closer to the church Christ preached about.


I will look around. There are some Episcopal churches here that have pulled away and seem to be more to what I am accustomed to, the traditional service. Their congregations are diverse which is fine but they still hold with the tradition of not having gay priests.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Please provide the Bible verses where JESUS (not Paul, not the OT) discusses homosexuality. It was prevelent in his times, especially among the Greeks, whom he ministered to, but although he speaks at length about the danger of wealth and rules of marriage (which most churches completely ignore), I am not aware of a single sentence spoken about the place of gays and lesbians in the church.

And even in the OT, homosexuality was discussed in relation to the numerous cultural and dietary laws that were prevelent in that day. So unless you follow *all the laws* of the OT, please don't take one or two sentences out of context to condemn 5 - 7% of the world's population. (According to sociologists, that has been a fairly stable percentage of gays through history and in all cultures.)


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, I believe a fellow named Paul did. So it is one man's opinion as to what is right and wrong. You are, of course, welcome to follow that man if you wish. Me, I'll make up my own mind about things, thank you. :cowboy:


That's the great thing about Christianity. You can do what you wish and no one will try to force you otherwise.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> oh... i know i shouldnt have read this thread. but since we recently started attending an ELCA church i couldnt help myself.
> 
> so this is the same thread over and over...
> i have friends that are gay but i dont think they should be allowed to __________.
> Please dont compare being gay to being black and to civil rights, but its okay for me to compare gay people to pedophiles, adulterers, etc.


Why not? You can't choose have your skin color changed but you can choose not to have sex with someone (of either gender). 




mrsgcpete said:


> I am right and you are wrong because the bible tells me so, (irregardless of that the fact that it has been translated numerous times by human beings).


So? Does translating "Its wrong to murder someone." into several different languages change the meaning? 




mrsgcpete said:


> I plan on ignoring the fact the Jesus said whatever you do to the least of my people you do unto me. because even though he supposedly took in the lepers and tax collectors , I can sit behind my key board and spew hatred about the neighbors i am supposed to love.


I follow ALL the teachings of Christ. Not just part of them. Note He didn't tell the woman at the well "Go back to your home and keep fornicating with that man you are living with but not married to." He told her if she wanted the living water she had to change her life and STOP sinning.

I have to ask you how you can go to a church which ignores what is written in the Bible about the requirements of a bishop?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gapeach said:


> I will look around. There are some Episcopal churches here that have pulled away and seem to be more to what I am accustomed to, the traditional service. Their congregations are diverse which is fine but they still hold with the tradition of not having gay priests.


Don't take this wrong but why not look for a church which only follows the Bible not the rules set down by a denomination rules committee? Over my many years I have decided denominational churches are not what Christ planned for churches. They have added to the Word by putting man's rules on God's people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Since when , is equality, being "special"?
> 
> Just curious.


Good point. I havent heard too many gays claiming to be special or demanding special treatment. So far it seems to be the other side that places them in that "special" category of being an abomination.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

watcher said:


> Don't take this wrong but why not look for a church which only follows the Bible not the rules set down by a denomination rules committee? Over my many years I have decided denominational churches are not what Christ planned for churches. They have added to the Word by putting man's rules on God's people.


I do want a church that teaches the Bible. It seems that the sermons have changed more to social issues in the last 10 years. That is not what I want at all. My husband is not able to go anymore. I love the Lutheran Church but if I can find a church that does not have all the swaying to drums and guitars, not charismatic, and teaches basic Bible, that is where I will go.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

where in the bible does it tell me that my bishop cant be in a loving supportive relationship with another human being?

my point was that every time we have a discussion about homosexuality see the same arguments over and over and over. it seems ridiculous to keep arguing and expect a different outcome (isnt that the definition of crazy), i think we all realize that the bible can be used to argue pretty much any point you want to make, if you pick and choose verses and translations.



watcher said:


> Why not? You can't choose have your skin color changed but you can choose not to have sex with someone (of either gender).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2013)

Morality isn't very popular & definitely not PC & doesn't fill many collection plates . Therefore , about anything is OK as long as the dollars are forth-coming .


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gapeach said:


> I do want a church that teaches the Bible. It seems that the sermons have changed more to social issues in the last 10 years. That is not what I want at all. My husband is not able to go anymore. I love the Lutheran Church but if I can find a church that does not have all the swaying to drums and guitars, not charismatic, and teaches basic Bible, that is where I will go.


Finding a church is like finding a spouse. You have to have a good idea of what you are looking for then spend some time looking for one to fit that idea. Then you have to spend some time with them to see if they are really what they seem to be. It takes time and you'll probably be disappointed several times but in the end you'll be happy.

Don't get too hung up on the music. And if you do decide you like the teaching but not the music ask the pastor if there is a church he thinks is a good one and plays the music you like. Our pastor tells new people all the time our church might not fit with you and if not he's more than willing to give names of church he thinks are doing it right but have different types of worship.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> where in the bible does it tell me that my bishop cant be in a loving supportive relationship with another human being?


1 Timothy 3:2

_A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;_

Kind of hard to be the husband of one wife if you are openly gay don't ch'a think?




mrsgcpete said:


> my point was that every time we have a discussion about homosexuality see the same arguments over and over and over. it seems ridiculous to keep arguing and expect a different outcome (isnt that the definition of crazy), i think we all realize that the bible can be used to argue pretty much any point you want to make, if you pick and choose verses and translations.


_*ONLY*_ if you take the verses out of context and ignoring other passages. If you take the Bible as a whole you will learn what God wants and expects. 

The best example of this is the people who are caught doing something and want to justify it by citing the "judge not" verse out of context. They don't go on to read the rest of the verses below that one which tell us after we have taken the beam out of our eye THEN we are to help remove the mote. They also ignore the many other passages where we are given the standards to judge people's actions. If we are not to judge why are we given the standards? The ignore the passages where we are told to judge people's actions in order to not be fooled.

The only way you can have a church put an openly gay person in as a bishop is to take a marker and black out the verses and passages in which God has written about being a true follower of God and the even higher standards He has set for bishops.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

WV Hillbilly said:


> Morality isn't very popular & definitely not PC & doesn't fill many collection plates . Therefore , about anything is OK as long as the dollars are forth-coming .


Yep, when a church is tickling the ears it has to not teach the parts of the Bible people don't want to hear. It has to change God to Santa and Christ to one of His elves. Don't dare teach the part about sin, Hell and about God being just and vengeful.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

my point exactly it depends on your translation: 

CEB: This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor[a] in the church, they want a good thing. 2 So the churchâs supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. 3 They shouldnât be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead, they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy. 

NASB: It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of [a]overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 *An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine [c]or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

The saying is sure:[a] whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop[c] must be above reproach, married only once,[d] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 


The saying is sure:[a] whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop[c] must be above reproach, married only once,[d] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money.

these are all from bible gateway... they have about 30 translations, some that use wife, some that use spouse, some that didnt mention who the bishop should marry but that he should only do it once. 

we are obviously not going to change each others opinions which again was the point of my first comment. 




watcher said:



1 Timothy 3:2

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

Kind of hard to be the husband of one wife if you are openly gay don't ch'a think?




ONLY if you take the verses out of context and ignoring other passages. If you take the Bible as a whole you will learn what God wants and expects. 

The best example of this is the people who are caught doing something and want to justify it by citing the "judge not" verse out of context. They don't go on to read the rest of the verses below that one which tell us after we have taken the beam out of our eye THEN we are to help remove the mote. They also ignore the many other passages where we are given the standards to judge people's actions. If we are not to judge why are we given the standards? The ignore the passages where we are told to judge people's actions in order to not be fooled.

The only way you can have a church put an openly gay person in as a bishop is to take a marker and black out the verses and passages in which God has written about being a true follower of God and the even higher standards He has set for bishops.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

"More than 600 congregations have left the denomination since the change." I think many more will soon leave.

*MARTIN LUTHER ON HOMOSEXUALITY*

http://apprising.org/2009/08/30/martin-luther-on-homosexuality/


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

God was one of the early members of HomesteadingToday.

But He usually lurks and doesn't post much.

I think that He almost always stays out of General Chat and probably the goat forum.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Oggie said:


> God was one of the early members of HomesteadingToday.
> 
> But He usually lurks and doesn't post much.
> 
> I think that He almost always stays out of General Chat and probably the goat forum.


Yes, but SHE loves cats! (And dogs also.)


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

gapeach said:


> "More than 600 congregations have left the denomination since the change." I think many more will soon leave.
> 
> *MARTIN LUTHER ON HOMOSEXUALITY*
> 
> http://apprising.org/2009/08/30/martin-luther-on-homosexuality/


If you find what Luther had to say about homosexuals interesting, you should read what he had to say about Jews! 

A sample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Nice guy, that Luther ... :help:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That's the great thing about Christianity. You can do what you wish and no one will try to force you otherwise.


Kewl; so that means gay marriage is legal now?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Kewl; so that means gay marriage is legal now?


Seeing as how we live in a republic not a theocracy what does one have to do with the other?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Who do you think is leading the charge to keep or make it illegal?

A few examples:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html
http://coloradoindependent.com/2127...tly-outpaced-mormon-spending-on-proposition-8

Christians may not care whether or not I share their religion, but they sure want me to _act_ like I do!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Who do you think is leading the charge to keep or make it illegal?
> 
> A few examples:
> 
> ...


Anyone who is trying to force you to "share their religion" is NOT following the teachings of Christ.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Once again -- they don't seem to care whether or not I'm a Christian. They just don't want me to be able to _sin _(according to their religion)!

I'd have no beef with them if they'd stick to enforcing their religious rules within their church communities, and quit trying to influence secular law.


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Once again -- they don't seem to care whether or not I'm a Christian. They just don't want me to be able to _sin _(according to their religion)!
> 
> I'd have no beef with them if they'd stick to enforcing their religious rules within their church communities, and quit trying to influence secular law.


You've spent a bit of time as a secular person trying to influence religious law on this site. But religious people shouldn't be allowed to influence secular law? Sounds like major discrimination. No one is saying gays can't vote. But you think Christians shouldn't be allowed to influence laws(vote, spend thier money how they choose)?????


BTW, this post is about a CHURCH. So you obviously DO have a "beef" with them making their own rules. Sorry for stating facts. I know they can be damaging to preconceived notions. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

I am a lifetime lutheran.I was raised in the american lutheran church which merged to form the elca.The bishops are elected by a majority.Each congregation calls their pastor.They won't call a gay pastor unless they want him or her.The elca policy is that you aren't required to accept a gay pastor you are expected to accept gays to worship with you.This is acceptable to me.I would not want a gay pastor and I would not want a single pastor.I want a pastor that understands the everyday life style of the majority.I think the other elca congregations can do as they please.No one can convince me that they know God's will.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You've spent a bit of time as a secular person trying to influence religious law on this site.


I have given my opinion, and that is all. I'm certainly not petitioning churches to change their policies, or joining a church I don't believe in solely to vote for some change I'd find appropriate. 

Frankly, I don't care what Christians do within their homes and churches -- those things don't affect me. I don't know why they can't be content with enforcing their beliefs within their homes and churches, and leaving the rest of us alone. Don't like gay marriage? Fine; don't marry a person of the same sex. Don't allow gay people to get married in your church. Exclude them from your church entirely; that's fine with me. Just don't try to make the secular laws we all have to live under reflect your religious views!


> But religious people shouldn't be allowed to influence secular law?


This is a free country, so of course they can do as they please, but I wish they had the courtesy to voluntarily restrain themselves from doing so.


> BTW, this post is about a CHURCH. So you obviously DO have a "beef" with them making their own rules. Sorry for stating facts. I know they can be damaging to preconceived notions.


My posts were in response to Watcher's assertion that Christians did not want to force their religious beliefs upon me. 

That is true insofar as they don't seem to care about the salvation of my soul. They do seem to care an awful lot about whether I have an abortion or sleep with another woman, though! 

Hmm. Maybe those things are just so much more juicily _interesting_ than boring old souls?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

wwubben said:


> I am a lifetime lutheran.I was raised in the american lutheran church which merged to form the elca.The bishops are elected by a majority.Each congregation calls their pastor.They won't call a gay pastor unless they want him or her.The elca policy is that you aren't required to accept a gay pastor you are expected to accept gays to worship with you.This is acceptable to me.I would not want a gay pastor and I would not want a single pastor.I want a pastor that understands the everyday life style of the majority.I think the other elca congregations can do as they please.No one can convince me that they know God's will.


Thank you wwubben, you and I pretty much agree on this.&#9829;
The situation that we have had in our community, not my church, but close by, is that a single male pastor accepted a call to a church. Within months he told the congregation that he was gay and moved his partner in with him. He took him with him to church council meetings and the ELCA would not do a thing about it. The church had a single woman Pastor before him and the whole congregation that that she was wonderful. They lost her to another congregation and since then all has been downhill for the church. Membership went way down. They had to sell their church and still a few meet in the very historical little church next door which had belonged to the big church as well. 
I was a member of the LCA before the merger.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

With the admission up front that I did not read this entire thread, I'd like to point out that few denominations condemn being gay as a sin. It is pretty much an accepted part of life that in a given and unknown percentage of gay folks, it is a genuine and lifelong condition, not simply a whim or preference.

Of those denominations who follow this rule, however, many treat the PRACTICE of gay sex the same as premarital or extramarital sex. I won't draq myself into a discussion as to how many unmarried virgins make it to retirement in that condition, but many denominations mark a difference between being gay and a PRACTICING gay.....Joe


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Once again -- they don't seem to care whether or not I'm a Christian. They just don't want me to be able to _sin _(according to their religion)!
> 
> I'd have no beef with them if they'd stick to enforcing their religious rules within their church communities, and quit trying to influence secular law.


I've got a surprise for you. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a legal contract. Don't believe me? Try getting a preacher to sign your divorce papers. By changing the definition of it changes a lot more than just what you call it. 

You think gays should have the right to marry. Now take it farther (I can give you lots of examples where this has happened. Here's a quick one, zero tolerance policies in schools). What else are you willing to allow to qualify as a marriage? Can two guys and three women be allowed to marry each other? Can a sterile brother marry his sister? Can a father marry each of his sons and daughters (which would allow him to pass his property to them w/o paying massive taxes on it)?


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Thank you wwubben, you and I pretty much agree on this.&#9829;
> The situation that we have had in our community, not my church, but close by, is that a single male pastor accepted a call to a church. Within months he told the congregation that he was gay and moved his partner in with him. He took him with him to church council meetings and the ELCA would not do a thing about it. The church had a single woman Pastor before him and the whole congregation that that she was wonderful. They lost her to another congregation and since then all has been downhill for the church. Membership went way down. They had to sell their church and still a few meet in the very historical little church next door which had belonged to the big church as well.
> I was a member of the LCA before the merger.


 I did not think you and I would agree on anything.This is great.


----------



## Wolfy-hound (May 5, 2013)

As far as the original post, I don't belong to that assembly so why would I be so arrogant as to tell them how to run THEIR church? 

It's none of my business frankly and I don't understand anyone thinking that it's their business either. Good for them for having a new bishop they like.

I also wouldn't care if some random church decided to put in white chairrails in the waiting area. Just saying. Not my church, not my business.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

gapeach said:


> I am Lutheran and am not anti-gay but I am against this.


It is a sad day when the church, the body of Christ, calls good evil and evil good. I could not go to that church.
Is it like the "national" level that did this or just an individual group in a local church? I'm not familiar with how that denomination is arranged? From the link it looks like it is the whole "national" church body? That is just so sad.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, I believe a fellow named Paul did. So it is one man's opinion as to what is right and wrong.


You don't understand... The Word of God is inspired. 2 Tim 3.16. God Himself wrote it. It is the breath of God.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

mekasmom said:


> It is a sad day when the church, the body of Christ, calls good evil and evil good. I could not go to that church.
> Is it like the "national" level that did this or just an individual group in a local church? I'm not familiar with how that denomination is arranged? From the link it looks like it is the whole "national" church body? That is just so sad.


Yes, this opens the door for more openly gay bishops. Up until 4 years ago, openly gay pastors were not accepted.

*Lutheran assembly elects first openly gay bishop*
June1, 2013
LOS ANGELES (AP) â The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America elected its first openly gay bishop to a six-year term on Friday at an annual assembly in Southern California, officials said.
The election of Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin comes after the church's controversial rule change in 2009 that allowed gays and lesbians to be ordained in the nation's largest Lutheran denomination. More than 600 congregations have left the denomination since the change.
http://news.yahoo.com/lutheran-assem...173713724.html


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> It is a sad day when the church, the body of Christ, calls good evil and evil good. I could not go to that church.


_Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter._ Isaiah 5:20 NIV




mekasmom said:


> Is it like the "national" level that did this or just an individual group in a local church? I'm not familiar with how that denomination is arranged? From the link it looks like it is the whole "national" church body? That is just so sad.


IIRC, the Lutheran church is set up like the Catholic church (and many others). The people at the top decide what is 'right' and the people below are expected to bow and go along.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You think gays should have the right to marry. Now take it farther (I can give you lots of examples where this has happened. Here's a quick one, zero tolerance policies in schools). What else are you willing to allow to qualify as a marriage? Can two guys and three women be allowed to marry each other? Can a sterile brother marry his sister? Can a father marry each of his sons and daughters (which would allow him to pass his property to them w/o paying massive taxes on it)?


IMO, consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they please. I do not think many folks are interested in marrying siblings. Yes, some people probably would use marriage to dodge tax laws, etc., but heterosexuals currently can employ such tactics, and no one seems up-in-arms about it. I haven't heard anyone suggest we ought to do away with hetero marriage because a few people abuse the privilege.



> You don't understand... The Word of God is inspired. 2 Tim 3.16. God Himself wrote it. It is the breath of God.


Well, we have no proof of that, actually. I'm not sure there even is proof Paul wrote it! So let's just say it's one man opinion, and as such, it has as much value as one is willing to grant it.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

mekasmom said:


> You don't understand... The Word of God is inspired. 2 Tim 3.16. God Himself wrote it. It is the breath of God.


and which translation did he write?


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

watcher said:


> _Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter._ Isaiah 5:20 NIV
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the ELCA Lutheran church has a voting membership that chooses its leadership and votes on important subjects. it is not like the catholic church, where the people at the top who make decisions.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> _Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter._ Isaiah 5:20 NIV
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 You do not know what you are talking about.The elca has a churchwide(national) assembly every two years.Every synod sends delegates to the assembly.The assembly needed a two thirds vote to pass the sexuality issue.Nothing is mandated from above in the elca.The churches that left the elca were upset about the national stand even though their congregation was not required to have a gay pastor.The percentage of congregations leaving the elca is small------about 600 out of about 11,000.Most of the congregations that left were quite conservative and the elca is on the liberal side of churches in this country.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

In my area,most of the churches who have left the ELCA were mostly the ones the the early German settlers in this area founded.

This gives a list of all of the churches that have left the ELCA
http://davidbarnhart.blogspot.com/


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> the ELCA Lutheran church has a voting membership that chooses its leadership and votes on important subjects. it is not like the catholic church, where the people at the top who make decisions.


So you are saying a majority of the members voted to allow gays into the bishophood?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> You do not know what you are talking about.The elca has a churchwide(national) assembly every two years.Every synod sends delegates to the assembly.The assembly needed a two thirds vote to pass the sexuality issue.Nothing is mandated from above in the elca.The churches that left the elca were upset about the national stand even though their congregation was not required to have a gay pastor.The percentage of congregations leaving the elca is small------about 600 out of about 11,000.Most of the congregations that left were quite conservative and the elca is on the liberal side of churches in this country.


As I said I'm not that familiar with Lutheranism so I admit my ignorance and am looking to learn. Ignorance can be fixed. Its my understanding the assembly, the people at the top, sets the rules the individual churches (and individual members) are to follow. That has been my experence in every denominational church I have been involved with. They have a set of man written rules you are expected to follow to be allowed to be in their denomination. 


Again its my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, bishops are not in 'charge' of an individual church but are more like district managers where they are in 'charge' of several churches. That means if a church doesn't want a gay pastor they can still be under the tacit control of an openly gay person. If you feel its wrong to have a gay pastor what would make you feel it was OK to have a gay bishop over your pastor?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Sigh. . .just how much 'stretching' do you think God allows? When you read the Bible you learn about how He views things. If you like it or not has nothing to do with it. God set down the standards for bishops and deacons. I ask you to point out to me how a homosexual can meet those standards.


Not all Christian believe the Bible is 100% inerrant.
Seems to me that many Churches today should be called Paulite rather than Christian since they put more stock in what Paul said that what Jesus said.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> As I said I'm not that familiar with Lutheranism so I admit my ignorance and am looking to learn. Ignorance can be fixed. Its my understanding the assembly, the people at the top, sets the rules the individual churches (and individual members) are to follow. That has been my experence in every denominational church I have been involved with. They have a set of man written rules you are expected to follow to be allowed to be in their denomination.
> 
> 
> Again its my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, bishops are not in 'charge' of an individual church but are more like district managers where they are in 'charge' of several churches. That means if a church doesn't want a gay pastor they can still be under the tacit control of an openly gay person. If you feel its wrong to have a gay pastor what would make you feel it was OK to have a gay bishop over your pastor?


The bishop presides over a synod.The congregations in the synod elect a synod council and the bishop is elected at the synod assembly for a six year period.The gay bishop was elected by a majority in his synod.I would not have a gay bishop in our synod.I doubt if a gay person could be nominated nevertheless elected as bishop.Our synod tells prospective gay pastors that they would probably not be accepted in our synod.I have no problem with another synod or another congregation having gay leadership.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mekasmom said:


> You don't understand... The Word of God is inspired. 2 Tim 3.16. God Himself wrote it. It is the breath of God.


Not all Christians believe that.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

watcher said:


> IIRC, the Lutheran church is set up like the Catholic church (and many others). The people at the top decide what is 'right' and the people below are expected to bow and go along.


 And that itself is not even scriptural IMO, but that's another topic.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Not all Christians believe that.


Then they aren't really Christians. They might not know that, but it is true. Many people who say Lord, Lord do not really Know Him.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

watcher said:


> So you are saying a majority of the members voted to allow gays into the bishophood?


nope I am saying that a majority of that synod voted for that bishop and knew that he was gay when they voted.

our synod voted to delay elections because our bishop was involved in a drunk driiving hit and run that ended in the death of the other person and he is facing a trial....

just wondering why you challenged what I said to correct you and you apologized and pleaded ignorance of lutheranism when others corrected you?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> The bishop presides over a synod.The congregations in the synod elect a synod council and the bishop is elected at the synod assembly for a six year period.The gay bishop was elected by a majority in his synod.I would not have a gay bishop in our synod.I doubt if a gay person could be nominated nevertheless elected as bishop.Our synod tells prospective gay pastors that they would probably not be accepted in our synod.I have no problem with another synod or another congregation having gay leadership.


Now I'm VERY confused. Let me see if I have this straight. You (a general you I don't know where you as an individual stand) don't want a gay pastor nor bishop because you think it is wrong but you have no problem with others in your group having one. So if one synod wants to have a pastor or bishop which has two wives and a couple of concubines and they vote its OK then your synod would support their choice? 

Also I'm assuming that each synod supports and/or receives support from the head group therefore your is either supporting something you don't agree with or is receiving support from it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Not all Christians believe that.


Christ told us there will be many who hear Him say; Go away I never knew you.

I've heard people claiming to be Christians say all sorts of things. Things such as: there's no Heaven or Hell; God would not subject anyone to everlasting punishment; to get what you want all you have to do is <insert act here> and God MUST give it to you and many other things.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> And that itself is not even scriptural IMO, but that's another topic.


That was my point. Most people miss it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> nope I am saying that a majority of that synod voted for that bishop and knew that he was gay when they voted.


Ok I'm confused. Does someone go directly from just a member directly to bishop or is it like other places where you are 'promoted' into it from a lower one?

Also did the main body (what is the body who makes the over all rules for you?) set down the rules which a bishop must hold to or does each synod get to make them for themselves? As I asked in another post could your synod elect someone who, let's take it to the extreme, is a self confessed atheist?




mrsgcpete said:


> just wondering why you challenged what I said to correct you and you apologized and pleaded ignorance of lutheranism when others corrected you?


I don't remember challenging you. If you took it that way sorry. I asked a simple question based on your reply. You said_ "the ELCA Lutheran church has a voting membership that chooses its leadership and votes on important subjects." _To me that implies the membership voted to allow gays into the bishophood. After all to me that is an important subject.

But you never did answer the question. Did the entire membership vote to allow gay bishops or did the leadership just decide it and tell the membership this is the way it is.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, I believe a fellow named Paul did. So it is one man's opinion as to what is right and wrong. You are, of course, welcome to follow that man if you wish. Me, I'll make up my own mind about things, thank you. :cowboy:


Actually, here is what Timothy says"*[FONT=&quot]54-[/FONT]**3*:*2* A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

I know you will discount it just like you do everything else in the Bible you don't agree with.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Actually, here is what Timothy says"54-3:2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"


Are you saying Timothy wrote that? Because WG was correct in saying it was Paul.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mekasmom said:


> Then they aren't really Christians.


I'll leave that decision up to Christ. You and I are not qualified to make that decision.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Are you saying Timothy wrote that? Because WG was correct in saying it was Paul.


Nope. Just pointing out what he actually said.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Oh, I assumed she knew what he said since she was the one who brought him up as being the one who said it. I must admit I dont understand a lot of the back and forth in this thread though.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Actually, here is what Timothy says"*[FONT=&quot;]54-[/FONT]**3*:*2*A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"
> 
> I know you will discount it just like you do everything else in the Bible you don't agree with.


Isn't it interesting that Catholics don't allow priests to marry, while the Bible seemingly _requires_ that they be married? 

And if I'm interpreting Mrs. Pete's post correctly, it seems her bishop may have fudged the 'sober' part a little ...


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> Isn't it interesting that Catholics don't allow priests to marry, while the Bible seemingly _requires_ that they be married?
> 
> And if I'm interpreting Mrs. Pete's post correctly, it seems her bishop may have fudged the 'sober' party a little ...


This verse doesn't require a bishop to be married. It means that a bishop, if he was married, could only be married once. There were pagan converts with a couple of wives. They would be excluded from ministry. Also, when a wife died, the presbyter couldn't remarry.

Celibacy isn't dogma. It's a discipline in the Latin rite of the Church. They are celibate "for the sake of the kingdom." The Catholic Church does have lots of married Eastern Catholic priests, as well as married priests who have converted from Lutheranism and Anglicanism.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> Now I'm VERY confused. Let me see if I have this straight. You (a general you I don't know where you as an individual stand) don't want a gay pastor nor bishop because you think it is wrong but you have no problem with others in your group having one. So if one synod wants to have a pastor or bishop which has two wives and a couple of concubines and they vote its OK then your synod would support their choice?
> 
> Also I'm assuming that each synod supports and/or receives support from the head group therefore your is either supporting something you don't agree with or is receiving support from it.


I am not saying it is wrong.I am saying a gay person would have trouble doing his work in our area because the majority would not accept him or her.We are all equal in the eyes of God in my mind.The bible is vague on homosexuality.The bible is not vague on the things that really count.
People living in a gay community in the city would want a gay pastor.The pastor would serve them just fine and that does not bother me.The elca has very few gay pastors.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> Ok I'm confused. Does someone go directly from just a member directly to bishop or is it like other places where you are 'promoted' into it from a lower one?
> 
> Also did the main body (what is the body who makes the over all rules for you?) set down the rules which a bishop must hold to or does each synod get to make them for themselves? As I asked in another post could your synod elect someone who, let's take it to the extreme, is a self confessed atheist?
> 
> ...


 A bishop is elected every six years at the synod assembly.Our synod has a term limit of 18 years.There are usually several candidates for the position.They must be a member of the synod.There are usually several votes before a candidate gets the required majority.The person selected is usually someone who is active in the synod and fairly well known.The system works well in my opinion.I feel that most synods elect the person they fully understand.A 66% majority voted to allow gays living with a same sex partner to be a pastor in the elca at the 1999 general assembly.This means a bishop or the head of the churchwide can be gay living in a same sex relationship.Gays were permitted before but they had to be celibate.Let me be clear that this was a decision approved by 66% of the voting delegates,it was not forced through by a minority.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> This verse doesn't require a bishop to married. It means that a bishop, if he was married, could only be married once. There were pagan converts with a couple of wives. They would be excluded from ministry. *Also, when a wife died, the presbyter couldn't remarry*.


Now, isn't that odd? I can see excluding a divorced person, but why penalize someone who hasn't done anything wrong?

Christianity sure has a lot of funny rules!


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Christianity sure has a lot of funny rules!


Keep in mind that each denomination makes their own rules.
:hammer: 

I mean God makes them for each denomination, yeah, that's it. :thumb:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> I'll leave that decision up to Christ. You and I are not qualified to make that decision.


Actually you and I are. You can't tell if someone *is* a Christian but you can tell if they are not. If someone is consistently not following the teachings of Christ they are not Christians. If someone has a wife, a girlfriend, brags about how he cheats the people he deals with and such you be worried about being wrong in saying he's not a Christian because he goes to a church and says he's a Christian?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Isn't it interesting that Catholics don't allow priests to marry, while the Bible seemingly _requires_ that they be married?
> 
> And if I'm interpreting Mrs. Pete's post correctly, it seems her bishop may have fudged the 'sober' part a little ...


I'm not going to go into it but Catholics have and still do a lot of things which just don't seem to line up with the teachings of God.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> I am not saying it is wrong.I am saying a gay person would have trouble doing his work in our area because the majority would not accept him or her.We are all equal in the eyes of God in my mind.The bible is vague on homosexuality.The bible is not vague on the things that really count.
> People living in a gay community in the city would want a gay pastor.The pastor would serve them just fine and that does not bother me.The elca has very few gay pastors.


So you are saying others think its wrong or just not be comfortable with him and would not accept him? Would the leadership allow a synod to refuse someone because of their skin color?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> A bishop is elected every six years at the synod assembly.Our synod has a term limit of 18 years.There are usually several candidates for the position.They must be a member of the synod.There are usually several votes before a candidate gets the required majority.The person selected is usually someone who is active in the synod and fairly well known.The system works well in my opinion.I feel that most synods elect the person they fully understand.A 66% majority voted to allow gays living with a same sex partner to be a pastor in the elca at the 1999 general assembly.This means a bishop or the head of the churchwide can be gay living in a same sex relationship.Gays were permitted before but they had to be celibate.Let me be clear that this was a decision approved by 66% of the voting delegates,it was not forced through by a minority.


Now I'm REALLY REALLY confused. Are you saying you have gay marriage in your church or you allow fornicators (i.e. people having sex outside of marriage) to serve in leadership in your church? Would you allow a man living with a woman w/o being married to be a bishop?


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> Now I'm REALLY REALLY confused. Are you saying you have gay marriage in your church or you allow fornicators (i.e. people having sex outside of marriage) to serve in leadership in your church? Would you allow a man living with a woman w/o being married to be a bishop?


 You are confused because of your view of homosexuality and anything I say will not change that.You can try to see the other persons point of view or you can just continue to be confused.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Actually you and I are. You can't tell if someone *is* a Christian but you can tell if they are not. If someone is consistently not following the teachings of Christ they are not Christians.


By my reading of scripture you are 100% wrong.
repentance is a wonderful thing and Christ died for our sins, not our perfections.
Is someone saved when they turn their life over to Christ? or when they perfect themselves?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> You are confused because of your view of homosexuality and anything I say will not change that.You can try to see the other persons point of view or you can just continue to be confused.


Not really, I fully understand people view things differently. 

I'm now trying to understand if your church allows either gay marriage or if they allow fornicators to serve in leadership.

To allow a gay who is living with a partner to serve it MUST be one or the other. I ask a very simple question: If the possible bishop was a man and was living unmarried with a woman would he also be allowed to serve?


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> Not really, I fully understand people view things differently.
> 
> I'm now trying to understand if your church allows either gay marriage or if they allow fornicators to serve in leadership.
> 
> To allow a gay who is living with a partner to serve it MUST be one or the other. I ask a very simple question: If the possible bishop was a man and was living unmarried with a woman would he also be allowed to serve?


 You appear to be equating an unmarried relationship with a gay married couple.You will be confused until you understand the difference.Skin color is not a factor here either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> By my reading of scripture you are 100% wrong.
> repentance is a wonderful thing and Christ died for our sins, not our perfections.
> Is someone saved when they turn their life over to Christ? or when they perfect themselves?


You need to read what I wrote a bit closer. 

You seem to be saying if someone says they are a Christian but continually and blatantly sin they are going to hear God say "Well done." and enter Heaven just because they claim the title. Is that what you mean?

If that's all it takes why not just put a gun to someone's head and force them to say "I'm a Christian." so they can avoid going to Hell?

Do Christians fail? Sure all Christians fall while walking down the narrow path but when the fall the get up and start walking again. Someone only claiming to be a Christian doesn't fall, he jumps, and he doesn't get up, he continues to wallow in the mire. 

Here's some examples I've been involved with. 

1) We had a man in our church, who was in leadership, fall and have an affair. We followed Christ's teachings on dealing with a wayward brother in Matthew 18. He repented, went back to his wife and came back to the church. But he was NOT allowed back into leadership. Will he never be allowed into leadership again because of this? No but it will take a long time for him to rebuild trust.

2) We had a couple come to our church who said they were Christians. They looked like near perfect Christians. They were nice, always willing to offer helping hands when something needed done. After many months they wanted to become members and get involved in leadership. But it was discovered they were living together but not married. We told them we love them but as long as they were living together unmarried we could not accept them into the fellowship. They got upset and left. A few years later they got married and now are going to a 'sister church' and are serving Christ.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> You appear to be equating an unmarried relationship with a gay married couple.You will be confused until you understand the difference.Skin color is not a factor here either.


You have sort of answered one of my questions. You imply your church does marriages for gays. That's ALL I was asking then. I was just wondering if ya'll had a different view on fornication than most other churches.

To be honest with you I don't really care if you have gay leaders or adulterous leaders or even atheist leaders. That's all between you and God. 

I just am curious how you justify those choices using the Word of God, i.e. Biblically. What scriptures do you use to show that God, through Christ, has relented on His view of homosexuality as He did on the food laws.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

watcher said:


> You need to read what I wrote a bit closer.
> 
> 2) We had a couple come to our church who said they were Christians. They looked like near perfect Christians. They were nice, always willing to offer helping hands when something needed done. After many months they wanted to become members and get involved in leadership. But it was discovered they were living together but not married. We told them we love them but as long as they were living together unmarried we could not accept them into the fellowship. They got upset and left. A few years later they got married and now are going to a 'sister church' and are serving Christ.


In the Lutheran Church where I am a member, that couple would be accepted into the church membership gladly.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

> You seem to be saying........


As is usual in religious discussions most people see what they want to see and talk past each other.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gapeach said:


> In the Lutheran Church where I am a member, that couple would be accepted into the church membership gladly.


So you have no problem with members being fornicators? Would you have accepted them as bishops as well?

Also do you not think you should follow the teachings of Christ? Read Matthew 18 and tell me just how you can justify allowing them to be members of your church.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> You have sort of answered one of my questions. You imply your church does marriages for gays. That's ALL I was asking then. I was just wondering if ya'll had a different view on fornication than most other churches.
> 
> To be honest with you I don't really care if you have gay leaders or adulterous leaders or even atheist leaders. That's all between you and God.
> 
> I just am curious how you justify those choices using the Word of God, i.e. Biblically. What scriptures do you use to show that God, through Christ, has relented on His view of homosexuality as He did on the food laws.


 Our congregation does not marry gays.The state of Iowa marries gays and they are married according to law.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> Attend yes, lead not usually.


That is so blatantly false that it is laughable.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> So you have no problem with members being fornicators? Would you have accepted them as bishops as well?
> 
> Also do you not think you should follow the teachings of Christ? Read Matthew 18 and tell me just how you can justify allowing them to be members of your church.


 Does your church only accept members who are not sinners?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

watcher said:


> So you have no problem with members being fornicators? Would you have accepted them as bishops as well?
> 
> Also do you not think you should follow the teachings of Christ? Read Matthew 18 and tell me just how you can justify allowing them to be members of your church.


question # 1 - no
# 2 - no
# 3 - I think being in church is much better for people than being refused admission. I really cannot imagine a congregation disallowing people to be active members because of the fact that they are not married to each other


When I was growing up it was a much different time. Adulterers were shunned. Divorce was a scandal. People who married a divorced person was considered to be "living in adultery" including my own mother. These people were judged by the churches and the community. 
Being a Bishop is entirely different. First you have to have the educational background, the church background, and the moral background.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> Our congregation does not marry gays.The state of Iowa marries gays and they are married according to law.


Congregations don't marry but pastors/ministers duly appointed by and/or employed by the church are invested with the authority by the state to act as its agent in the marriage contract. When a duly appointed pastor of a church exercises this authority 'under the color' of the church, i.e. in the church or with the church body's approval, it is commonly refereed as being married by or in a or the church. 

If your main church body accepts gay marriage and have married gays as members of your church as well as in the leadership of the church body I think you could be setting yourself up for a nasty legal fight if your congregation were to refuse to allow a gay marriage to take place in your church.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> Does your church only accept members who are not sinners?


We would not let someone become a member if they were claiming to be Christians but were freely and continually sinning. If they confess, repent and work on following the teachings of Christ they are fully welcome.

Would your church accept someone as a member who said they were a Christian but was known to be in long term adulterous relationship and refused to end it?

Have you read anything Christ said about dealing with a sinning brother?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gapeach said:


> question # 1 - no
> # 2 - no
> # 3 - I think being in church is much better for people than being refused admission. I really cannot imagine a congregation disallowing people to be active members because of the fact that they are not married to each other



Read Matthew 18:15-17. It tells us if a brother continues to sin after we have tried to show him the right way we are to treat him as a heathen/tax collector/pagan that is we are to treat him the exact same way we would treat a lost person. Would your church allow a lost person to become members?

You want something even harsher? Read 1 Cor 5:11-13. 


Now if you can read those verses and tell me you think its OK for a church to accept someone who is living together w/o being married as members you have a completely different Bible than I do.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Watcher, I'd be interested in knowing what type of time period you believe the difference in being a Christian vs. no longer being Christian because of a sin is? Is it seconds, minutes, weeks, years? If a "Christian" dies before repenting of a sin (such as telling a lie) are they going to hell because they died in sin; or does it only count with 'big' sins?

I would be very careful about anyone being critical of other denominations from our own. There isn't a denomination or belief that doesn't have some sort of biblical reasoning for that belief. We can't judge others for seeing something or not seeing something we see or don't see. We're just not all at the same place spiritually and God knows that. We should be respectful of others denominations and leave it to God to sort them out and correct them. You see, when He does it, it isn't the pot calling the kettle black.  

Don't we have enough trouble, corrections that are needed, and misunderstandings in our own denominations to fuss or point fingers at other denominations and beliefs? 

On another note, much of biblical beliefs still comes down to how we each interpret scripture. It seems we all see different things in the same versus; thus so many different denominations. No denomination, no person - not one - has it 100% correct. I'm not even going to be surprised to find out in the end we aren't even half right half of the time!

On yet another note, it's all this finger pointing and demanding others repent (while we are not without sin ourselves) that ends up causing people to turn from Christ and see we Christians as hypocrites. Why? Because when we do that, we are!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You seem to be saying if someone says they are a Christian but continually and blatantly sin they are going to hear God say "Well done." and enter Heaven just because they claim the title. Is that what you mean?
> 
> If that's all it takes why not just put a gun to someone's head and force them to say "I'm a Christian." so they can avoid going to Hell?
> 
> Do Christians fail? Sure all Christians fall while walking down the narrow path but when the fall the get up and start walking again. Someone only claiming to be a Christian doesn't fall, he jumps, and he doesn't get up, he continues to wallow in the mire.


This is one of the central problems in Christianity, and I think it stems from the very way in which the religion was created. The idea that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, sure; but it quickly created a new problem. People who accepted the idea that they were free of the old law (thanks to Christ's sacrifice) naturally concluded that they could do as they pleased and retain salvation. Belief is all that is needed -- Jesus himself said so! No? 

Their resulting misbehavior must have been horrifying to the more straight-laced Christians, Paul among them. He began issuing frantic edicts, trying to get the straying church membership to fall back into line. The most persuasive tactic, IMO, was to declare that true believers could be identified by their good behavior. While people weren't _required_ to follow the law anymore, the faithful would do so anyway as a manifestation of their salvation.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

You can tell a Christian by the way they live and walk through life, and of course the words they speak. The problem is that there are so darn few of them.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I have to say, that I have been pleasantly surprised the last couple of years. There is a definite movement in the Christian Church,or perhaps I should say, out of the Christian Church. I have lately found that there are many, many people who share my disillusionment with the Christian Church, but whose faith is not only not weakened, but is stronger for it. I see great things happening. God has his Church, and it is not the church of man, or men. 

1 Kings 19 Have hope


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> This is one of the central problems in Christianity, and I think it stems from the very way in which the religion was created. The idea that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, sure; but it quickly created a new problem. People who accepted the idea that they were free of the old law (thanks to Christ's sacrifice) naturally concluded that they could do as they pleased and retain salvation. Belief is all that is needed -- Jesus himself said so! No?
> 
> Their resulting misbehavior must have been horrifying to the more straight-laced Christians, Paul among them. He began issuing frantic edicts, trying to get the straying church membership to fall back into line. The most persuasive tactic, IMO, was to declare that true believers could be identified by their good behavior. While people weren't _required_ to follow the law anymore, the faithful would do so anyway as a manifestation of their salvation.


 

Hmmm. You find freedom from law a "central problem"? Strange. Most people would find that a relief. Not having to worry about trying to be perfect after being handed a sinful body. BTW, Christ didn't change the law, he fulfilled it. I think there are going to be a lot of sad people (christians)when they realize how far away from the bible they actually are. I know of alot of Christians who believe in "christian liberties". Exactly what you are saying, they feel like they can do whatever they want because they have forgiveness. While I DO believe that all sins except blaspheme are forgivable and that a saved person can not lose their salvation, I also believe that a true christian will bear the fruits. Generally speaking, when you see christians who are living out of the will of God, they have depression issues and/or addictions. So they may be saved but that doesn't mean they are living in the will of God. It goes for ANY Christians. There are no examples in the bible that I am aware of where people lived their lives out of the will of God and had it end with good results. It always ends badly. A good ( I think) example that I can think of is Kurt Cobain. I am a Nirvana fan. I like their music, most days. I believe Kurt was a christian. He at one point in his life proclaimed to be. It's been documented in biographies. However, even being the biggest star in the world, he was depressed. Clearly. The killed himself at the PEAK of his popularity. I believe one of 2 things. The first is that he was clearly living out of the will of God and was completely trapped(in his mind) in life and knew of only one way out. I know it's overly simple but i don't want to write for 6 hours. The other is that he had commited blaspheme of the holy spirit (some of his music and statements indicate he could have been guilty of this but that is between him and God) and the result is death for those who commit that sin. Either way he's dead. With the first scenario, I believe he's in heaven, the second, no way. The point is that even though Christians have sinful lives, often times very sinful. It doesn't mean they aren't christians. It also doesn't mean they are living a life with out punishment.


On the gay pastor/bishop thing. I believe that a person who is a homosexual here, COULD go to heaven. They however, will in no way, be gay there. The bible is clear that there will be no sin there so if the bible is right about there being a heaven, I feel pretty good about it being right about it being sin free. And we are all well versed in how it feels about homosexuality.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> Congregations don't marry but pastors/ministers duly appointed by and/or employed by the church are invested with the authority by the state to act as its agent in the marriage contract. When a duly appointed pastor of a church exercises this authority 'under the color' of the church, i.e. in the church or with the church body's approval, it is commonly refereed as being married by or in a or the church.
> 
> If your main church body accepts gay marriage and have married gays as members of your church as well as in the leadership of the church body I think you could be setting yourself up for a nasty legal fight if your congregation were to refuse to allow a gay marriage to take place in your church.


 The elca does not require the pastors to perform marriages.Each congregation has that choice.The congregation has a lot of power in the elca.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> So you have no problem with members being fornicators?


Members of your Church do not sin?

A Church is not a resting place for the perfected, the good Churches are an aid station for sinners.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

And therein is the main problem, IMHO. People see sin as: big sins, little sins, sins of abomination, and all sorts of degrees of sin. But God only sees 'sin' and it's only of one degree -- period! 

Perhaps if, as Christians, we would see sin in the same manner as God, as well as how he sees the 'person', we'd have a whole lot more love, acceptance and forgiveness for a sinner because we'd have to include ourselves among the failures who can't seem to get through the day without sinning some where along the line -- because obviously, we don't get it right no more than they do. We'd realize our little white lie that day, or our brief moment of unkindness or judgmentalness is equal to someone else's sin of homosexuality, murder or any other sin. We're simply no better or no worst than anyone else.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Let me toss out something here. Suppose science does end up proving that being gay is not a choice, rather is determined through genetics. As Christians, would your thoughts on the horrible sinfulness of it change? 

If not, then how do you rectify Leprosy of today as being a medical condition not at fault of the person, as opposed to how it was viewed in the Bible as it being from sinning? Or how do you rectify any change of biblical laws such as divorce, remarriage of widows, child discipline, death sentences for women of adultery, etc.? 

I get where you may think the 'laws' changed when Christ died, but I'm talking outside of those specific laws. Laws which were still in effect at time of Christ and beyond.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Watcher, I'd be interested in knowing what type of time period you believe the difference in being a Christian vs. no longer being Christian because of a sin is? Is it seconds, minutes, weeks, years? If a "Christian" dies before repenting of a sin (such as telling a lie) are they going to hell because they died in sin; or does it only count with 'big' sins?


There is no time limit, its all about the heart. If you are genuinely trying to live a Christian life and you stumble you have not lost the heart for God nor the heart of God. 

Just as with my example of the adulterous man in our church. He stumbled and after the men of the church followed God's teaching on what to do with a lost brother he repented and returned. He was a Christian who stumbled.

The other couple were clearly NOT Christians but were just 'playing church'. They're actions proved that in their hearts they didn't want to follow the teachings of Christ. Its clear, God views sex outside of marriage a sin. Not only had they committed that sin in the past they were planning on continuing to do it more and more with no intent to stopping. This was farther shown in their reaction when church members, again following the teachings of Christ, approached them to point it out. They got upset that the church DARED to tell them what they were doing was a sin, even though it clearly was, and instead of repenting and changing their lives they went looking for someplace which would allow them to 'play church' but not be expected to live Christian lives. 




Karen said:


> I would be very careful about anyone being critical of other denominations from our own.


I'm critical of ALL denominations from Amish to Zionist. Each add rules to following God which are, usually, not Biblical. But the biggest thing is a top down ruled church is not what Christ intended. Paul planted churches, he gave them the word and let them grow. 

He didn't give them a booklet and say this is how you are to run your church. You MUST have 7 deacons and 14 bishops, whoever is preaching must wear a blue robe with a one inch wide black band for every year he has been preaching and the first band must be placed 3/4 of an inch above the cuff.

He didn't tell them you have to open your service with lighting candles, followed by a opening prayer, followed by a Bible reading. . .




Karen said:


> We should be respectful of others denominations and leave it to God to sort them out and correct them. You see, when He does it, it isn't the pot calling the kettle black.


I tell people all the time if you believe virgin birth, death on the cross for your sins and resurrection we can usually get along. There are a lot of things in the Bible which ARE gray. There's the example of eating meat from idols. Its ok but then again its wrong too. If you think women should wear long hair and long skirts in your church that's fine. But if you think a women with short hair is going to Hell we'll have to have a talk.

There is not gray when it comes to somethings. God's stand on adultery, fornication, and the like are clear.




Karen said:


> On yet another note, it's all this finger pointing and demanding others repent (while we are not without sin ourselves) that ends up causing people to turn from Christ and see we Christians as hypocrites. Why? Because when we do that, we are!


I disagree. People do not turn from Christ because of anything Christians do. Think about it. If that were true then a Christian by his own power has the ability to bring someone to Christ. I'm sure you will agree that is completely impossible. Only God can call someone to Him. 

I heard a great way to look at this. People are like apples. There are green apples (unripe) and red (ripe) apples. No matter how much you want, no matter what you do you can NEVER change a green apple into a red one. Only God can. Once an apple is red it doesn't matter if you are there to pick it or not, God has a plan for that apple. 

Saying someone didn't come to Christ because of someone eles's actions is like saying someone got drunk because he saw others drinking. They wanted to drink and the 'everyone else was' is the excuse they used. People who don't want Christ in their lives will use whatever justification they can find. I've heard almost all of them. "I need to clean up my life BEFORE I come to church." "I'm just as good as that guy who goes to church." "All church is a social group."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> This is one of the central problems in Christianity, and I think it stems from the very way in which the religion was created. The idea that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, sure; but it quickly created a new problem. People who accepted the idea that they were free of the old law (thanks to Christ's sacrifice) naturally concluded that they could do as they pleased and retain salvation. Belief is all that is needed -- Jesus himself said so! No?


And there's your problem. That is not how it works. You don't just have to say I believe and get a 'Get out of Hell' card. If this were true then Satan would be there. After its clear he believed Christ was the Son of God.

As I just posted its about the heart. Look at it this way. Say you have two kids, Tom and Harry. They get into a argument and Tom gets really mad and punches Harry right in the face. You step in and using your power as an adult you force Tom to say "I'm sorry Harry." Do you really think Tom is sorry he smacked Harry? Do you think Harry thinks everything ok because of a forced apology? Or do you think everyone knows the only reason he said it was to avoid being punished?




willow_girl said:


> Their resulting misbehavior must have been horrifying to the more straight-laced Christians, Paul among them. He began issuing frantic edicts, trying to get the straying church membership to fall back into line. The most persuasive tactic, IMO, was to declare that true believers could be identified by their good behavior.


Actually it was Christ who told us that. A quick of Matthew chapters 3 and 7 will show you a couple.





willow_girl said:


> While people weren't _required_ to follow the law anymore, the faithful would do so anyway as a manifestation of their salvation.


And like them you got it wrong. They were not required to follow the mosaic laws about what is clean and what isn't. Even in the Old Testament we are told God cares more about following Him with your heart than burning up a lot of dead animals. People were not and are not released from God's laws of sin.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> You can tell a Christian by the way they live and walk through life, and of course the words they speak. The problem is that there are so darn few of them.


Yep, and there are a lot who think they are true Christians who are going to hear the 'go away I never knew you' speech.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Members of your Church do not sin?
> 
> A Church is not a resting place for the perfected, the good Churches are an aid station for sinners.


If you had a someone who claimed to be a Christian who was married but move out of from his wife, moved in with another woman and started bringing her to church would you let him become a member? 

Also, say you have a church member who did that would you ignore the teachings of Christ and allow them to continue as a member?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> People do not turn from Christ because of anything Christians do.


 You are 1000% wrong there.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> If you had a someone who claimed to be a Christian who was married but move out of from his wife, moved in with another woman and started bringing her to church would you let him become a member?
> 
> Also, say you have a church member who did that would you ignore the teachings of Christ and allow them to continue as a member?


So likewise you shouldn't let any other sinner become a member of your church, right? or is adultery the only sin you're against?

You've talked about sins of commission, how about sins of omission: Have you really loved your neighbor as yourself? Sorry, but if you're going to be strict about one sin, you really need to be strict about all sins.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Hmmm. You find freedom from law a "central problem"?


Yes it is, for the people in authority, because they no longer have a hold over the populace. The law required people to behave in a more or less civilized fashion ... to refrain from stealing and killing, respect their parents and keep their mitts off their neighbors' wife. 

Once the law was abolished, it seems a lot of people jumped to the natural conclusion that all bets were off, and they could have a fine time and still be in God's good graces. Reading between the lines in the New Testament, we see early Christians committing incest (!) and engaging in orgies of gluttony and drunkenness, all presumably excusable because they were "saved." 

I've often wondered if the opposition to the early Church stemmed from this sort of bad behavior. 


> And there's your problem. That is not how it works. You don't just have to say I believe and get a 'Get out of Hell' card.


John 3:16 suggests otherwise:


> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


I think Christ's followers came up with the idea of his death as a redeeming sacrifice in the chaotic aftermath of his execution. They didn't think things through, or consider the ramifications of releasing people from the bonds of religious law. You might say they were reactive, not proactive, in creating this doctrine. And as we can see from Paul's shrill exhortations, it created problems right from the outset -- problems that still haven't been satisfactorily resolved.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> And therein is the main problem, IMHO. People see sin as: big sins, little sins, sins of abomination, and all sorts of degrees of sin. But God only sees 'sin' and it's only of one degree -- period!
> 
> Perhaps if, as Christians, we would see sin in the same manner as God, as well as how he sees the 'person', we'd have a whole lot more love, acceptance and forgiveness for a sinner because we'd have to include ourselves among the failures who can't seem to get through the day without sinning some where along the line -- because obviously, we don't get it right no more than they do. We'd realize our little white lie that day, or our brief moment of unkindness or judgmentalness is equal to someone else's sin of homosexuality, murder or any other sin. We're simply no better or no worst than anyone else.


In this case we are talking about those who profess to be Christians and judging their actions and the steps we are to take if we see those actions falling short. 

Christ tells us the fruits a true believer will have. He tells us a 'good tree' CAN NOT produce 'bad fruit'. That means if someone is producing bad fruit then they must not be a good tree.

He also states VERY CLEARLY what we, as individuals and as a church, are to do when a brother falls. If that brother REFUSES to get up after we have tried to help him we are to treat him just as we would a non-believer.

<RANT MODE: ON>

The problem is so many so called churches are more worried about having butts in the seats and money in the offering plate than following the teachings of Christ and saving the lost. 

Tell someone they can't be members because they are living together not married? No way, they might leave and she makes such good food for the pot luck dinners and he's the one who mows the church lawn and. . .well they do. . .you know. . .give quite a bit of money every week.

Teach there are things which are wrong? You do that and people might leave then we couldn't brag we are the largest church in town.

Tickle their ears and they will show up. After all isn't the most important thing getting them into church so they can hear the Word? That's what saves them.

And don't you DARE be teaching that stuff about how *-=I=-* am supposed to take the Word of God outside the church. What in the world am I paying that preacher for? Isn't it bad enough he nags me to ask people to come to church with me. He clearly doesn't know what the _real_ world is like out there.

<RANT MODE: OFF>


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Karen said:


> Let me toss out something here. Suppose science does end up proving that being gay is not a choice, rather is determined through genetics. As Christians, would your thoughts on the horrible sinfulness of it change?
> 
> If not, then how do you rectify Leprosy of today as being a medical condition not at fault of the person, as opposed to how it was viewed in the Bible as it being from sinning? Or how do you rectify any change of biblical laws such as divorce, remarriage of widows, child discipline, death sentences for women of adultery, etc.?
> 
> I get where you may think the 'laws' changed when Christ died, but I'm talking outside of those specific laws. Laws which were still in effect at time of Christ and beyond.



I am not at all sure that being homosexual is a choice but having sex is. 
About Leprosy, people then just did not know it was an illness which is only my opinion. I don't see any way that they could have known.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I am not at all sure that being homosexual is a choice but having sex is.


I think heterosexuals are awfully presumptuous in saying, "God likes _our _way of having sex and is down with it, but _your _way is wrong, and you have to remain celibate."

Especially when both groups in many cases are doing the same things! :hysterical:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Christ tells us the fruits a true believer will have. He tells us a 'good tree' CAN NOT produce 'bad fruit'. That means if someone is producing bad fruit then they must not be a good tree.


It would seem the reverse also is true, then. No?

So how do you explain all the lovely people -- honest, kind, helpful, good people -- who don't happen to be Christians?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Let me toss out something here. Suppose science does end up proving that being gay is not a choice, rather is determined through genetics. As Christians, would your thoughts on the horrible sinfulness of it change?


For me, no. 

I'm a guy and I like women. Throughout my life I wanted to have sex with LOTS of women and according to science that's how genetics make men. We are programed to produce as many offspring with as many partners as possible so to deepen the gene pool. But I don't act on this because God views doing so as a sin. 

If you are genetically wired to like men it doesn't mean you have to have sex with them.




Karen said:


> If not, then how do you rectify Leprosy of today as being a medical condition not at fault of the person, as opposed to how it was viewed in the Bible as it being from sinning?


First off what we know as leprosy today is not what was refereed to in the OT. Second, can you show me where it is stated all leprosy was a result from sin? Third, Christ told us long before we knew about germs and genetics that disease was NOT a punishment from God.




Karen said:


> Or how do you rectify any change of biblical laws such as divorce, remarriage of widows, child discipline, death sentences for women of adultery, etc.?
> I get where you may think the 'laws' changed when Christ died, but I'm talking outside of those specific laws. Laws which were still in effect at time of Christ and beyond.


You lost me here? God's laws are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> It would seem the reverse also is true, then. No?
> 
> So how do you explain all the lovely people -- honest, kind, helpful, good people -- who don't happen to be Christians?


No. All chickens are birds. Does that mean all birds are chickens?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> If that brother REFUSES to get up after we have tried to help him we are to treat him just as we would a non-believer.


How are you supposed to treat a non-believer? This is a sincere question as I really dont know the answer.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> How are you supposed to treat a non-believer? This is a sincere question as I really dont know the answer.


In a nut shell, with respect and love but keep a distance. We are supposed to tell them the truth and if they don't want to hear it we are to leave them alone. We are not to avoid them but neither are we to associate closely with them. Think of believers as family and non-believers as associates from work.

In this context you would not allow a non-believer to handle church business or be in a leadership role or have them in a place where they would be seen as 'the face' of the church.


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

watcher said:


> In a nut shell, with respect and love but keep a distance. We are supposed to tell them the truth and if they don't want to hear it we are to leave them alone. We are not to avoid them but neither are we to associate closely with them. Think of believers as family and non-believers as associates from work.
> 
> In this context you would not allow a non-believer to handle church business or be in a leadership role or have them in a place where they would be seen as 'the face' of the church.


 

Please quote scripture. Also please show where Christ gave up on someone. Your whole post goes against what I understand discipleship to mean. You never know how close you are to helping someone gain the ultimate knowedge. I'd sure hate to think I gave up on someone when all it took was one more conversation. People often become the most combative when they know you're right. I don't mean you are to fight and argue with them but there is nothing wrong with sharing what you know to be facts as long as they receptive......


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

watcher said:


> In a nut shell, with respect and love but keep a distance. We are supposed to tell them the truth and if they don't want to hear it we are to leave them alone. We are not to avoid them but neither are we to associate closely with them. Think of believers as family and non-believers as associates from work.
> 
> In this context you would not allow a non-believer to handle church business or be in a leadership role or have them in a place where they would be seen as 'the face' of the church.



your allowed to have sex, but homosexuals arent, you are welcome in church because you follow the rules but others arent. you expect the pastor to bring in the new people because you cant. your church must be a really special club. it is an attitude like that, that keeps me close to God but at arms length from most Christians.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Karen said:


> And therein is the main problem, IMHO. People see sin as: big sins, little sins, sins of abomination, and all sorts of degrees of sin. But God only sees 'sin' and it's only of one degree -- period!


Sin is missing the mark. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

However, there are a few things in scripture that God calls an abomination. Homosexual acts are one of them.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

yup because he wanted everybody to go out and procreate
abomination=taboo=don't do it


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Pugnacious said:


> Please quote scripture.


Mark 6:11_
And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.


_


Pugnacious said:


> Also please show where Christ gave up on someone.


Did Christ go chasing after the rich young ruler? Or did He let him go?




Pugnacious said:


> Your whole post goes against what I understand discipleship to mean.


How do you define discipleship? To me it is helping others grow in Christ and how to live more for him. You can't help someone grow in Christ if they don't know him to start with. I believe what you are thinking of is evangelizing, that is the spreading of the Gospel with the intent of saving people. But even then we are told if a person doesn't want to hear it we are to leave them.




Pugnacious said:


> You never know how close you are to helping someone gain the ultimate knowedge. I'd sure hate to think I gave up on someone when all it took was one more conversation.


Read my post about apples. Do you think YOU have the power to save someone with YOUR words? Do YOU think if God has called someone He will let them go because YOU don't do something? Sounds a bit arrogant when you look it that way doesn't?




Pugnacious said:


> People often become the most combative when they know you're right. I don't mean you are to fight and argue with them but there is nothing wrong with sharing what you know to be facts as long as they receptive......


That's my point. You tell them the truth and if they tell you to shove off, you leave. You can't make them into ripe apples no matter how much you talk, yell or even pray over them. They will either hear the call of God and move toward him or they won't.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> your allowed to have sex, but homosexuals arent,


I'm allowed to walk but someone born with a genetic spinal or brain damage isn't. I guess God is just mean, huh? Remember we are talking about the theory homosexually is a genetic defect. Yes, defect. Anything which reduces the change or ability of a species to propagate is a defect in the view of science and we ARE talking about science here.

I have this strange view if there is a genetic defect, according to science, it was because God made them that way. I don't know why He puts a burden like that on a person but I trust He is in control and has a plan. I know He want all to come to Him and He's not going to have someone who has NO chance of doing that.



mrsgcpete said:


> you are welcome in church because you follow the rules but others arent.


Anyone is welcome in church but lost people are not to be members or leaders.




mrsgcpete said:


> you expect the pastor to bring in the new people because you cant.


Where did I say that other in my sarcastic rant about so called Christians who just want their ears tickled?




mrsgcpete said:


> your church must be a really special club. it is an attitude like that, that keeps me close to God but at arms length from most Christians.


If you look close and do as you are told in the Bible, judge those who claim to be Christians (1 Cor 5:12-13), you will discover Christ was speaking the truth when He said; 

_âNot everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?â Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â_ Matthew 7:21-23 NIV


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> Sin is missing the mark. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
> 
> However, there are a few things in scripture that God calls an abomination. Homosexual acts are one of them.


Sin is sin is sin. Its not the sin but the heart. Any sin other than the sin of rejecting God can be forgiven. But you don't get that forgiveness by just speaking a few words and going right back to living the way you were. If you have given your heart to God when you do fail you will repent and move on. If you are just playing church you won't.

Way too many people who call themselves Christians are playing church. They think as long as they follow a set of rules (go to church, pray, pay 10%, help out someone in need, etc) and look good on the outside they are fine. That it doesn't matter what they do when no one else can see them or doesn't catch them.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> However, there are a few things in scripture that God calls an abomination.


Leviticus 11:12 
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that _shall be_ an abomination unto you.

Apparently, gay sex will send you straight to Hell ... but so will eating at Red Lobster! :hysterical:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

watcher said:


> No. All chickens are birds. Does that mean all birds are chickens?


But how can a bad tree bear good fruit? If the fruit is good, shouldn't we conclude the tree is, too? :shrug:


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

watcher, I understand what you are saying and that is why I could not ever go to your church. I would not be a good Christian in your eyes. If you can live up to those limitations, more power to you. We say "Praise the Lord" a lot in the south and that is what I say now, Praise the Lord. We may see things differently, but hopefully we all get to our destination, Heaven.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

I give up...I got sucked in to a thread that I up front called out as a thread that would go round and round. defective really! every thing seems to work okay for them..cause otherwise they would be celibate and you wouldn't have a problem with them ....right?


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Just an interesting article that made me happy just to know they are questioning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gay-bishops-what-a-difference-a-decade-makes/

"Every denomination, no matter how clear and unwavering their condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual relationships, is struggling with this societal and religious issue. A substantial majority of Roman Catholic laity in America now support marriage equality &#8211; a momentous step beyond mere acceptance of homosexual people. Mormons and evangelicals are softening their language about gay people at a minimum; some are reassessing their traditional stances and moving toward greater acceptance.

Religious institutions of all stripes are asking this big question: Could the church have gotten it wrong in using a few verses of scripture to condemn homosexual people, just as it got it wrong about using isolated verses to justify slavery and the denigration/subjugation of women? More and more religious people and institutions are moving toward a &#8220;yes&#8221; in response to that question. The church has misunderstood God&#8217;s will before, but over time, we get it right. I believe that this is one of those moments."


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Actually, the bible says that god hates all sexual sin, not because it is a sin against God, but because it is a sin against your very self. I think that you know when you are sinning sexually. God hates it, because he wants us to love ourselves.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

mekasmom said:


> Sin is missing the mark. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.


Sin is a whole lot more than missing the mark. It's what separates us from God. All sin is an abomination.


mekasmom said:


> However, there are a few things in scripture that God calls an abomination. Homosexual acts are one of them.


And another one of them is gossip. How many of us Christians have been guilty of that one!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gapeach said:


> watcher, I understand what you are saying and that is why I could not ever go to your church. I would not be a good Christian in your eyes. If you can live up to those limitations, more power to you. We say "Praise the Lord" a lot in the south and that is what I say now, Praise the Lord. We may see things differently, but hopefully we all get to our destination, Heaven.



You are saying you can't or WON'T try to live up to the standards God set for us? Can you point out anything I have said which was not supported by the Word?


That's all that is expected at my church. Sure if you want to be told you can live with someone w/o being married and be a "good Christian" you wouldn't fit in. If you want to just sit in a pew and be preached to and not be expected to take Christ out of the building to the lost then you wouldn't fit. If you are not willing to put your faith into action then you wouldn't fit. But there are plenty of other churches and even more places which call themselves churches people cat go.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

mekasmom said:


> Sin is missing the mark. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.


Sin is a whole lot more than missing the mark. It's what separates us from God. All sin is an abomination.


mekasmom said:


> However, there are a few things in scripture that God calls an abomination. Homosexual acts are one of them.


And another one of them is gossip. How many of us Christians have been guilty of that one!




watcher said:


> If you look close and do as you are told in the Bible, judge those who claim to be Christians (1 Cor 5:12-13), you will discover Christ was speaking the truth when He said;
> 
> _&#8220;Not everyone who says to me, &#8216;Lord, Lord,&#8217; will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, &#8216;Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?&#8217; Then I will tell them plainly, &#8216;I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!&#8217;_ Matthew 7:21-23 NIV
> If you look close and do as you are told in the Bible, judge those who claim to be Christians (1 Cor 5:12-13), you will discover Christ was speaking the truth when He said;
> ...


No, we are not told to 'judge' any one. God is the only judge. We are told to correct those in our own church congregation. Not feel it's our mission in life to point out everyone elses and every denominations errors. Again, we can't find enough to deal with in our churches we have to critique every other Christian too?

Of course there will be those who profess to be Christians but not enter the kingdom; but that's God's call. It isn't up to us to decide who will and who won't make it; and thank God for that! 

Ever wonder if self-righteous Christians who think they are the ones who have the inside track of having everything correct and pointing out everyone else's errors, are probably going to be very shocked on judgment day when they are ones that God judges them most harshly. Wasn't that Jesus' point with religious leaders during his time on earth? 

You know, it could very well be the ones who you think were going to the wrong church and believing the wrong things - yet had an abundance of love, acceptance and forgiveness in their heart for all people (whether saints or sinners) and stuck by those sinners to not blab a mile a minute preaching all day long, but just 'showing' them Christ and His day-to-day love, that may just be the ones who hear, "Well done good and faithful servant".


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> Just an interesting article that made me happy just to know they are questioning.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gay-bishops-what-a-difference-a-decade-makes/
> 
> "Every denomination, no matter how clear and unwavering their condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual relationships, is struggling with this societal and religious issue. A substantial majority of Roman Catholic laity in America now support marriage equality â a momentous step beyond mere acceptance of homosexual people. Mormons and evangelicals are softening their language about gay people at a minimum; some are reassessing their traditional stances and moving toward greater acceptance.
> ...



If you read the Bible you will find a lot of places where the "majority" decided God had it all wrong. A good starting place is when the majority decided to make a goden calf. If you read on you also see bad things happened to those people and God used a small group of people who followed Him to change things.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

watcher said:


> You are saying you can't or WON'T try to live up to the standards God set for us? Can you point out anything I have said which was not supported by the Word?
> 
> 
> That's all that is expected at my church. Sure if you want to be told you can live with someone w/o being married and be a "good Christian" you wouldn't fit in. If you want to just sit in a pew and be preached to and not be expected to take Christ out of the building to the lost then you wouldn't fit. If you are not willing to put your faith into action then you wouldn't fit. But there are plenty of other churches and even more places which call themselves churches people cat go.


What your saying is you're not willing to give others the grace to be at a different place in their Christian walk or understanding. You expect everyone to be at the same place you are and, if they're not, they aren't worthy of your respect and acceptance. 

People are at different stages. It doesn't mean they don't want to be better Christians, it just means they just don't 'get it' yet, have the will power to be overcomers, or just haven't developed the type of relationship with Christ they need to -- yet. It doesn't mean they don't love the Lord, aren't trying, or aren't Christians. It just means they need time to grow. Fussing at them to change isn't going to make them grow; in fact, it stunts their growth.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

watcher said:


> If you read the Bible you will find a lot of places where the "majority" decided God had it all wrong. A good starting place is when the majority decided to make a goden calf. If you read on you also see bad things happened to those people and God used a small group of people who followed Him to change things.


It's not talking about a majority. The article is talking about what Christians once held as biblical truths, but we were in error. Through the years, we've corrected those errors. Things like slavery, civil rights, divorce, wearing manufactured fibers, etc. and dozens of other things. 

In other words, did God change His mind? No, but we finally discovered that some things applied to the times and customs of those days only; or that we misunderstood and mis-interpreted some scriptures.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I like these. 
http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2013/06/10-things-you-cant-do-while-following-jesus.html
http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2013/02/you-might-be-stuck-if.html


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I think that, if you read the bible carefully, you will see that God's love grows, matures and evolves, just the way our's should, if we are on the right road.


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

vicker said:


> I like these.
> http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2013/06/10-things-you-cant-do-while-following-jesus.html
> http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2013/02/you-might-be-stuck-if.html


That's nothing but a liberal cut up of the bible. I agree with some of it but some is taken out of context either to make a political piint or out if shear ignorance. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Do YOU think if God has called someone He will let them go because YOU don't do something? Sounds a bit arrogant when you look it that way doesn't?


So you're a Calvinist? You believe God has favorites and only the one he chooses gets to go to heaven.

<<Shakes head>>


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Watcher, is your church fundamentist and do you have an invitation for people to come forth, profess their sins, and be saved?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So you're a Calvinist? You believe God has favorites and only the one he chooses gets to go to heaven.
> 
> <<Shakes head>>


That lines up with Scripture, does it not?

Romans 9 18-21


> 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
> 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
> 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
> 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Pugnacious said:


> That's nothing but a liberal cut up of the bible. I agree with some of it but some is taken out of context either to make a political piint or out if shear ignorance.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


Such as???


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Pugnacious said:


> That's nothing but a liberal cut up of the bible. I agree with some of it but some is taken out of context either to make a political piint or out if shear ignorance.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


No, this is a political one 
http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post...things-you-cant-do-while-following-jesus.html


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

It is funny that after I posted last night, I saw this in a movie that came on. The movie is about a teen girl who attends a christian school, but becomes pregnant. I thought this clip was rather poignant. :star:
[YOUTUBE]umLUKBlpyoY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

Jesus never once mentions homosexuality. There is a part in the New Testament where Jesus or one of the disciples sits down and discusses salvation with a Eunich, though, and makes it absolutely clear that Eunichs are forgiven. In the OT, Eunichs were not allowed in the church at all, and their descendants for 7 generations following them were not allowed in the church. Clearly - Jesus brought forgiveness and love and acceptance to people who were considered an abomination in the old testament.

When the ELCA sat down and made this decision, they gathered together in Jesus' name. Jesus said "Where 2 or more people gather together in my name, there will I be also." They prayed and they talked and they prayed some more and they made their decision, and Christ's Holy Spirit was there, causing God's will to be done.

People who think church decisions should be based on old testament laws are really practing Judaism, more than Christianity. That's alright - you are still gathering in Christ's name and His will will be done through you and for you. You don't have to be perfect for the holy spirit to work in you and through you.

When I was a kid, some very nice people sent a church bus to pick me up every Sunday and Wednesday to bring me to a church that actually believed many of the things Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) believes and teaches. Good was still done through them. They brought me to God. They were a gateway to Christ.

If you don't like one church, find one that you do like and agree with. There are many roads to Christ.

I'm a woman, and I will not attend a church that would not allow a woman to be a pastor or a bishop. If I'm not good enough to be a bishop there, then I'm not good enough to grace their doorstep, in my opinion. That's not how everybody feels but it's how I feel. If I was gay, I would not attend a church that did not feel I could ever possibly be good enough to be a pastor or a bishop. Jesus loves everybody and he wants everybody to be able to come to him. There is a place for the ELCA in this world, even if it's not in the hearts of other Christians.

There is not one person on this planet who does not sin in some way. Don't judge someone just because they sin differently than you.

Willow Girl has said quite a few things that could be very offensive to Christians but she made a good point - eating lobster is listed as an abomination, too. Should all churches ban all lobster eaters from becoming bishops?

IMO, hypocrisy is the antichrist that keeps people from coming to church. It is hypocritical to call one sinner unworthy when you, yourself, are sinners. Of course, hypocrits are welcome in church too. A pastor once asked a woman to come to church and she answered "I'm not going to church, there are too many hypocrites there." He smiled sweetly and answered "We always have room for one more." That's the way it is.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

^^^awesome!^^^


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

fffarmergirl said:


> Willow Girl has said quite a few things that could be very offensive to Christians but she made a good point - eating lobster is listed as an abomination, too. Should all churches ban all lobster eaters from becoming bishops?


Not offensive, just not applicable. Old Testament law has 3 divisions, moral, civil, ceremonial. Moral law (Ten commandments) applies to everyone at all times. Civil and ceremonial are applicable to a particular people and their society. A ban on eating lobster is applicable to the Jewish people at that time. As outlined in the NT, dietary laws no longer apply to Christians.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> Now, isn't that odd? I can see excluding a divorced person, but why penalize someone who hasn't done anything wrong?
> 
> Christianity sure has a lot of funny rules!


Men become presbyters by their own free will. Not marrying is, therefore, not a punishment.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> That lines up with Scripture, does it not?
> 
> Romans 9 18-21


Not if you take scripture as a whole. The problem is that so many pick and choose what they believe, ignoring everything to the contrary.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Not offensive, just not applicable. Old Testament law has 3 divisions, moral, civil, ceremonial. Moral law (Ten commandments) applies to everyone at all times. Civil and ceremonial are applicable to a particular people and their society. A ban on eating lobster is applicable to the Jewish people at that time. As outlined in the NT, dietary laws no longer apply to Christians.


How do you square that with Matthew 5:17?


> 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. â¦


Jesus' followers decided that his death freed them from traditional Jewish laws and practices, but that does not seem to be what he had in mind at all! 



> Not if you take scripture as a whole. The problem is that so many pick and choose what they believe, ignoring everything to the contrary.


Yes, Paul does seem to contradict John (3:16) but I'm not sure we can condemn John Calvin (who advanced the idea of predestination) as a theological lightweight.


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> How do you square that with Matthew 5:17?
> 
> 
> Jesus' followers decided that his death freed them from traditional Jewish laws and practices, but that does not seem to be what he had in mind at all!
> ...


 

Where did you do your theological studies? Greek? Hebrew? What is the concordance you are using for all of this research you are doing? Now, I understand that these are probably mostly internet searches and I will acknowledge that it CAN be a useful tool. But I would recommend caution when trying to quote scripture(which you clearly don't believe yourself). Satan himself knows what the bible says, it doesn't mean he's going to heaven. It would be best to not just take a snippet of a verse, try to read and post the context too. A prayerful heart to be shown guidance helps, too.

It is very difficult to have a conversation about any subject (much less a philosophical one) with a large audience where everyone gets to interject. Not every question gets answered and you always have the attention seekers making the most noise and ,truthfully, imputing the least into the conversation. There is a reason why people generally give speeches, sermons, et cetera from a central location then occasionally take questions later.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> How do you square that with Matthew 5:17?
> 
> 
> Jesus' followers decided that his death freed them from traditional Jewish laws and practices, but that does not seem to be what he had in mind at all!
> ...


The person who is called least in the kingdom of heaven - is still IN the kingdom of heaven! Jesus fulfilled the law for all of his followers. We don't have to worry that breaking a law is going to doom us to ----ation. I'd rather be the least person in heaven than the greatest person on earth.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

Oh come on - ----ation is not a swear word! Dang it all and tarnation.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The scribes, Pharisees and such were so stuck in the details of their "religion" that when they met the son of God, they murdered him. There is indeed a reason .


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> How do you square that with Matthew 5:17?
> 
> 
> Jesus' followers decided that his death freed them from traditional Jewish laws and practices, but that does not seem to be what he had in mind at all!


Matthew chapter 5 (continuing in chapters 6 and 7) is the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is teaching on the moral law. You have to read 5:17 in context. Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the law and brings the moral law to even greater perfection.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Where did you do your theological studies? Greek? Hebrew? What is the concordance you are using for all of this research you are doing? Now, I understand that these are probably mostly internet searches and I will acknowledge that it CAN be a useful tool.


I was a Christian for awhile a long time ago (prior to the Internet!) and took it very seriously. During that time, I read the Bible in its entirety (KJV), and various commentaries (C.S. Lewis, for instance), etc. What I post here stems from my general recollection ... although yes, the Internet is very helpful in finding chapter and verse quickly, if you can remember a few keywords. 


> Matthew chapter 5 (continuing in chapters 6 and 7) is the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is teaching on the moral law. You have to read 5:17 in context. Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the law and brings the moral law to even greater perfection.


If you read it in context, it appears Jesus is exhorting believers to not only keep the religious laws, but to _go above and beyond them_ -- to act in accordance with the _spirit _of the law, and not just do the minimum necessary to get by. Nowhere does he suggest chucking the law out the window ... in fact, I'd be tempted to think he'd be horrified to find that instead of reforming Judaism, he created an entirely new and different religion that does not follow the traditions of Judaism at all!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> No, we are not told to 'judge' any one. God is the only judge.


Care to show me where we are told not to judge? And before you go with one of the most out of context quotes from the Bible you better read a bit past it. The pace where it says after we have removed the beam from our THEN remove the mote from our brother's. 

If you read the 1 Cor 5 reference I gave you, you will see we are told to judge.




Karen said:


> We are told to correct those in our own church congregation. Not feel it's our mission in life to point out everyone elses and every denominations errors. Again, we can't find enough to deal with in our churches we have to critique every other Christian too?


Ok I give up. How are we supposed to correct them if we are not allowed to judge them first? If we are forbidden to judge their actions then we can't tell if they are wrong.

And you REALLY think Christ would tell you not to correct someone just because they don't go to your church? There is only one Church (notice the capital C there) and anyone who calls themselves Christian is part of it. Like it or not we are told just how we are to handle people who claim Christ but live Satan.




Karen said:


> Ever wonder if self-righteous Christians who think they are the ones who have the inside track of having everything correct and pointing out everyone else's errors, are probably going to be very shocked on judgment day when they are ones that God judges them most harshly.


Let me ask you this. Would you rather have some "can't judge" Christian ignore something you are doing and discover when you face Christ you were wrong or have some "self-righteous" Christian point out something which is not wrong?




Karen said:


> Wasn't that Jesus' point with religious leaders during his time on earth?


No. His point was they were 1) more concerned about "The Law" than they were about God's heart and 2) they were judging using one set of rules for some and another for others. 




Karen said:


> You know, it could very well be the ones who you think were going to the wrong church and believing the wrong things - yet had an abundance of love, acceptance and forgiveness in their heart for all people (whether saints or sinners) and stuck by those sinners to not blab a mile a minute preaching all day long, but just 'showing' them Christ and His day-to-day love, that may just be the ones who hear, "Well done good and faithful servant".


You can't show Christ's love by allowing people to keep sinning. Do you show love to a drug addict by providing him with drugs? Did Christ show love by NOT telling the woman at the well she was living in sin? After all according to you He should have just "loved her" and let her discover her failings all on her on, right?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> What your saying is you're not willing to give others the grace to be at a different place in their Christian walk or understanding. You expect everyone to be at the same place you are and, if they're not, they aren't worthy of your respect and acceptance.


No what I'm saying is if you just want to play church our church isn't for you. There are plenty of church which would have no problem letting someone who was actively in an adulterous affair become a member as long as they were writing nice big checks to the church.




Karen said:


> People are at different stages. It doesn't mean they don't want to be better Christians, it just means they just don't 'get it' yet, have the will power to be overcomers, or just haven't developed the type of relationship with Christ they need to -- yet. It doesn't mean they don't love the Lord, aren't trying, or aren't Christians. It just means they need time to grow. Fussing at them to change isn't going to make them grow; in fact, it stunts their growth.


I'm not talking about people who are Christians who are trying to follow Christ and failing. I'm talking about people who want to claim to be Christian but don't want to put away their sin.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> It's not talking about a majority. The article is talking about what Christians once held as biblical truths, but we were in error. Through the years, we've corrected those errors. Things like slavery, civil rights, divorce, wearing manufactured fibers, etc. and dozens of other things.
> 
> In other words, did God change His mind? No, but we finally discovered that some things applied to the times and customs of those days only; or that we misunderstood and mis-interpreted some scriptures.


Ok I give up, are you saying God has no problem with divorce outside the reasons he sat down (sexual immorality, abandonment by an unbelieving spouse)? Is it ok for a Christian couple to divorce because of irreconcilable differences?

I ask read 1 Cor 7 (specially verse 10) and tell me how you interpret God's view on divorce. And if you need Christ's own words on it read Matthew 5:32 where He says:

_But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery._


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> So you're a Calvinist? You believe God has favorites and only the one he chooses gets to go to heaven.
> 
> <<Shakes head>>


I don't know how it works. I know the Bible says people don't come to Christ until they are called. _No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,_ John 6:44

That tells me if He doesn't call you, you don't go. Do you read it differently?

But just because you are called that doesn't mean you HAVE to answer.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> If you read it in context, it appears Jesus is exhorting believers to not only keep the religious laws, but to _go above and beyond them_ -- to act in accordance with the _spirit _of the law, and not just do the minimum necessary to get by. Nowhere does he suggest chucking the law out the window ... in fact, I'd be tempted to think he'd be horrified to find that instead of reforming Judaism, he created an entirely new and different religion that does not follow the traditions of Judaism at all!


Jesus is teaching to go above and beyond the "moral law." The moral law is to continue and be adhered to with greater perfection. Everything he teaches in these passages, i.e., anger, adultery, divorce, oaths, love of enemies, almsgiving, prayer, fasting, god and money, etc., concern the natural moral law. As far as a different religion that does not follow the traditions of Judaism at all, all I have to say is really? Try finding a copy of the book _The_ _Crucified Rabbi_ by Taylor Marshall.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Thanks, I'll look for that one, Vicki.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Watcher, I know we've been down this road before, but I'll say it again ... if you're hellbent on doing the "judging" part, IMO you'd better get the "loving" part down pat first, otherwise you probably run the risk of doing more harm than good.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Yes, Paul does seem to contradict John (3:16) but I'm not sure we can condemn John Calvin (who advanced the idea of predestination) as a theological lightweight.


Predestination turns us into mindless little robots or play actors with no control over our lives or our eventual destination.
Predestination states that someone like Mother Theresa could not make it to heaven unless she was chosen by God.

Scripture states that God is not a respecter of persons, for Calvinism to be true he would have to be.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Pugnacious said:


> Christ didn't change the law, he fulfilled it
> 
> On the gay pastor/bishop thing. I believe that a person who is a homosexual here, COULD go to heaven.


Of course they could. That is what repentance and forgiveness is all about.


About the lobster idea presented earlier...... OT/NT. Christ fulfilled the law. However Paul mentions homosexuality in the NT as a sin too. Rom 1.26-27. Also 1Cor 9 mentions all sorts of fornications. It is also listed as a sin in the NT. It was not ended at the cross, but lobster consumption sins were. In acts God lowers the blanket full of unclean meats, and explains that they were now clean as an analogy to gentiles being accepted for salvation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fffarmergirl said:


> Jesus never once mentions homosexuality.


That's debatable. What all is included in "sexual immorality"? 




fffarmergirl said:


> If you don't like one church, find one that you do like and agree with.


Yep, you can find a church which agrees with anything you want. If you are a racist there are churches out there which will tell you only your race will be in Heaven. If you are an anti-Semite there are churches out there which tell you God hates Jews. I'm sure if you want to practice adultery, polygamy and pedophilia you can find a church somewhere which tell you all that's fine in God's eyes.

But when you start telling people about it I'm going to stand up and say "Uh-no."




fffarmergirl said:


> There are many roads to Christ.


I agree somewhat. I'd put it more this way: There is only one road to Christ but there are many on ramps.




fffarmergirl said:


> I'm a woman, and I will not attend a church that would not allow a woman to be a pastor or a bishop. If I'm not good enough to be a bishop there, then I'm not good enough to grace their doorstep, in my opinion.


Care to give Bible verses which support that?




fffarmergirl said:


> That's not how everybody feels but it's how I feel. If I was gay, I would not attend a church that did not feel I could ever possibly be good enough to be a pastor or a bishop. Jesus loves everybody and he wants everybody to be able to come to him. There is a place for the ELCA in this world, even if it's not in the hearts of other Christians.


The point still stands you can not follow Christ with sin in your heart. 

Take to an extreme. We can all agree murder (as defined as the willful killing of an innocent human) is a sin. Say you have someone who is in your church and wants to be a bishop. He has murdered before and he willing admits he is planning on murdering even more. But he tells you that you can't judge him. After all after every murder he just ask Christ to forgive him so things are OK until he murders another. Should he be allowed to be a bishop? After all he says he's a Christian and he has asked for forgiveness for his past sins and who are YOU to judge him?




fffarmergirl said:


> There is not one person on this planet who does not sin in some way. Don't judge someone just because they sin differently than you.


Its not the fact they do sin, its the fact they are sinning and are NOT TRYING TO STOP. 




fffarmergirl said:


> IMO, hypocrisy is the antichrist that keeps people from coming to church.


IMO, its people's desire to remain wicked which keeps them out of church. To me its incredibly arrogant to think you have more power than God which is just what you are saying when you think your actions have the power to stop God from calling someone to Him.




fffarmergirl said:


> It is hypocritical to call one sinner unworthy when you, yourself, are sinners.


Is horrible to let someone go to Hell because you are unwilling to tell them they are not walking with Christ. Its also against Christ's teachings. You are, in effect, saying "Well Christ I know what you said about a sinning brother but in _this _case I know better than you so I'll just handle it the way *I* think."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Not if you take scripture as a whole. The problem is that so many pick and choose what they believe, ignoring everything to the contrary.


Care to give verses which show its wrong?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> The scribes, Pharisees and such were so stuck in the details of their "religion" that when they met the son of God, they murdered him. There is indeed a reason .


Got to get a bit technical here. No one murdered Christ, He willing sacrificed His life.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Watcher, I know we've been down this road before, but I'll say it again ... if you're hellbent on doing the "judging" part, IMO you'd better get the "loving" part down pat first, otherwise you probably run the risk of doing more harm than good.


Judging is loving.

Look at this way. You are out with some friends and one of them, who has had a few drinks, says he's going to dive off of something into a body of water you THINK is too shallow. Do you stand back and let him jump? After all you don't KNOW the water is too shallow and he may get mad at you if you try to stop him and it would be embarrassing to stand in front of everyone and talk to him and. . . 

Or do you "judge" his actions based on what you know, he's been drinking, and what you think, the water is too shallow, and the possible consequences, he hits bottom and dies, and try to prevent him from jumping?

Which of those actions is loving and which is just selfish?


----------



## Pugnacious (May 17, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Nowhere does he suggest chucking the law out the window ... in fact, I'd be tempted to think he'd be horrified to find that instead of reforming Judaism, he created an entirely new and different religion that does not follow the traditions of Judaism at all!


Mathew
12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw _it,_ they said to Him, âLook, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!â
3 But He said to them, âHave you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is _One_ greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what _this_ means, âI desire mercy and not sacrifice,â[a] you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even[b] of the Sabbath.â

mark
3 And He entered the synagogue again, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 So they watched Him closely, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. 3 And He said to the man who had the withered hand, âStep forward.â 4 Then He said to them, âIs it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?â But they kept silent. 5 And when He had looked around at them with anger, being grieved by the hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, âStretch out your hand.â And he stretched _it_ out, and his hand was restored as whole as the other.[a] 6 Then the Pharisees went out and immediately plotted with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.


Looks to me like he wasn't a fan of the Jewish law as it was being taught.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Good ole Jesus! He sure did try to get them unstuck from their details, didn't he.  I particularly love that passage in the wheat field. It is such a lovely scene.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Care to give verses which show its wrong?


You just proved my point about people picking and choosing what they want to believe rather than taking scripture as a whole.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Got to get a bit technical here. No one murdered Christ, He willing sacrificed His life.


Both statements are true. Christ was killed (murdered) by the Romans (on behalf of the Jews), but Christ allowed it to happen.

My gosh how some people want to split hairs.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> You just proved my point about people picking and choosing what they want to believe.


You were given verses supporting their side. I just want to see the verses you use to support yours.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Both statements are true. Christ was killed (murdered) by the Romans (on behalf of the Jews), but Christ allowed it to happen.
> 
> My gosh how some people want to split hairs.


I said I was going to get technical. But to split a few more. Did they actually kill Him or did He allow Himself die? The line usually associated with it is "He gave up the Ghost."

Its hair splitting like this which has no real value other than fun and wondering.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

watcher said:


> Got to get a bit technical here. No one murdered Christ, He willing sacrificed His life.


It is not a moot point at all and is a very big deal to get correct. 

Christ didn't stop it, but He certainly _*was*_ murdered. He had committed no crime, was perfect and yet was killed for it. He didn't go out and jump off a cliff; He didn't climb up on that cross himself, so how can you say His death was not murder? 

And "giving up His ghost" means he expired. He didn't do it Himself; it was the result of his injuries of which He suffered.



watcher said:


> Judging is loving.
> 
> Look at this way. You are out with some friends and one of them, who has had a few drinks, says he's going to dive off of something into a body of water you THINK is too shallow. Do you stand back and let him jump? After all you don't KNOW the water is too shallow and he may get mad at you if you try to stop him and it would be embarrassing to stand in front of everyone and talk to him and. . .
> 
> ...


There's a big difference in correcting someone, saying it once, sticking by them so they have a good example to follow, and letting God then do the change. No where are we told to condemn them and judging that they are going to hell or determine they are a Christian based on our interpretations of what a Christian is.



watcher said:


> Ok I give up, are you saying God has no problem with divorce outside the reasons he sat down (sexual immorality, abandonment by an unbelieving spouse)? Is it ok for a Christian couple to divorce because of irreconcilable differences?
> 
> I ask read 1 Cor 7 (specially verse 10) and tell me how you interpret God's view on divorce. And if you need Christ's own words on it read Matthew 5:32 where He says:
> 
> _But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery._


Why did you pick that one of all the examples I gave, yet didn't comment on any of the other ones? 

But in my list, that included divorce, I wasn't talking about grounds for divorce at all. I'm talking about how it biblically changed from being only a man who could divorce his wife, and in divorce the wife having absolutely no legal rights to property, rights to her children, etc.



watcher said:


> No what I'm saying is if you just want to play church our church isn't for you. There are plenty of church which would have no problem letting someone who was actively in an adulterous affair become a member as long as they were writing nice big checks to the church.


So in other words, you determine if a person is worthy of being a member of your church? You determine who is and who is not a Christian, based upon what exactly?

With regards to "playing church" (which is a judgmental self-righteous and unloving statement in itself, JIMHO), since your church has totally different ideas based from my church, I could claim that your church is just playing church. Don't you see that saying things like that just is not right, as well as pre-determineing who's right and who's wrong, when we each have a biblical basis for what we believe.

Don't you believe at all that we don't have to run our mouths at each other pointing out all our errors or trespasses? If we both have a relationship with Jesus Christ, can't we just pray for each other and ask that God weeds it out and exposes which of us is in errors? Or is God not powerful enough to do that; instead He needs us doing the judging and condeming for Him?



watcher said:


> I'm not talking about people who are Christians who are trying to follow Christ and failing. I'm talking about people who want to claim to be Christian but don't want to put away their sin.


There you go again, 'you' are determining who is and who isn't a Christian. You can't see their hearts, and most of the people you're condeming you don't even know to begin with. How sad is that?



watcher said:


> Care to show me where we are told not to judge? And before you go with one of the most out of context quotes from the Bible you better read a bit past it. The pace where it says after we have removed the beam from our THEN remove the mote from our brother's.
> 
> If you read the 1 Cor 5 reference I gave you, you will see we are told to judge.


So what you're saying is that you have the authority to judge others since you have reached a point of perfection in which you have absolutely no plank in your own eye?



watcher said:


> Ok I give up. How are we supposed to correct them if we are not allowed to judge them first? If we are forbidden to judge their actions then we can't tell if they are wrong.


It's called 'discernment' - based on a number of outward things, it may show someone needs correction. "Judgement" = determining someone's admission or denial into heaven.



watcher said:


> And you REALLY think Christ would tell you not to correct someone just because they don't go to your church? There is only one Church (notice the capital C there) and anyone who calls themselves Christian is part of it. Like it or not we are told just how we are to handle people who claim Christ but live Satan.


But you claim there is no 'capital C' church -- only the right church and rest of us just play church. You also stated that anyone living in sin is not a Christian. You can't have it both ways. 

We aren't to correct nor judge a non-Christian; only to give them the good news of Jesus Christ.



watcher said:


> Let me ask you this. Would you rather have some "can't judge" Christian ignore something you are doing and discover when you face Christ you were wrong or have some "self-righteous" Christian point out something which is not wrong?


If I'm a Christian, how can I not know (or at least strongly suspect) that I'm in sin? Isn't that the job of the Holy Spirit to convince of when we sin and don't all Christians have the Holy Spirit? And if so, why then would we need another Christian to do it; isn't the Holy Spirit going to do a whole lot better job of it to begin with? 

If you take a closer look at scripture on NT correction, without having pre-existing ideas in your head of how you might previously been taught, you will clearly see that only reason for correction in the church is *not* _for the benefit of the member_. It is to take action (as a last resort) for the _benefit of the church_ (that particular congregation) in order to keep on track with evangelism, peace, and unity. 



watcher said:


> You can't show Christ's love by allowing people to keep sinning. Do you show love to a drug addict by providing him with drugs? Did Christ show love by NOT telling the woman at the well she was living in sin? After all according to you He should have just "loved her" and let her discover her failings all on her on, right?


First of all, if I know a drug addict, I'm most certainly not going to give him drugs -- BUT I will tell him of Jesus, be an example, and love Him through his addiction until he does understand it. I don't have to condemn him, stay away from him, or demand he stop his sin when I say he should. 

What Christ did for the woman at the well He did because He was Christ and had every right and authority to do. I'm not Christ and I'm just way too far from perfection to demand it in someone else when I have not achieved the ability to sin no more myself.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Watcher, would you please share with us what denomination or fellowship you do attend. I think it might help to understand your basis for your beliefs a bit better.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Judging is loving.
> 
> Look at this way. You are out with some friends and one of them, who has had a few drinks, says he's going to dive off of something into a body of water you THINK is too shallow. Do you stand back and let him jump? After all you don't KNOW the water is too shallow and he may get mad at you if you try to stop him and it would be embarrassing to stand in front of everyone and talk to him and. . .
> 
> Or do you "judge" his actions based on what you know, he's been drinking, and what you think, the water is too shallow, and the possible consequences, he hits bottom and dies, and try to prevent him from jumping?


Well, if you approach him in an arrogant and high-handed manner, he may punch you in the nose first, and then jump! Then what will you have accomplished? :shrug:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Why did you pick that one of all the examples I gave, yet didn't comment on any of the other ones?


Because this was the second time it was mentioned and its the one that is still banded about in churches. 




Karen said:


> But in my list, that included divorce, I wasn't talking about grounds for divorce at all. I'm talking about how it biblically changed from being only a man who could divorce his wife, and in divorce the wife having absolutely no legal rights to property, rights to her children, etc.


I'm confused how has it "biblically changed"?




Karen said:


> So in other words, you determine if a person is worthy of being a member of your church?


And you don't? You'd just allow anyone who walked in off the street to become a member of your church?




Karen said:


> You determine who is and who is not a Christian, based upon what exactly?


What they say and the way they act compared to the standards set by God in the Bible. If their outside life doesn't show Christ you can be pretty dang sure their hearts are not either. I've given example after example after example. I'll give another one. Say you have someone come into your church and after being there for a few weeks and he tells you he's a Christian and wants to be come a member. He's well know around town. He's married but he sleeps around and usually has a couple of "girlfriends" going. He also is known to lie and cheat in his business dealings. When asked he freely admits all of this and tells you he likes living that way and has no plans at all of changing he just wants to be able to say he's a church member. Are you going to let him become a member of your church and tell the world this is an example of a good Christian and the type of people you think should be part of your church?




Karen said:


> With regards to "playing church" (which is a judgmental self-righteous and unloving statement in itself, JIMHO),


Its a descriptive term for people who want to be able to say they go to church but have no desire to follow Christ. People like the businessman example I used.




Karen said:


> since your church has totally different ideas based from my church, I could claim that your church is just playing church. Don't you see that saying things like that just is not right, as well as pre-determineing who's right and who's wrong, when we each have a biblical basis for what we believe.


I have said over and over again there are many things which I have no problem with people having a different view of things. AAMOF my church works with several different churches all with different view on things. But there are somethings which I do have problems with. When someone says something and I can give Bible verses in context which counter it and they IGNORE those verses, I have a problem. 




Karen said:


> Don't you believe at all that we don't have to run our mouths at each other pointing out all our errors or trespasses?


Don't you believe what the Bible says? If you don't think we should maybe you can explain to me just what Christ meant when he said: If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault. . . 

If you can't judge how can you even know what a sin is? Is sin just what _you_ think is a sin for you or is there some kind of standard we are supposed to use to judge our, and other's, actions against?




Karen said:


> If we both have a relationship with Jesus Christ, can't we just pray for each other and ask that God weeds it out and exposes which of us is in errors?


That's nice but that is NOT what Christ told us to do is it? He tells us if we know of a sinning brother we are to go to him and point it out to him. If that brother keeps sinning we are to that others with us, if that doesn't work we are to take it to the entire church. In finally we are to treat them as a lost person. 




Karen said:


> Or is God not powerful enough to do that; instead He needs us doing the judging and condeming for Him?


All I know is what God has told us in His word. And He has very, very, very clearly told us we are not to just sit back and chant "Judge not, judge not, judge not. . . " 




Karen said:


> There you go again, 'you' are determining who is and who isn't a Christian. You can't see their hearts, and most of the people you're condeming you don't even know to begin with. How sad is that?


I judge people based on their pattern of actions because their actions show what's in their hearts. Do you think a Christian would knowingly, willing, repeatedly sin with no attempt to stop sinning? 




Karen said:


> So what you're saying is that you have the authority to judge others since you have reached a point of perfection in which you have absolutely no plank in your own eye?


I'm I to take it you can NOT give any verses which tells us to ignore a sinning brother?





Karen said:


> It's called 'discernment' - based on a number of outward things, it may show someone needs correction. "Judgement" = determining someone's admission or denial into heaven.


So if you "discern" a brother is sinning you will go to him but if you "judge" him is you won't?




Karen said:


> But you claim there is no 'capital C' church -- only the right church and rest of us just play church. You also stated that anyone living in sin is not a Christian. You can't have it both ways.


You read it wrong. The Church (with the cap C) is the entire body of believing Christians. It doesn't matter if you go to the baptist church or the church of God or the 4th church of His Holiness you are still a member of the Church.

And what I have said someone blatantly and knowingly living in sin can not be a true follower of Christ.




Karen said:


> We aren't to correct nor judge a non-Christian; only to give them the good news of Jesus Christ.


How can you tell if they are a non-Christian if you aren't allowed to judge them? 




Karen said:


> If I'm a Christian, how can I not know (or at least strongly suspect) that I'm in sin? Isn't that the job of the Holy Spirit to convince of when we sin and don't all Christians have the Holy Spirit?


Ah, you might have just caught a spark there. Now fan it into a flame. If that is true then would not a Christian try to stop sinning? And if a person doesn't try to stop that probably means. . . 




Karen said:


> And if so, why then would we need another Christian to do it; isn't the Holy Spirit going to do a whole lot better job of it to begin with?


I don't know, Christ didn't tell us. But He did tell us if we see a brother sinning 
we are to go to him and point it out to him. Do you say otherwise?




Karen said:


> If you take a closer look at scripture on NT correction, without having pre-existing ideas in your head of how you might previously been taught, you will clearly see that only reason for correction in the church is *not* _for the benefit of the member_. It is to take action (as a last resort) for the _benefit of the church_ (that particular congregation) in order to keep on track with evangelism, peace, and unity.


But how can you do that if you follow your own advice and not judge your brother? Or are you admitting we are told to judge?




Karen said:


> First of all, if I know a drug addict, I'm most certainly not going to give him drugs -- BUT I will tell him of Jesus, be an example, and love Him through his addiction until he does understand it. I don't have to condemn him, stay away from him, or demand he stop his sin when I say he should.


But isn't it cruel to let the addict suffer the pains of withdrawal? Have you ever seen someone going through withdrawal? I have and its horrible just to watch, I can't imagine what its like to be going through it. Isn't more loving to give him drugs until he decides on his own to stop using? After all who are you to judge if what he is doing is wrong for him? It sounds crazy when replace someone's sin with a 'real world' problem doesn't it?




Karen said:


> What Christ did for the woman at the well He did because He was Christ and had every right and authority to do. I'm not Christ and I'm just way too far from perfection to demand it in someone else when I have not achieved the ability to sin no more myself.


That's not the point. The point isn't did He have the right to do it the point is was it loving to do it. Some times if you truly love someone you have to do things which cause them pain. If your kid gets a splinter would it be loving to avoid the pain of using a needle to take it out?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Well, if you approach him in an arrogant and high-handed manner, he may punch you in the nose first, and then jump! Then what will you have accomplished? :shrug:


Way to not answer the question. 

Come on, stand up and tell the truth, you'd just stand there and watch him jump. After all you believe you can't judge other people or try to "push your views on them" and if in his heart jumping is the right thing to do who are you to tell him he's wrong. Right? _We have got to get a sarcasm smiley._


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Are you a member of a church Watcher?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Come on, stand up and tell the truth, you'd just stand there and watch him jump. After all you believe you can't judge other people


Who said I believe that? I'm not a Christian ... I can judge whomever I please. 


> Don't you believe what the Bible says? If you don't think we should maybe you can explain to me just what Christ meant when he said: If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault. . .


I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your board of elders confronts Mrs. Bertha Betterthanyou with the notion that her corpulence is clear evidence of the sin of gluttony, and she'd better start sweatin' to the oldies if she wants to be a member of your church! ound: ound: ound:

Watcher, I think it's the obvious glee you take in judging people (and finding them wanting) that has some of your fellow Christians aghast. 

It doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Watcher, why are you not answering the question about what church you belong to?

Also, you never answered this question other than to say I gave no scriptural reference for judging others. This is a scripture (Luke 6:32, Matt. 7:1-5). 


karen said:


> So what you're saying is that you have the authority to judge others since you have reached a point of perfection in which you have absolutely no plank in your own eye?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

This thread (in parts) really reminded me of these verses about judgmental people:

Luke 18: 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10&#8220;Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: &#8216;God, I thank you that I am not like other people&#8212;robbers, evildoers, adulterers&#8212;or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.&#8217;

13 &#8220;But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, &#8216;God, have mercy on me, a sinner.&#8217;

14 &#8220;I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wwubben said:


> Are you a member of a church Watcher?


Yes and because giving the name would be the same as saying where I live (I don't put ANY personal info on the internet) I won't say which.

I will say its not a 'denomination' church and we don't handle snakes :gaptooth:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your board of elders confronts Mrs. Bertha Betterthanyou with the notion that her corpulence is clear evidence of the sin of gluttony, and she'd better start sweatin' to the oldies if she wants to be a member of your church! ound: ound: ound:


We don't have an elder's or even deacon's board. Neither of those are Biblical.




willow_girl said:


> Watcher, I think it's the obvious glee you take in judging people (and finding them wanting) that has some of your fellow Christians aghast.


I find it very, very, very sad to see people who claim to be Christians who are not following the teachings of Christ. To me that's a sadder thing than seeing a lost person refusing to accept Christ. The lost person knows he's lost, admits it and has a better chance of changing than the other. They think they are OK and will not change.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Watcher, why are you not answering the question about what church you belong to?


I didn't because I don't post things online which I consider personal info and where I live is personal info. If I told the name of the church I go to it would be the same as posting my home town. 




Karen said:


> Also, you never answered this question other than to say I gave no scriptural reference for judging others.


That could because I specifically asked you for those references.

You don't have to be perfect before you judge others. If that were true we'd never to follow what Christ tells us to do. 


This is a scripture (Luke 6:32, Matt. 7:1-5).[/quote]

Luke 6:32. . .If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 

What does that have to do with judging others? As I have asked which is more loving: ignore someone in need or to help them?


Here's the end of Matt 7:5 . . .then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherâs eye. 

From my reading of that it says we ARE to remove the speck from our brother's eye, not just stand around going "I know that hurts and I'm PRAYING for you!"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> This thread (in parts) really reminded me of these verses about judgmental people:
> 
> Luke 18: 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10âTwo men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: âGod, I thank you that I am not like other peopleârobbers, evildoers, adulterersâor even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.â
> 
> ...


And in Matthew 18 Christ tells us:

15 âIf your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 

16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that âevery matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.â 

17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


Now I again challenge anyone to show me how these verses tell us we are not to judge the actions of our fellow Christians.

"If your brother or sister sins" How can you tell if they are sinning is you are not judging their actions with the standards God gives us?

"go and point out their fault" How can you tell if they have a fault if you don't judge them against the standards of God?


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I guess if the church voted to allow it it's ok for them.

I can also understand how people who are religious think being gay is a wrong too.

I don't, but since most religions seem to have passages of their teachings that condemn homosexuality I can understand how that people who are against them being priests and things justify it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Quite frankly I'll continue to follow St Francis advice:

"Preach the Gospel constantly - if necessary use words."

As for other people sins I'll follow Matthew 7:3 (NLT) "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? 

Everyone sins, even members of Watchers Church, I bet even Watcher himself does occasionally. I certainly do.
We're all at different spiritual levels; I will try help lift someone lower than myself, and I certainly am glad there are people who will help lift me as needed without casting me aside for hitting their hot button sin, or casting their judgement on me because my sin may be more visible than theirs.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Watcher, I didn't mean for you give the name of your congregation; of course that would be too personal. Only what denomination you belong to. 

I'm wondering with your username and biblical views, Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, then I can understand where you're coming from and why. I don't mean that disrespectful or negative at all; just that I have a better understanding of your views and can respect that we have a completely different understanding of the Word of God for a number of reasons. 

Either way, I can appreciate we're both trying the best we can to please God and want to be the best Christians we can be. The goal is all the same for all of us.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Quite frankly I'll continue to follow St Francis advice:
> 
> "Preach the Gospel constantly - if necessary use words."
> 
> As for other people sins I'll follow Matthew 7:3 (NLT) "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?


Two problems. What do you do about Matthew 7:5 (NLT) "Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friendâs eye"

Think about it in a real world way. You and a buddy are outside and sudden gust of wind blows grit into your faces. You grab a bottle of water and rinse your eyes clean. Do you then stand there and watch your friend and do nothing to help him?

Put it back into the religious arena. If you have experienced a sin in your life and have dealt with it are you not much better to help someone who is now dealing with the same sin than someone who has never had that problem? 

One other example. If you are having problems in your marriage who do you think would give you better advice; a newlywed couple or a couple who has been married for 30 years? 

Second, how do you deal with what Christ says in Matthew 18?




mnn2501 said:


> Everyone sins, even members of Watchers Church, I bet even Watcher himself does occasionally. I certainly do.
> We're all at different spiritual levels; I will try help lift someone lower than myself, and I certainly am glad there are people who will help lift me as needed without casting me aside for hitting their hot button sin, or casting their judgement on me because my sin may be more visible than theirs.


Yep, I sin. I work every day to follow Christ but every day I fail in someway or another. And even have been on the receiving end of Matthew 18. And I'm so glad someone LOVED me enough to come to me and point it out and help me rather than 'not judged' me.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

Watcher sounds very much like some of the people from that "Baptist" church I went to as a child - the one that had a pastor who believed Fred Phelps from Westboro Baptist Church really had it going on.

My guess - he belongs to another one of those little churches who follows a single leader who left his original denomination because their beliefs didn't agree with his, and started a church of his own. 

IDK . . . . maybe . . . . Branch Davidian?

Watcher - you have a great big beam in your eye.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Now, now, let's not get judgmental.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Watcher, I didn't mean for you give the name of your congregation; of course that would be too personal. Only what denomination you belong to.


Ok, no prob and thanks for understanding. The wife thinks a paranoid but I'm sure she's just out to get me.




Karen said:


> I'm wondering with your username and biblical views, Jehovah's Witnesses? If


ROTFL, I never thought about my tag making someone think that. That's the best giggle I've had all week. There are literally tears in my eyes right now.

I'm been called and accused of being a lot of things but being a JW has never been one until now. To answer your question no, I'm am not a JW.

As I have said I gave up on denominations YEARS ago. It took a while because for many years I thought nondenominational churches were just where 'those strange people' went. But I came to realize more and more that denominations were not how Christ set up the Church. In my view they set man's rules over the church and you wind up with too much politics in church and not enough Bible.




Karen said:


> so, then I can understand where you're coming from and why. I don't mean that disrespectful or negative at all; just that I have a better understanding of your views and can respect that we have a completely different understanding of the Word of God for a number of reasons.


As I posted a while ago as long as you believe Christ is the Son of God, born of a virgin, He died on the cross for your sins and was resurrected the odds are everything we disagree about doesn't really matter. As an old country preacher put it; if I discover I got something small wrong when I'm called to Heaven I'm not going to grab and tree and say I'm not going.




Karen said:


> Either way, I can appreciate we're both trying the best we can to please God and want to be the best Christians we can be. The goal is all the same for all of us.


One of the verses we follow is Matthew 5:16; In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.

We are called to be the best Christians we can be, to help others do the same, spread the Gospel, and live lives which will let the world know we are, like in 1 Peter 2:9 says, a peculiar people and make the world want what we have.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I find it very, very, very sad to see people who claim to be Christians who are not following the teachings of Christ. To me that's a sadder thing than seeing a lost person refusing to accept Christ. The lost person knows he's lost, admits it and has a better chance of changing than the other. They think they are OK and will not change.


I dunno about that. By your standards, I guess I'd be one of those "lost" people, but ya know what? After 46 years, I've decided the only morality I really need is the Golden Rule, and I try to follow it as best I can. If there is a deity and an afterlife, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. In the meantime, I spend every day trying to do my best at every task I turn my hands to. I live simply and peacefully and joyfully, and that's good enough for me.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

watcher said:


> I find it very, very, very sad to see people who claim to be Christians who are not following the teachings of Christ. To me that's a sadder thing than seeing a lost person refusing to accept Christ. The lost person knows he's lost, admits it and has a better chance of changing than the other. They think they are OK and will not change.


But you see, there's the problem. You can accuse someone else of this, but that person may think _you_ are the one that is lost in error with your beliefs. This is why we have to give each other the grace to just believe differently. If both are Christians (having faith, belief in Christ Jesus and try to walk in that faith), it doesn't mean either one is "lost". All Christians have the same eternity and same end results. Our successes over sin isn't what gets us into heaven -- because it's impossible for us to ever overcome sin completely or fully (within ourselves); we're going to sin and live with and in sin our entire mortal lives. It is _our faith and belief in Jesus Christ_ that gives us eternity with God.

It doesn't mean we can sin all we want and still get to heaven like you argue people seem to think. In fact, in my almost 70 years, I have never known any Christian who actually believed that. It's simply an argument those who believe in being judgmental use. That scenario doesn't exist in real life unless it's an insane person or someone who believes Jesus is a purple toadstool or some ridiculous thing.

People are, very simply, at different stages of their walk. We need to respect that and give them the grace and pray for them to discover their errors. To allow the Holy Spirit to do the work they need done in their lives to bring them to the fullness of God. It's impossible for man to do that for another; it has to come from the Holy Spirit because then it makes sense, an impact, lasts, and that mistake is rarely ever repeated. To come from man, it's simply just critical and unloving. 

IMHO, you don't give God, Christ or The Holy Spirit enough credit. Surely They have the ability change a person much more than any of us ever could. Do you not believe if we earnestly pray for another brother or sister that God would not intervene and turn them around from sin? Why would you put your faith in your own ability as opposed to Gods? 

I don't mean that disrespectful to you; just that it doesn't make any sense to me to feel it's your duty to point fingers when that's what God sent the Holy Spirit to do for Christians in the first place. It seems our time and efforts could be better served by showing the unbelievers Christ by showing them we can love each other rather than constantly disagreeing even among ourselves. IMHO, we fail terribly at giving them an example they would want to follow and then we wonder why they refuse to acknowledge Christ. 

Seriously, if I didn't already know Christ and the only way I could see Him was through Christian's examples, I'd be doomed for eternity. It has to be so discouraging for non-believers to see such division, lack of respect, lack of understanding, love and grace coming from Christians -- only criticism for each other. Very frankly, as a Christian I'm so terribly discouraged, disappointed and hurt from it that I can't begin to imagine how a non-believer feels. 

It just seems like if we're going error, better to error on the side of having too much love than not enough criticism.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Karen, that is pretty much my feeling. I don't know Watcher, and maybe he is in a position to do as he says. I do understand your argument Watcher, and it is a good one, though perhaps, best applied to ones you are intimate with (like members of your own church). Myself, I am more in the place of the tax collector described in mnn2501's reference (Luke 18:13) and that is truly my most repeated prayer, the one I say in my head all the day long. Not that I feel I am some horrible person, or that I am racked with guilt, but that I am far from being the man I would like to be, or could be, and very very far from being Jesus. I just don't have the confidence that my eyes are cleared. Sure, I would try to stop someone from jumping into what I might think is too shallow water, or stop them from committing murder, but I'm too involved in watching my own steps to tell someone the path they should take to find God. Anyway, it seems to me, God finds you


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

A couple of years ago, I was in Asheville, NC during Bele Chere Days. Asheville has a large gay community. As I was walking I came across a man holding the Holy Bible, and standing on the walls of a fountain. He was yelling and screaming that all of the gay people were going to burn in Hell. A very loud, determined and angry looking man. Many gays, and others, had fashioned placards with with slogans and offensive language on them, and were mobbed around him. Frankly, I found the entire scene offensive, but mostly I was offended by the man on the fountain. While he may have been speaking the word of god, he was not speaking the Word of God. He was speaking hate and intolerance. Jesus would have been having lunch, and perhaps a beer with these kids. While it would certainly be inaccurate to say that the Bible is not a weapon, it is not a club, but a very sharp utensil, suitable for fine cutting.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I dunno about that. By your standards, I guess I'd be one of those "lost" people, but ya know what? After 46 years, I've decided the only morality I really need is the Golden Rule, and I try to follow it as best I can. If there is a deity and an afterlife, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. In the meantime, I spend every day trying to do my best at every task I turn my hands to. I live simply and peacefully and joyfully, and that's good enough for me.


Yep you are. You have made yourself god and judge you by the standards you set. You have been told and have made your choice.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> But you see, there's the problem. You can accuse someone else of this, but that person may think _you_ are the one that is lost in error with your beliefs. This is why we have to give each other the grace to just believe differently. If both are Christians (having faith, belief in Christ Jesus and try to walk in that faith), it doesn't mean either one is "lost". All Christians have the same eternity and same end results. Our successes over sin isn't what gets us into heaven -- because it's impossible for us to ever overcome sin completely or fully (within ourselves); we're going to sin and live with and in sin our entire mortal lives. It is _our faith and belief in Jesus Christ_ that gives us eternity with God.


The problem is to do differently is to not follow what Christ has told us to do.




Karen said:


> It doesn't mean we can sin all we want and still get to heaven like you argue people seem to think. In fact, in my almost 70 years, I have never known any Christian who actually believed that. It's simply an argument those who believe in being judgmental use. That scenario doesn't exist in real life unless it's an insane person or someone who believes Jesus is a purple toadstool or some ridiculous thing.


You are telling me you have NEVER met someone who claimed to be a Christian who told you or showed they lived a life you knew was not in accordance to God's law? You have NEVER met someone who claimed to be a Christian who was living with someone they weren't married to? Who claimed they were 'married int the eyes of God'? If so you have lived around a lot better people than I have.




Karen said:


> People are, very simply, at different stages of their walk. We need to respect that and give them the grace and pray for them to discover their errors. To allow the Holy Spirit to do the work they need done in their lives to bring them to the fullness of God. It's impossible for man to do that for another; it has to come from the Holy Spirit because then it makes sense, an impact, lasts, and that mistake is rarely ever repeated. To come from man, it's simply just critical and unloving.


So you are saying we should ignore the very words of Christ about a sinning brother?




Karen said:


> IMHO, you don't give God, Christ or The Holy Spirit enough credit. Surely They have the ability change a person much more than any of us ever could. Do you not believe if we earnestly pray for another brother or sister that God would not intervene and turn them around from sin? Why would you put your faith in your own ability as opposed to Gods?


There are many time in the Bible where God could have done something but He used a person to do it. You think God really needed Joshua and a bunch of horns to defeat Jericho? That He needed David to take down Goliath? 

Christ doesn't tell us we are to pray and wait to see if a brother turns himself around. He tells us *WE* are to take action. He says to GO and to POINT OUT the fault. Again I ask you if you think we should just pray and ignore what Christ told us to do?




Karen said:


> I don't mean that disrespectful to you; just that it doesn't make any sense to me to feel it's your duty to point fingers when that's what God sent the Holy Spirit to do for Christians in the first place. It seems our time and efforts could be better served by showing the unbelievers Christ by showing them we can love each other rather than constantly disagreeing even among ourselves. IMHO, we fail terribly at giving them an example they would want to follow and then we wonder why they refuse to acknowledge Christ.


I'm not talking about the lost. With them we are told to tell them the truth and let them decide. I'm talking about those who claim the name of Christ but aren't living the life to show Him.




Karen said:


> It just seems like if we're going error, better to error on the side of having too much love than not enough criticism.


As an old country preacher put it; there's a lot of people out being loved right into Hell.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> As an old country preacher put it; there's a lot of people out being loved right into Hell.


Sounds like a nosey busybody to me


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Does anyone actually read what is being written?

I'm not talking about the lost. 

I'm talking about judging the actions of those who call themselves Christians. The Bible tells us we *ARE TO DO THAT*. Christ Himself tells us that in Matthew 7 and 18. Paul tells us again in 1 Corinthians 5.

Read those and tell me how you can say we are NOT to judge.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Your Church is not the be all and end all of interpretation of scriptures, and as I said before, you don't get to pick and choose which scriptures you want to follow while disregarding others.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Your Church is not the be all and end all of interpretation of scriptures, and as I said before, you don't get to pick and choose which scriptures you want to follow while disregarding others.


And you do? IIRC, You seem to want to disregard the scriptures I have quoted about judging your fellow Christians and taking action when you judge them as missing the mark. 

Am I wrong in implying from your words that:

You want to let your brother walk around with something in his eye (do you know how much that hurts?) even though Christ says after you have cleaned your own eyes out you should help him. All because you wouldn't want some person to accuse YOU of judging another.

You don't want to *go* and *point out* to your brother that he is sinning. And if he doesn't turn back you wouldn't want to *take one or two others along* to talk to them and if they still don't listen you just couldn't go *tell it to the church* and if even that doesn't work you can't *treat them as you would a pagan*. After all if you were to do that you might be accused of, _GASP, _judging them. You would rather sit back and pray that he works it out. 

I have asked repeatedly for someone to point out other verses, in context not a single verse here or there, which tell us we are not to judge people who claim the name of Christ. I don't recall anyone posting one. Did I miss it?

WARNING RANT TO FOLLOW: The following will tick a lot of people off so stop reading here if you don't want to hear strong words or are easily upset.

*You've been warned.
.
.
.
*
*<RANT MODE: ON>

*I find it hypocritical that people accuse me of picking and choosing from the Bible and not following Christ when I have given Christ own words to support my view and they give none. I find it hypocritical people are telling me I'm wrong while they ignore the words of Christ on the subject. I find it hypocritical people tell me I'm not following Christ's teachings because I tell them He taught something they don't want to hear. I find it hypocritical people tell me I'm not loving the way Christ expects me to when they are willing to 1) ignore Christ very words on the subject and 2) allow a fellow brother to suffer when they have been told by Christ to take action to stop it.

If you don't like it I suggest you take your Bible, a black marker and go to Matthew 7 and blank out verse 5. Then you won't have to worry about what Christ said you are to do for your brother *after *you have cleared your own eyes. You'll just have that good "Judge not" verse without the follow up. Then flip over to Matthew 18 and blank out verses 15, 16 & 17. Then you won't have to worry about what you are supposed to do when you see a fellow Christian sinning. If there's nothing to do there's no reason for you to judge them. Then flip over to 1 Corinthians 5 and blank out verses 12 & 13. Then you don't have to worry at all about being told to judge those in the church. While you are there you might just want to take out verses 9, 10 & 11 of chapter 5. After all you don't want to have to judge if a fellow Christian is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

There are a few more but these will get you started on having a nice save "Judge not" Bible which will allow you to go through live much, much easier.

<*RANT MODE: OFF>*


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

watcher said:


> Yep you are. You have made yourself god and judge you by the standards you set. You have been told and have made your choice.


Kewl! Does this mean you're going to stop trying to pass laws to make me at least behave as if I believed the same things you did?

If so, we have no argument.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand why any gay or bi person wants any part of a religion that considers them an abomination. :shrug:


Theres a difference between condemnation of behavior and condemnation of a person. THe behavior is what is being condemned, and that can be changed. Would you allow a pedophile in your church around your kids? I think not.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> They still allow adulterers, thieves and hypocrites, to attend these churches, right?
> 
> thoguht so.


There is a difference between allowing homosexuals, thieves, murderers, pedophiles to attend church vs putting one of these in a position of authority in the church. BIG BIG difference.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

But is molesting children the moral equivalent of a relationship between consenting gay adults?

We are right to condemn pedophilia, IMO, as it almost always has long-lasting negative consequences for its victims. 

But there's no automatic harm stemming from gay relationships, just as there is no automatic harm associated with heterosexual relationships. Why, then, the need to condemn or change it?

You're comparing apples to oranges, IMO.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> He may love this god, but said god sure don't love him -- it considers him an abomination! Why buy into something like that?


I agree why would he want to be a bishop or leader knowing he is commiting one of the few sins God considers a abomination. Remember it is the behavior not the person he hates. 



> Same for women -- why follow a faith that requires you to be subservient?


Sooo your telling us that it is so much better now that women telling men to stuff it is so much better for society. Lets see, major high divorce rates, kids today are spawns of satan with absolutely no respect for others, yeah how is that working out..

BTW it never said women are subservient. It says to submit ones self. It also directs men to submit too, Folks just love to leave that part of it out.




> There easily are 10,000 philosophies in the world (if not more) -- why choose to follow one that considers you a second-class citizen and always will?


Really? Christianity considers us as KINGS and Queens, and priests. Thats not second class.


I don't see any other religion out there that puts their followers on the same level as that. In fact most religions i see show their followers grovelling at some statue. Not the position of kings and queens you know.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> God did, when he gave me a brain.
> 
> The Crusades - which included an awful lot of killing, which is supposedly a no-no, seemed okey-dokey, until it became politically incorrect. But that's just history, right?
> 
> ...


Must point out, all but tammy faye and hubby are actions committed by catholics. If your honest you will find that the crusades also targeted Christians that refused to abide by catholic doctrines. 

Tammy faye, and jimbo, if you couldn't tell they were false teachers then you probably had your head stuck in the sand.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> But is molesting children the moral equivalent of a relationship between consenting gay adults?


Absolutely. You just brought up morality. It is immoral for either. Just like it is immoral for one to sleep with another without benefit of marriage, and it is immoral to target a weaker person and to hurt them. There is a lot of immorality in this world and people today are going more more more immorality. They don't want to be denied all manner of pleasure no matter how sick it is.



> We are right to condemn pedophilia, IMO, as it almost always has long-lasting negative consequences for its victims.


And homosexuality doesn't? It perpetuates itself only by indoctrination of the young as you cannot propagate it by natural means. I would say it has just as many negative consequences too. 



> But there's no automatic harm stemming from gay relationships, just as there is no automatic harm associated with heterosexual relationships. Why, then, the need to condemn or change it?


thats not true, and you know it. There is a harm to society.
Some of the harms in it.
1. Homosexual men are six times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men.3 
2. Studies indicate that between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics.4 
3. Statistics give evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. The Kinsey study cited above revealed that 43% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated that they had had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. 5 Either the American Psychiatric Association is ignorant of what homosexuality entails for vast numbers of men, or their view of healthy sexuality indicates a serious disorder among members of the A P.A. 
4. The same Kinsey study revealed that homosexual men have to a great extent separated sexuality from relationship. The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once.6 Surely this is an indication of either deep dissatisfaction, or else terribly destructive hedonism. 

Thats pretty ----ing lifestyle. But theychoose to live it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

barelahh said:


> There is a harm to society.
> Some of the harms in it.
> 1. Homosexual men are six times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men.3
> 2. Studies indicate that between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics.4


The reason for depression (leading to suicide and drinking) is no doubt due to all the "good Christians" putting them down.




barelahh said:


> Thats pretty ----ing lifestyle. But they choose to live it.


As a gay co-worker asked me about 15 years ago -- "Do you really think I would choose to live a lifestyle that causes me to be hated by most people including my own family?"

:umno:


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> The reason for depression (leading to suicide and drinking) is no doubt due to all the "good Christians" putting them down.


Really now? Couldn't it be that they know in their hearts that it is not what they were created for and that they condemn themselves. That makes much more sense than a blanket its the fault of christians. Kinda like dems saying its bush's fault 5 years after he left office you know.....





> As a gay co-worker asked me about 15 years ago -- "Do you really think I would choose to live a lifestyle that causes me to be hated by most people including my own family?"
> 
> :umno:


Obviously they choose to live that. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. But just like a lot of religious people, they choose to live a life of perpetual persecution.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Kewl! Does this mean you're going to stop trying to pass laws to make me at least behave as if I believed the same things you did?
> 
> If so, we have no argument.


I haven't tried to pass any laws.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> But is molesting children the moral equivalent of a relationship between consenting gay adults?



We'll need to start another thread on this if we want to discuss it but I have found a strong link between the two. Of the people I know who admit they are gay (and one who takes the bi-sexual label) they all were abused as children. This is NOT a scientific study and I'm not claiming a clear causal link but I wonder if there has been a good hard scientific study on the linkage of the two.

It would be a difficult study to do well because there are people I know were abused as children who refuse to admit it. And no they aren't gay.

Its also an interesting question if sexual desire is mental or physical. Is someone born being sexually aroused by foot odor or does it come about due to life factors?

We know people are fully capable of 'switching' to get sexual gratification from same sex encounters when they wish/need to, e.g. in prisons. This makes me think sexual preference is at least in some way mental.

But could you image the PC uproar if someone actually proposed doing such a study? They would be crucified as homophobic and probably racist because all they are really trying to do is make homosexuals second class citizens.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> As a gay co-worker asked me about 15 years ago -- "Do you really think I would choose to live a lifestyle that causes me to be hated by most people including my own family?"


You should have said "Yes." 

Anyone with any knowledge of psychology knows people often choose destructive life styles. Classic example is the abused woman. She chooses an abusive person (people don't just suddenly become abusive w/o warning signs) to be with then she chooses to say with that person.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I am sure getting sick of this In Your Face stuff that these folks are now making of themselves. I am GAY I am GAY, is ALL you hear now. No they are not they are HUMAN and a PERSON, shut up about the fact they are GAY.
Last AGT show the singing just HAD to TELL America he was GAY before he even started his audition.~!
Last night on 72 hours, one of the contestants the VARY first thing he said when being interviewed I AM GAY, I have something to prove that I am not weak. BS on that whole affair of MUST TELL the Nation I AM GAY.
THIS is IN YOUR face that HAS to stop.~! THIS is just what is wrong with this whole so called GAY Movement.
They are a Person and they are Human and NOT GAY.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

You bring up a good point. In prisons you got those who are homosexual and those who have sex with homosexuals, their reasoning is the lack of women in the prison. So are the ones who use the homosexuals homosexual themselves since they have sex with them? 

you are not guaranteed the right to have sex obviously as it is illegal to have it in prison. 

So sex is not a human nor constitutional right. And the only difference between homosexual lifestyle and hetero is which gender your boinking. 

It is also established fact that sin begets sin, and satisfies nothing. For example, porn. Once you start, you dont' get satisfied with just the soft images, then you progress to the hard stuff, then when that doesn't do it for you you go on to the s&M stuff, or some go into bisexual stuff, or homosexual stuff, then you get those who progress from there into animals, and then from there they go on to pedophilia. Its a progression that never satisfies


Its all a choice.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Some of the posts on the last couple pages are exactly why many people think most Christians are nuts.

or as the prayer goes "Dear Lord save me from your followers"


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Some of the posts on the last couple pages are exactly why many people think most Christians are nuts.
> 
> or as the prayer goes "Dear Lord save me from your followers"



So expecting people to have good morals and self control is nuts?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barelahh said:


> So expecting people to have good morals and self control is nuts?


Good Morals? First you have to believe that homosexuality is immoral.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well it sure is no guessing about that that one.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Well it sure is no guessing about that that one.


No guessing in my opinion either. It is not immoral.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

barelahh said:


> It perpetuates itself only by indoctrination of the young as you cannot propagate it by natural means.


Sure you can. Who do you think keeps giving birth to all these gay people? Mostly heterosexuals!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Some of the posts on the last couple pages are exactly why many people think most Christians are nuts.
> 
> or as the prayer goes "Dear Lord save me from your followers"


Compared to those lost in the world we _*are *_crazy. Think about it. To save your live you must give it up. How crazy it that? 

How crazy is it to talk about being born again? Remember what the Nicodemus asked Christ? " How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" 

And talking about drinking someone's blood and eating his flesh giving you eternal life? Isn't that what Vampires do and illegal in most places?

As I posted before in the KJV (1 Peter 2:9) we are called "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a *peculiar **people*". 

If you are liked by those in the world you might want to check your standing with Christ. After He told us the world will hate us because we love Him.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No guessing in my opinion either. It is not immoral.


Ok what sex act is?


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No guessing in my opinion either. It is not immoral.


Sex outside of marriage is immoral and marriage is the union of a man and a woman. SO therefore homosexuality is absolutely immoral


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

watcher said:


> Compared to those lost in the world we _*are *_crazy. Think about it. To save your live you must give it up. How crazy it that?
> 
> How crazy is it to talk about being born again? Remember what the Nicodemus asked Christ? " How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
> 
> ...


I've said it for years, when i get called names and face the oppsition to my beliefs, then i must be doing something right.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Really? Christianity considers us as KINGS and Queens, and priests. Thats not second class.


Unless you're gay...then you're not treated like kings and queens. Hmmm...so many queen jokes flying through my head but I'll refrain.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

tlrnnp67 said:


> Sure you can. Who do you think keeps giving birth to all these gay people? Mostly heterosexuals!


Again is it genetic or learned/chosen behavior? Albinism is genetic but all biologist will tell you it is a flaw because it reduces the ability of the species to survive.

And as I have pointed out people in prisons routinely choose to engage in homosexual behavior. Also many people who say they are gay choose engage in heterosexual acts. Both of these are strong evidence homosexual behavior is a LEARNED behavior or a choice.

As I have pointed out people do a lot of things because of psychological reasons. Some of those reasons seem 'strange' to you but to them in the back of their minds it makes sense. A girl who had a father who was abusive to her mother will a lot of times seek out an abusive man. That sounds crazy to you but she is trying to "fix" what was wrong in her family.

Others don't sound that strange. Someone who was deprived candy as a child will be candy crazy as an adult.

So is it that much of a stretch to think homosexual activity is based on a psychological reason?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Again is it genetic or learned/chosen behavior? Albinism is genetic but all biologist will tell you it is a flaw because it reduces the ability of the species to survive.
> 
> And as I have pointed out people in prisons routinely choose to engage in homosexual behavior. Also many people who say they are gay choose engage in heterosexual acts. Both of these are strong evidence homosexual behavior is a LEARNED behavior or a choice.
> 
> ...


So it is just the sex act you have a problem with. If they fall in love, chose to marry and live together and just never have sex it is fine.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I'm going to issue one warning for everyone to be respectful of other's opinions, not name call or get angry with each other. I really don't want to lock this thread and pass out infractions; but the mods will from this point on if some are determined to be snarky. 

Plus please remember to watch your language. Substituting other words, phrases or dashes for bad words is not allowed. The site rules are that it is the same thing as actually saying the words and you can be infracted or banned.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I have no doubt that there are more gay people now than when I was younger. I don't think it is because most are "out of the closet" or that homosexuality is more accepted.
So many of my friends from my high school have children who are gay or lesbian. I think homosexuality is genetic. I have a very close friend, gay in his 30's. My husband and I have talked to him for hours on this subject. He never wanted to be gay but knew he was from puberty. He went on dates with girls in high school and never missed a prom. It was only when he was almost 30 did he come out to his parents. His mother accepted it but his father, being a deacon in a Baptist church really had a problem with his son being gay. Never did he disown him or even anything close. He sought counseling for the whole family, individually and together. His father finally reconciled himself to it several years before he passed away of a heart attack.
I would have preferred my children be straight but my husband and I both said that we would accept the fact if it did happen. We say the same thing about our grandchildren. So far, it has not happened in our immediate family. My 
hubby has 2 first cousins, brothers, who are gay. I was in high school with one of them and he was picked on constantly by the boys. He changed schools but his reputation followed him. He finally dropped out of school in his senior year, moved to Atlanta, and went to hair styling school. The other brother and his partner were accept completely by the parents. In fact, the partner was described as a son in the father's obituary.
I still do not believe that Bishops should be gay though. I think their personal sexuality would influence the way that they vote.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> Last AGT show the singing just HAD to TELL America he was GAY before he even started his audition.~!
> Last night on 72 hours, one of the contestants the VARY first thing he said when being interviewed I AM GAY, I have something to prove that I am not weak.


You must be watching the wrong channels if you're getting so much in your face gayness. I suggest watching Bravo to avoid it.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Barelahh , do you personally know a gay person that you are close to? You just seem so unloving and angry on the topic and toward them. I feel certain if you really understood how and why a gay is who and why they are, you'd have at least a little compassion and understanding.

Watcher, I do understand you're only doing what you believe Christ would have you to do and doing so out of love and concern. I just wish you could see that is also the case of those of us who don't believe in condemnation of others. 

I also do know that you mean those who are Christians and not the unbeliever. I think you just misunderstood what I meant. What I was meaning that wouldn't our time and efforts be better spent in showing love and the Good News to the unbelievers rather than condeming the saved? 


watcher said:


> You are telling me you have NEVER met someone who claimed to be a Christian who told you or showed they lived a life you knew was not in accordance to God's law? You have NEVER met someone who claimed to be a Christian who was living with someone they weren't married to? Who claimed they were 'married int the eyes of God'? If so you have lived around a lot better people than I have.


No, what I was saying is that I've never known a Christian who actually believed they could sin all they wanted because they were saved. 



watcher said:


> So you are saying we should ignore the very words of Christ about a sinning brother?


Not at all, what I am saying is that I believe you misunderstand/misinterpret what those scriptures say. I don't simply don't happen to believe the log in our eye is ever fully removed; therefore, we have no right to deal with that speck in others eye.

I think there are lot of things that we all don't have correct and that we have to be open to the fact that we might just be wrong about a whole lot of things regarding scripture. 


watcher said:


> There are many time in the Bible where God could have done something but He used a person to do it. You think God really needed Joshua and a bunch of horns to defeat Jericho? That He needed David to take down Goliath?


But, you will note that all of them is for the benefit of proving God's greatness and who He is. Pointing out our brothers and sisters sins doesn't do that. The only time we are to do that (according to scripture) is in sinful matters that divide our own congregations.


watcher said:


> As an old country preacher put it; there's a lot of people out being loved right into Hell.


Love will never send someone to hell. Love = hope! Hate, unkindness, condemnation and self-righteousness will always lead to darkness, hard hearts, hurt -- and hell.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Not at all, what I am saying is that I believe you misunderstand/misinterpret what those scriptures say. I don't simply don't happen to believe the log in our eye is ever fully removed; therefore, we have no right to deal with that speck in others eye.


If Watcher had been around at the time when Jesus confronted the woman caught in adultery, the story might have a different ending! ound:

That's all I have time for right now ... cows to milk.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Karen said:


> Barelahh , do you personally know a gay person that you are close to? You just seem so unloving and angry on the topic and toward them. I feel certain if you really understood how and why a gay is who and why they are, you'd have at least a little compassion and understanding.


Do i know any, yeah i do. But i don't accept their behavior nor do i associate with them. Paul wrote a letter to the corinthians stating that very thing. To not associate with a idoloter, slanderer, drunkard, homosexual. Etc. 

As far as unloving, and angry, nope i'm not. I just do not accept their behavior.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> I'm going to issue one warning for everyone to be respectful of other's opinions, not name call or get angry with each other. I really don't want to lock this thread and pass out infractions; but the mods will from this point on if some are determined to be snarky.
> 
> Plus please remember to watch your language. Substituting other words, phrases or dashes for bad words is not allowed. The site rules are that it is the same thing as actually saying the words and you can be infracted or banned.


Ok, but did I miss something? Everyone responding to me has be playing quite nicely.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> If Watcher had been around at the time when Jesus confronted the woman caught in adultery, the story might have a different ending! ound:
> 
> That's all I have time for right now ... cows to milk.


I believe christ didn't budge on what was sin and not sin, and he didn't approve of her behavior. IF you remember the next verse, he said to her to go and sin no more. So in that statement he said she was sinning but that he commanded her to not do it anymore


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

BTW Karen your reference to the ----ing in my post i used the word da mn ing in a proper usage that was not profanity. This brain dead censor script put the dash's i didn't . 
It means
*----Â·ing*
[ dÃ¡mming ] 



proving guilty, wrong, or bad: proving or showing that somebody or something is guilty, wrong, or very bad
highly critical: very critical or unfavorable


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gapeach said:


> So many of my friends from my high school have children who are gay or lesbian. I think homosexuality is genetic.


Ok I have to ask you this, are other "non-traditional" sexual preferences also genetic? Is someone who is aroused by feet genetically wired that way? How about the sexual sadist? Exhibitionism? If you think being sexually aroused by and drawn to your same gender is genetic could you not also argue that being sexually aroused by and drawn to children is also genetic?


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

watcher said:


> Ok I have to ask you this, are other "non-traditional" sexual preferences also genetic? Is someone who is aroused by feet genetically wired that way? How about the sexual sadist? Exhibitionism? If you think being sexually aroused by and drawn to your same gender is genetic could you not also argue that being sexually aroused by and drawn to children is also genetic?


LOL that genetic idea has been thouroghly debunked. there is no gay gene.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Ya know there there was one group of people that Jesus avoided like a bunch of whitewashed tombs. Otherwise he brought the wine for tax collectors, hotheads, fancy girls, et al. Even broke bread for Judas.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Watcher, I do understand you're only doing what you believe Christ would have you to do and doing so out of love and concern. I just wish you could see that is also the case of those of us who don't believe in condemnation of others.


How can I when you have shown me nothing which shows me that could be what Christ taught. I have posted again and again and again Christ's own words and other verses from the Bible which state if you are a Christian you are to judge the actions of fellow Christians, you are to go to them to try to help them and if they refuse the help you are to treat them as you would a lost person.

If yo believe Christ wants us to do otherwise post some scriptures to back your beliefs up. I'll read them with an open mind and heart.




Karen said:


> I also do know that you mean those who are Christians and not the unbeliever. I think you just misunderstood what I meant. What I was meaning that wouldn't our time and efforts be better spent in showing love and the Good News to the unbelievers rather than condeming the saved?


If it means not following Christ's teachings then no. 

Different people are called for different ministries and have different gifts. Using the body example, you wouldn't expect a hand to be used to chew your food. In the same way you wouldn't expect someone who's gift is music to run the nursery. You wouldn't expect someone with the gift of teaching to be leading the music. Your gift/calling maybe to reach the lost (evangelism), someone else may have the gift/calling for defending the Bible and God's teachings (apologetics). Would you 'condemn' an apologist because he's not trying to win the lost? 




Karen said:


> No, what I was saying is that I've never known a Christian who actually believed they could sin all they wanted because they were saved.


I'm sure you haven't becasue a Christian doesn't. But I'm sure you have know people who claimed to be Christians who keep right on sinning.




Karen said:


> Not at all, what I am saying is that I believe you misunderstand/misinterpret what those scriptures say. I don't simply don't happen to believe the log in our eye is ever fully removed; therefore, we have no right to deal with that speck in others eye.


If that is true then why didn't Christ stop there? Why did he continue to tell you you are to help your brother after you have removed your log? 

Before I was saved I had a nasty mouth. I don't have that problem any more therefore that log in no longer in my eye. If there was someone in my church who was saved and was fighting the same problem would it be more loving for me to just tell him "I'm praying for you." or if I went to him and told him I had the same problem and show him there is hope to over come it and offer him not only prayers but support and discuss some of the things which helped me to over come it?




Karen said:


> I think there are lot of things that we all don't have correct and that we have to be open to the fact that we might just be wrong about a whole lot of things regarding scripture.


There are a lot of things where the Word means different things to different people or even different things to the same person at a different point in their walk. There are different ways to interpreter a lot of the parables. But when Christ tells us something directly such as we are to "go" and "point out" I don't see how you can not see it as Him telling us we are to go and point it out.

Again I ask you to take the verses I have posted and tell me how you can read those words and come up with a different meaning. I'd really like to see just how you get your point of view from them.




Karen said:


> But, you will note that all of them is for the benefit of proving God's greatness and who He is. Pointing out our brothers and sisters sins doesn't do that. The only time we are to do that (according to scripture) is in sinful matters that divide our own congregations.


Then why did Christ tell us to do it? I don't recall it saying "If your brother sins and its causing a problem with your group you should fix it but if its just causing people outside your little group problems you can over look it."




Karen said:


> Love will never send someone to hell. Love = hope!


False love will. Is it loving to see someone you love suffer great pain if you can do something to stop it? If so then if someone you love is a drug addict and they don't have any drugs and are suffering withdrawal wouldn't the loving thing to do be give them some drugs? After all they are suffering greatly and you could easily stop it.

Its the same false love to see a brother sinning and do nothing because taking action would cause him pain.




Karen said:


> Hate, unkindness, condemnation and self-righteousness will always lead to darkness, hard hearts, hurt -- and hell.


Yep and the near ultimate in hate, unkindness, condemnation and self-righteousness is to ignore Christ's words and allow a brother to keep sinning.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> If Watcher had been around at the time when Jesus confronted the woman caught in adultery, the story might have a different ending! ound:


How so? Didn't Christ judge her actions? Actions which were visible to all. After all He told her to "Go and sin no more." which clearly means He thought she HAD sinned. The difference is Christ has the authority to forgive sin. We don't.

Look at it this way. Someone comes up and takes one of your cows. Your neighbor sees them doing it, catches them and brings them, and the cow, back to you. You can tell them they can keep the cow but don't take another one. Your neighbor might have been sure that was what you would do but he doesn't have authority to do that himself. Neither would it have been proper for him to see the thief walking away with your cow and ignore it.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

watcher said:


> How so? Didn't Christ judge her actions? Actions which were visible to all. After all He told her to "Go and sin no more." which clearly means He thought she HAD sinned. The difference is Christ has the authority to forgive sin. We don't.
> 
> Look at it this way. Someone comes up and takes one of your cows. Your neighbor sees them doing it, catches them and brings them, and the cow, back to you. You can tell them they can keep the cow but don't take another one. Your neighbor might have been sure that was what you would do but he doesn't have authority to do that himself. Neither would it have been proper for him to see the thief walking away with your cow and ignore it.



Excellent analogy


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> How so? Didn't Christ judge her actions? Actions which were visible to all. After all He told her to "Go and sin no more." which clearly means He thought she HAD sinned. The difference is Christ has the authority to forgive sin. We don't.
> 
> Look at it this way. Someone comes up and takes one of your cows. Your neighbor sees them doing it, catches them and brings them, and the cow, back to you. You can tell them they can keep the cow but don't take another one. Your neighbor might have been sure that was what you would do but he doesn't have authority to do that himself. Neither would it have been proper for him to see the thief walking away with your cow and ignore it.


Very different then thinking you have the moral authority to judge a person's personal decisions in an adult relationship because of your religion.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I am quite sure i know plenty more gay people than you do and including myself most were never abused when they were younger. I have also known many straight people who were in fact abused as children, yet they are straight.
Attraction is not only about sex either, it can be many things that attract you to a person and if you only see women in a sexual manner I feel sorry for you.



watcher said:


> We'll need to start another thread on this if we want to discuss it but I have found a strong link between the two. Of the people I know who admit they are gay (and one who takes the bi-sexual label) they all were abused as children. This is NOT a scientific study and I'm not claiming a clear causal link but I wonder if there has been a good hard scientific study on the linkage of the two.
> 
> It would be a difficult study to do well because there are people I know were abused as children who refuse to admit it. And no they aren't gay.
> 
> ...


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Very different then thinking you have the moral authority to judge a person's personal decisions in an adult relationship because of your religion.


Actually the moral authority is that of Christ not us. He said i is immoral. Just because you don't believe in him doesn't negate the fact it is immoral.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I'm just gonna post this again because it seems like some people just aren't getting it.



primal1 said:


> Just an interesting article that made me happy just to know they are questioning.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gay-bishops-what-a-difference-a-decade-makes/
> 
> "Every denomination, no matter how clear and unwavering their condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual relationships, is struggling with this societal and religious issue. A substantial majority of Roman Catholic laity in America now support marriage equality â a momentous step beyond mere acceptance of homosexual people. Mormons and evangelicals are softening their language about gay people at a minimum; some are reassessing their traditional stances and moving toward greater acceptance.
> ...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barelahh said:


> Actually the moral authority is that of Christ not us. He said i is immoral. Just because you don't believe in him doesn't negate the fact it is immoral.


As confident that you are that is true, I am as confident that there was not and is no Christ or God. Thank-fully I have the right to believe what I do, as do you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Very different then thinking you have the moral authority to judge a person's personal decisions in an adult relationship because of your religion.


Really? So Christ didn't judge the woman because of His 'religion'?

I have been given not only the authority but the duty to judge the personal PUBLIC decisions of someone who claims the be a Christian. I have posted scriptures over and over.

I have the right to express my opinion on your actions but I don't have right to force you to change.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

And you do it so well


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> I am quite sure i know plenty more gay people than you do and including myself most were never abused when they were younger. I have also known many straight people who were in fact abused as children, yet they are straight.



You probably do. But have you asked all of them about childhood abuse and kept track of the numbers? I'd love to have some more date.

As I stated most abusers were abused as children but not everyone abused will become an abuser.




primal1 said:


> Attraction is not only about sex either, it can be many things that attract you to a person and if you only see women in a sexual manner I feel sorry for you.


Like it or not humans are sexual animal. When you see a woman dressed to show off her body do you look at her and think "I bet she has a wonderful intellect and would love to discuss the various quantum theories with her."? Or do you have much more base thoughts?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Off the top of my head I think what Jesus said to the woman was "Where are your accusers?" she said, "there is no one". Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more". 

No condemnation slash judgement, and an encouragement. Jesus didn't even use the specific word "adultery"(as specifically accused) with the woman. Just the generic "sin".


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> Off the top of my head I think what Jesus said to the woman was "Where are your accusers?" she said, "there is no one". Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more".
> 
> No condemnation slash judgement, and an encouragement. Jesus didn't even use the specific word "adultery"(as specifically accused) with the woman. Just the generic "sin".


Only christ can forgive.  Thats why he said no condemnation. But then he did say sin no more. he would not have said that if she had not sinned. No one is saying that we condemn the homosexual. we call their behavior sin which it is and unless they repent or turn away from that sin they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Christ did say that


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

So he also figured that she could go forward with her life without sinning? She must have been something else. I want to be like that!


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I may have kept track at some point IF the first bunch of people AND myself were never abused in the first place, so the argument never had any substance to begin with.. not to mention all the straight folks who have been abused and remain straight.

Yes but i have had attractions for people not just based on sex, but then again I am not a slave to my desires either and have gone for 4 years without any sexual activity and to tell you the truth what would push me over the edge is to find a guy who would get as dirty as me together... in the garden.. sex would just be a bonus!



watcher said:


> You probably do. But have you asked all of them about childhood abuse and kept track of the numbers? I'd love to have some more date.
> As I stated most abusers were abused as children but not everyone abused will become an abuser.
> Like it or not humans are sexual animal. When you see a woman dressed to show off her body do you look at her and think "I bet she has a wonderful intellect and would love to discuss the various quantum theories with her."? Or do you have much more base thoughts?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I actually see women dressed to kill and think that we would have nothing to talk about.  I wouldn't like them, and they wouldn't like me. The women I find attractive are the ones who make me wonder what they'd be like to talk to. Even the hot ones. Now, when I was a kid it was a different story.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

If hot looking women make me think of bending them over a chair, is it ok for me to be a preacher? I mean, as long as I'm not gay, right? I mean, just as long as I don't voice my thoughts and keep them to myself for the most part.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

if it's just to tie her shoe, yes it's ok


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

vicker said:


> If hot looking women make me think of bending them over a chair, is it ok for me to be a preacher? I mean, as long as I'm not gay, right?


IF its your wife you can bend her anyway you want and be a preacher.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

barelahh said:


> IF its your wife you can bend her anyway you want and be a preacher.


I wasn't going to do any actual bending, just think about it.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

barelahh said:


> Only christ can forgive.  Thats why he said no condemnation. But then he did say sin no more. he would not have said that if she had not sinned. No one is saying that we condemn the homosexual. we call their behavior sin which it is and unless they repent or turn away from that sin they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Christ did say that


except, in the conversation, he said nothing to the woman about forgiveness. just, there is no condemnation, and go and sin no more.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> except, in the conversation, he said nothing to the woman about forgiveness. just, there is no condemnation, and go and sin no more.


She knew who he was, and forgiveness was given in his statement that since she had no accusers then he wouldn't condemn her. that is forgiveness.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

"Like it or not humans are sexual animal. When you see a woman dressed to show off her body do you look at her and think "I bet she has a wonderful intellect and would love to discuss the various quantum theories with her."? Or do you have much more base thoughts?"
I can't help but want to pursue watcher's train of thought here a little further. Could you answer your own question here, watcher?
After all, you are the one with the binoculars.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I dunno but 'no witnesses' to me implies she was not proved guilty and therefor there would be no need for forgiveness.:shrug:



barelahh said:


> She knew who he was, and forgiveness was given in his statement that since she had no accusers then he wouldn't condemn her. that is forgiveness.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

barelahh said:


> She knew who he was, and forgiveness was given in his statement that since she had no accusers then he wouldn't condemn her. that is forgiveness.


(bing) 
*forÂ·giveÂ·ness*
[ f&#601;r gÃ­vn&#601;ss ] 


act of pardoning somebody: the act of pardoning somebody for a mistake or wrongdoing
 
There was no accusation of adultery for the woman, so there was nothing to forgive. WIth no conviction there is no pardon. And then, a general "go and sin no more". Did she know Jesus was God? I think she knew he was a singular, wise teacher. "Lord" was used as a title, like "Master" or "Sir"--(we now ascribe godhood to those we call lord)

I really dont' think the woman knew Jesus was God, just a wise, compassionate teacher that spanked the other holier than thou guys who wanted to trap Jesus and show how smart and righteous they were.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

And one more thing, I really think that story is all about(mostly) the ones who condemned the woman and tried to make Jesus look bad, rather than about the woman. Which funny enough the story always ends up being a cautionary tale about the woman, this thread being exihibt A.

More patriarchal doody when Jesus was such a feminist (ducks and runs for cover haha!)


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

wyld thang said:


> And one more thing, I really think that story is all about(mostly) the ones who condemned the woman and tried to make Jesus look bad, rather than about the woman. Which funny enough the story always ends up being a cautionary tale about the woman, this thread being exihibt A.
> 
> More patriarchal doody when Jesus was such a feminist (ducks and runs for cover haha!)


And, you are exactly right.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Until a few years later they discover the epi-marks Dec. 11 2012
http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-c...ity-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb.
I actually didn't know about this but your post made me curious.

EDIT: here's the actual study http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167



barelahh said:


> LOL that genetic idea has been thouroghly debunked. there is no gay gene.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

"Here is Thy footstool and there rest Thy feet where live the poorest, and lowliest, and lost.

When I try to bow to Thee, my obeisance cannot reach down to the depth where Thy feet rest among the poorest, lowliest, and lost.

Pride can never approach to where Thou walkest in the clothes of the humble among the poorest, and lowliest, and lost.

My heart can never find its way to where Thou keepest company with the companionless among the poorest, the lowliest, and the lost."
Gitanjali, Rabindranath Tagore


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

"Leave this chanting and singing and telling of beads! Whom dost thou worship in this lonely dark corner of a temple with doors all shut? Open thine eyes and see thy God is not before thee!
He is there where the tiller is tilling the hard ground and where the pathmaker is breaking stones. He is with them in sun and in shower, and his garment is covered with dust. Put off thy holy mantle and even like him come down on the dusty soil!
Deliverance? Where is this deliverance to be found? Our master himself has joyfully taken upon him the bonds of creation; he is bound with us all forever.
Come out of thy meditations and leave aside thy flowers and incense! What harm is there if thy clothes become tattered and stained? Meet him and stand by him in toil and in sweat of thy brow."


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

barelahh said:


> Do i know any, yeah i do. But i don't accept their behavior nor do i associate with them. Paul wrote a letter to the corinthians stating that very thing. To not associate with a idoloter, slanderer, drunkard, homosexual. Etc.
> 
> As far as unloving, and angry, nope i'm not. I just do not accept their behavior.


That isn't at all what Paul said; read it all. What he said was, if a person is weak in the faith and easily influenced, then they should avoid those people. If he literally meant for all of us to avoid those people, then it would be contrary to Christ's teachings since he hung around with those types of people.

If you take it as far as you're saying, none of us would be associating with any one. We'd just keep all to ourselves and not of the benefit of any fellowship and encouragement. :shrug:



barelahh said:


> LOL that genetic idea has been thouroghly debunked. there is no gay gene.


Not true at all. That is a myth circulating on the internet of sites that are homophobic. If you read the study, no gene was found, BUT it hasn't been ruled out. In fact, the study was unable to find a lot of genes and variances of many conditions because they weren't even able to determine the number of genes a person has, nor was it determined what each gene sequence does or it's effects a person. 

Furthermore, the study does go on to say that there are many unanswered questions with little conclusions because they only looked at the gene sequences and not at the actual DNA. Gene sequences are those genes that are transferred through generations (genes that live in the genome); however, at the time of conception and fetal growth, DNA does change giving us 'temporary' (meaning only for that generation known as epi-marks) differences that effect the fetus. 

For example, differences in height, hair or eye color, that never existed in the family before, some birth defects, etc. Note though that one of the epi-marks works as a sexual factor. If testosterone levels are high, it will kick in to prevent a baby girl from developing too much masculinity; too high estrogen and an epi-mark kicks in to keep a baby boy from developing too much femininity. So if the epi-mark either kicks in too late, is distorted or not at all, it's entirely possible it is the cause of homosexuality.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Here is a short list of my most common sins.
1. I sometimes put gods other than God in front.
2. I idolize.
3. I take Gods name in vane more often than I'd like to admit.
4. I often forget the Sabbath day, and rarely if ever keep it holy.
5.I dishonor my parents on a regular basis.
6. I don't do it often, but I have committed murders. 
7. Yeah, I committed adultery too.
8. every now and then I steal something.
9. I bear false witness. ( I lie too.)
10. I very often covet my neighbor's ass, and his wife, and his wife's... well, you get the idea.
I try not to, but I do most of these on a regular basis.
Hi, I am Vicker, and I am a sinaholic 
Why do I feel worse about committing adultery than murder!?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

BTW, my God loves me, and thinks I'm pretty special.  That's because he is good, not me.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

watcher said:


> Different people are called for different ministries and have different gifts. Using the body example, you wouldn't expect a hand to be used to chew your food. In the same way you wouldn't expect someone who's gift is music to run the nursery. You wouldn't expect someone with the gift of teaching to be leading the music. Your gift/calling maybe to reach the lost (evangelism), someone else may have the gift/calling for defending the Bible and God's teachings (apologetics). Would you 'condemn' an apologist because he's not trying to win the lost?


I won't condemn anyone. But I would take the opinion it is wrong because the one thing all Christians are to do, first and foremost, is to tell others the Good News of Christ Jesus. God's more than able to defend His own Word, condemn, and teach. He gave us the Holy Spirit for those things. What do you think the HS is for? But the one thing He does need from us is to show Christ to others; not just blab it, but show it. It's our main job! How do we do that job if we don't display love, acceptance and forgiveness. Those 3 things ARE God; condemnation is not. 

The second thing we are called to do is to be overcomers. To remain in our faith. How many leave the faith because of Christian criticism, self-righteousness, unkindness and too much blabbing and not enough doing? What's the point in bring others to Christ to just set bad examples for them and discourage them -- all in the name of 'scripture says..bla bla bla'; when that isn't at all what it says, rather it's being distorted to provide a basis for unloving self-righteousness.




watcher said:


> If that is true then why didn't Christ stop there? Why did he continue to tell you you are to help your brother after you have removed your log?
> 
> Before I was saved I had a nasty mouth. I don't have that problem any more therefore that log in no longer in my eye. If there was someone in my church who was saved and was fighting the same problem would it be more loving for me to just tell him "I'm praying for you." or if I went to him and told him I had the same problem and show him there is hope to over come it and offer him not only prayers but support and discuss some of the things which helped me to over come it?


Now I see why we're not understanding each other because we're talking apples and oranges again. You're saying if your 'log' is one thing and you overcome it then it's ok to deal with others who have that problem. 

What I believe Christ was saying is that 'log' isn't a single sin or even 2, 3 or 10 things. Rather it's _ALL_ sins at all times. It's never removed from our own eyes as long as we live because we will never stop sinning until the day we die. At no point in our life would we be worthy enough to condemn anyone since it will only be through the grace of God that we ourself makes it to heaven.



watcher said:


> Yep and the near ultimate in hate, unkindness, condemnation and self-righteousness is to ignore Christ's words and allow a brother to keep sinning.


I don't see it that way. A Christian's sin will be resolved if we earnestly pray for them. Is it even possible for a true Christian to not change and repent if the Holy Spirit is bugging the heck out of them? Don't you believe your prayers for them will be answered and acted upon by the Holy Spirit? Do you not believe the HS will do a better job than you anyway?

On the other hand, our lack of love, acceptance and forgiveness will send people to hell. Again, if I'm going error, I'm going to error on the side of love, acceptance and forgiveness (Christ's words too my friend), which are positive words; rather than on the side words of condemnation, unkindness, etc., which are all negatives.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Here's what I see as the problem every time we discuss scripture. We need to stop looking and dissecting each and every word of each and every sentence in the Bible. Instead, look for understanding of what's being said as a whole. Stop making a word study out of it, and get the 'meaning' and 'message' instead. The words will make much better sense and you may just see more truth than you ever expected. The message (the bigger picture) is the thing that makes the Word applicable in our lives. It's what changes us and what changed the world when Christ came. 

If we don't do that, then we are like the religious leaders of Christ's time who totally missed the Messiah and all that wisdom when He was standing right in front of them. All because they relied on their word study of scripture, rather than the meaning of the message. In fact, they would use scripture against Him! That's the most ignorant thing of all and something we should be totally shocked at and learn from. It was also extremely egotistical and yet we do the same exact thing every time we insist we have it right, everyone else has it wrong and they wish to condemn them for it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wyld thang said:


> Off the top of my head I think what Jesus said to the woman was "Where are your accusers?" she said, "there is no one". Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more".
> 
> No condemnation slash judgement, and an encouragement. Jesus didn't even use the specific word "adultery"(as specifically accused) with the woman. Just the generic "sin".





wyld thang said:


> except, in the conversation, he said nothing to the woman about forgiveness. just, there is no condemnation, and go and sin no more.





wyld thang said:


> (bing)
> *forÂ·giveÂ·ness*
> [ f&#601;r gÃ­vn&#601;ss ]
> 
> ...





wyld thang said:


> And one more thing, I really think that story is all about(mostly) the ones who condemned the woman and tried to make Jesus look bad, rather than about the woman. Which funny enough the story always ends up being a cautionary tale about the woman, this thread being exihibt A.
> 
> More patriarchal doody when Jesus was such a feminist (ducks and runs for cover haha!)



That story, and others too, always gives me a chuckle. Knowing a little more behind the scenes makes it even better. There's a brief mention in the Bible of Jesus writing in the sand.......
In other manuscripts what He was writing was, the sins of her accusers.
Just imagine the look on their faces when they saw what they did last Friday night, lol.
When He's done writing in the sand, He looks up and says, "Where are your accusers?"
And back to the REST of the story, as Paul Harvey would say.





wyld thang said:


> Ya know there there was one group of people that Jesus avoided like a bunch of whitewashed tombs.



And that would be???


*I* know who you mean, He didn't cut hypocrites any slack, did He?


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

He didn't! But, the hypocrites rarely saw themselves as such. They condemned him. The more he lit the light to them, the more they hated him, with visceral hatred.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Actually the moral authority is that of Christ not us. He said i is immoral. Just because you don't believe in him doesn't negate the fact it is immoral.


I personally believe that it's wrong to eat meat (and various religious doctrines agree). I've been a vegetarian for more than 20 years.

Does that mean it's immoral for you to eat meat?



> Do i know any, yeah i do. But i don't accept their behavior nor do i associate with them. Paul wrote a letter to the corinthians stating that very thing. To not associate with a idoloter, slanderer, drunkard, homosexual. Etc.
> 
> As far as unloving, and angry, nope i'm not. I just do not accept their behavior.


You are certainly welcome to your opinion and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I ask only that you allow those of us who do not share your beliefs to live freely in accordance with our convictions and consciences.



> How so? Didn't Christ judge her actions? Actions which were visible to all. After all He told her to "Go and sin no more." which clearly means He thought she HAD sinned. The difference is Christ has the authority to forgive sin. We don't.


Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Christ saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and Watcher replying, "Alrighty then!" and hurling away. :hysterical:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

One of my most favorite passages in the bible ( I have thousands ) is in Mark 12. You really should read the whole thing, but the good part (to me) is 28-34. One of the scribes actually gets it  it is the only example of this, to my knowledge, in the New Testament. I'll see if I can find a place to cut and paste it.
Here:
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Funny enough, it's that second one that gets so many.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

vicker said:


> "Like it or not humans are sexual animal. When you see a woman dressed to show off her body do you look at her and think "I bet she has a wonderful intellect and would love to discuss the various quantum theories with her."? Or do you have much more base thoughts?"
> I can't help but want to pursue watcher's train of thought here a little further. Could you answer your own question here, watcher?
> After all, you are the one with the binoculars.


:bowtie: bump:bowtie:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> Off the top of my head I think what Jesus said to the woman was "Where are your accusers?" she said, "there is no one". Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more".


To refer to another post I made; its His cow, He has the right to do with it as He wishes. 




wyld thang said:


> No condemnation slash judgement, and an encouragement. Jesus didn't even use the specific word "adultery"(as specifically accused) with the woman. Just the generic "sin".


Hum. . .that's strange. He tells her to "sin no more". Let's look at that. For Him to say that He must at least think she has sinned before. For Him to think that He must have some kind of standard which says what is and what is not sin. Then He must to compare (judge) her actions to that standard. 

Again this a a lost person and I am specifically talking about Christ telling us to judge fellow Christians. I challenge you READ the scriptures I have posted and tell me how you can say we are NOT to judge fellow Christians.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

primal1 said:


> I may have kept track at some point IF the first bunch of people AND myself were never abused in the first place, so the argument never had any substance to begin with.. not to mention all the straight folks who have been abused and remain straight.


So the fact that some people smoke for 40+ years and don't get lung cancer means the smoking can cause lung cancer doesn't have any substance? The fact that there have been people killed in auto accidents while wearing their seat belts means the argument for wearing them has no substance?

Your reaction is why we will NEVER see such a study. It would be completely non-PC to even begin to see if there might be some kind of even slightly possibility there is psychological "cause" for even a miniscule percentage of homosexuality. 

Let me ask you this, and I would like for you to think before answering and be honest with me. If there were a study, done following the accepted scientific guidelines, had been peer reviewed and others had repeated it with different sample groups which showed such a statical significant link (equal to the statical link between smoking and lung cancer) between abuse and homosexuality how would it change your views?




primal1 said:


> Yes but i have had attractions for people not just based on sex, but then again I am not a slave to my desires either and have gone for 4 years without any sexual activity and to tell you the truth what would push me over the edge is to find a guy who would get as dirty as me together... in the garden.. sex would just be a bonus!


I don't have any idea where you are trying to go with this. Are you trying to support or contradict my statement people choose to have homosexual sex when there are no other options (i.e. in prison)? I really don't think most prison sex is based on having warm fuzzy feelings for someone and wanting to "take the relationship to the next level".


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> If hot looking women make me think of bending them over a chair, is it ok for me to be a preacher? I mean, as long as I'm not gay, right? I mean, just as long as I don't voice my thoughts and keep them to myself for the most part.


Depends on your reaction to that thought. If it was a fleeting thought and you repentant then you are a human who stumbled in his walk with Christ and it would have no impact on your ability to preach the Word. But if you kept thinking about it, made plans on how you could get her bent over a chair, etc then you have fallen and you need to get up and get back on the narrow path before you stand before others and preach. If you tell yourself that its ok as long as you don't really do it and keep right on thinking about doing it you might should look where you really are with Christ.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Watcher, so are you saying that, since you believe you have the right and obligation to point out other's sins, that you are totally and completely without sin? That you have every single sin in your own life under control and are sin free? 

See, I'm not getting where you think you're righteous enough to condemn any sinner. Unless it's because it goes back to what I posted in post #306 about which 'log' you're talking about; as I'm a little confused on that and how you view all of that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> except, in the conversation, he said nothing to the woman about forgiveness. just, there is no condemnation, and go and sin no more.


HUH? How do you come up with that? He says "_neither do I condemn you" _even though she clearly had sinned (remember she was caught in adultery, not just accused) and He, as the Son of God, tells her He is not going to condemn her for her sin even though she deserves to be. What is that if its not forgiveness? 

If someone owes you money and you tell tell them "I'm not going to ask you to pay me back." Does the fact you didn't specifically say "I forgive the debt you owe me." mean you didn't?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> "Like it or not humans are sexual animal. When you see a woman dressed to show off her body do you look at her and think "I bet she has a wonderful intellect and would love to discuss the various quantum theories with her."? Or do you have much more base thoughts?"
> I can't help but want to pursue watcher's train of thought here a little further. Could you answer your own question here, watcher?
> After all, you are the one with the binoculars.


I freely admit I often have the wrong thoughts. But as I pointed out in another post, Thinking it fleetingly is a stumble. Only one person has ever walked this Earth w/o even a stumbling. And its Him (He?) and His walk we are trying to follow exactly. 

Again take it to the real world. Say you are walking across your yard and your foot gets caught up on a root and you stumble. You have two basic options on how to deal with it. You can dig it up or you can leave it. 

If you decide to dig it up it may take you 10 minutes to dig it up and get the yard back into good shape or it maybe a really tough root attached to a tree stump and take you days or weeks of hard work to do it.

Or you can leave the root there. After all, all that happened was you stumbled a bit. You came out of it OK, right? But leave it there will always be a chance you will trip over it again and next time it could cause you to fall and be seriously injured or even killed (if you are carrying scissors point up at the time).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> (bing)
> *forÂ·giveÂ·ness*
> [ f&#601;r gÃ­vn&#601;ss ]
> 
> ...


The Bible (in every translation I checked) tells us she was not just accused but waswas caught in the act of adultery. Those words leave no doubt she was guilty of it.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

watcher said:


> Ok I have to ask you this, are other "non-traditional" sexual preferences also genetic? Is someone who is aroused by feet genetically wired that way? How about the sexual sadist? Exhibitionism? If you think being sexually aroused by and drawn to your same gender is genetic could you not also argue that being sexually aroused by and drawn to children is also genetic?


watcher, to all of your questions, I don't know. I'm certainly no authority on people who are gay. I do believe that a homosexual person does not choose to be homosexual. I am basing that from talking to people who are gay. Preference for the same sex even shows up sometimes in birds, roosters. Why, I don't know but it does. I had 2 male cockatiels and one female and one of the male cockatiels would attempt to mount the other male. I bought him a female and put them in another cage. He got along ok with her but would breed with her.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> That isn't at all what Paul said; read it all. What he said was, if a person is weak in the faith and easily influenced, then they should avoid those people. If he literally meant for all of us to avoid those people, then it would be contrary to Christ's teachings since he hung around with those types of people.
> 
> If you take it as far as you're saying, none of us would be associating with any one. We'd just keep all to ourselves and not of the benefit of any fellowship and encouragement.  :shrug:
> 
> ...


As I said this discussion leads us down some strange and winding roads. 

If there is no 'gay gene' doesn't that mean being gay is a choice or a psychological 'problem'. If its either of those then doesn't that mean you can change them? Does that mean you can change heterosexuals?

If there is a 'gay gene' does it get labeled a genetic flaw because it reduces the species ability to survive. If it reaches the point we can change genes in vitro should we allow someone to turn the gay gene on or off? Or would it be ok for the prochoice crowd to abort a baby, I'm sorry, destroy a mass of tissue if it tested positive for the gay gene?

I love debates like this.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

watcher said:


> As I said this discussion leads us down some strange and winding roads.
> 
> If there is no 'gay gene' doesn't that mean being gay is a choice or a psychological 'problem'. If its either of those then doesn't that mean you can change them? Does that mean you can change heterosexuals?
> 
> ...


How about SEXLESS http://www.charismanews.com/world/39816-sexless-now-official-birth-certificate-status-in-australia

Evidently a reprobate mind.

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

watcher said:


> I freely admit I often have the wrong thoughts. But as I pointed out in another post, Thinking it fleetingly is a stumble. Only one person has ever walked this Earth w/o even a stumbling. And its Him (He?) and His walk we are trying to follow exactly.
> 
> Again take it to the real world. Say you are walking across your yard and your foot gets caught up on a root and you stumble. You have two basic options on how to deal with it. You can dig it up or you can leave it.
> 
> ...


But, what if its not a root or stump that can be dug up or covered over? What if its something you wish you could change, that you try and try to change, that you pray to change, but it just doesn't change, and God doesn't,won't, or can't remove it from your life? What then, "wretched man that I am"?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Please read this all the way though once before replying to any of the individual sections. There is a HUGE load of sarcasm at points in this msg (most of the msg actually) to make points stand out and to show how strange things sound when you take them to their logical/worldly conclusion. And I'm sure some of what I say and how I say it is going to cause you to either get ticked off or think I'm totally 100% crazy (or both). But remember I'm using extremes to make points.

Read it and think about what is being said more than how it is being said and how logical dictates thinking that way.

Also don't take it personally because its not aimed directly at you, you just happen to be the one who is currently saying things I've heard time and time and time again and it MUST be countered.




Karen said:


> I won't condemn anyone. But I would take the opinion it is wrong because the one thing all Christians are to do, first and foremost, is to tell others the Good News of Christ Jesus. God's more than able to defend His own Word, condemn, and teach. He gave us the Holy Spirit for those things. What do you think the HS is for? But the one thing He does need from us is to show Christ to others; not just blab it, but show it. It's our main job! How do we do that job if we don't display love, acceptance and forgiveness. Those 3 things ARE God; condemnation is not.


So is the a major error in the Bible or was Christ wrong or lying when He told us we are to go to a sinning brother and point his sin out to him? Seeing as how its in the Bible it MUST be one of those.




Karen said:


> The second thing we are called to do is to be overcomers. To remain in our faith. How many leave the faith because of Christian criticism, self-righteousness, unkindness and too much blabbing and not enough doing?


Another error in the Bible or a lie from Christ because I seem to remember Him saying that once someone is in His hand no one can take them out. Yet you say it can do it with nothing but words.




Karen said:


> What's the point in bring others to Christ to just set bad examples for them and discourage them -- all in the name of 'scripture says..bla bla bla'; when that isn't at all what it says, rather it's being distorted to provide a basis for unloving self-righteousness.


So you view of loving is to sit back and watch a brother sin and ignore Christ's word on what we are to do? Wait, you think He got that wrong so forget that last part there.




Karen said:


> Now I see why we're not understanding each other because we're talking apples and oranges again. You're saying if your 'log' is one thing and you overcome it then it's ok to deal with others who have that problem.


Yep.




Karen said:


> What I believe Christ was saying is that 'log' isn't a single sin or even 2, 3 or 10 things.


Here I'm serious. What's train of logic do you use to come to this belief? If He were saying that wouldn't He have use a plural and said something like remove the logs from your eyes? 




Karen said:


> Rather it's _ALL_ sins at all times. It's never removed from our own eyes as long as we live because we will never stop sinning until the day we die.


Then how do you explain the verse when He tells after we have removed the log from our eye we will be able to help our brother? If there's no hope of ever removing your log how can you ever help your brother?


We now join our regularly scheduled sarcasm in progress. . .




Karen said:


> At no point in our life would we be worthy enough to condemn anyone since it will only be through the grace of God that we ourself makes it to heaven.


So you think we can NEVER point sin out to anyone because we were/are sinners? How in the world can you tell someone the Gospel and leave out the part about how sin in their lives keep them from Christ because you can't point out they are sinning?




Karen said:


> I don't see it that way. A Christian's sin will be resolved if we earnestly pray for them.


Again you seem to be either saying Christ got it wrong or lied to us when He told us we are to go to them. Which do you really think it is?




Karen said:


> Is it even possible for a true Christian to not change and repent if the Holy Spirit is bugging the heck out of them?


I don't know, I just know what Christ told us to do when we see a brother sinning.




Karen said:


> Don't you believe your prayers for them will be answered and acted upon by the Holy Spirit?


Yes but 1) sometimes the answer is no [try praying for world peace] and 2) there are plenty of examples of where God told people do do things or used people when He could have done it himself. Do you really think God had to have Naaman to wash seven times in the Jordan? Do you really think Christ could only heal the blind man by having him wash the mud off his eyes at the Pool of Siloam? Now on the other hand do you think Naaman or the blind man would have been cured if they had said "God has it wrong, I don't need to do that all I need to do is pray." 

How many blessings are Christians missing out on because the refuse to do what Christ has said to do because they think they know better than He does?





Karen said:


> Do you not believe the HS will do a better job than you anyway?


I believe in following the Bible and in this case it tells us to go and do, not sit and pray. 




Karen said:


> On the other hand, our lack of love, acceptance and forgiveness will send people to hell.


WOW, didn't know we had the power to send people to Hell! It has always been my understanding only God had that power. 




Karen said:


> Again, if I'm going error, I'm going to error on the side of love, acceptance and forgiveness (Christ's words too my friend), which are positive words; rather than on the side words of condemnation, unkindness, etc., which are all negatives.


WOW another example of how Christ was wrong because He was really negative at times. I seem to remember Him whipping sheep and cattle, turned over some tables and *GASP* throwing people out of church. I also seem to remember He called people names.

Have you ever though of going through and marking all the places where God and Christ got things wrong and getting your own version of the Bible printed?


Ok if you haven't had a stroke yet take a break and come back later and reply


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Here's what I see as the problem every time we discuss scripture. We need to stop looking and dissecting each and every word of each and every sentence in the Bible. Instead, look for understanding of what's being said as a whole. Stop making a word study out of it, and get the 'meaning' and 'message' instead. The words will make much better sense and you may just see more truth than you ever expected. The message (the bigger picture) is the thing that makes the Word applicable in our lives. It's what changes us and what changed the world when Christ came.


I find this, and the likes, funny because I'm using Christ's own words in context and complete, not pulling single verses out, to support what I'm saying and being called, in effect, a hypocrite while those calling me a hypocrite haven't posted much other than what they think God really means for us to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I personally believe that it's wrong to eat meat (and various religious doctrines agree). I've been a vegetarian for more than 20 years.
> 
> Does that mean it's immoral for you to eat meat?


Some people personally believe its ok to have sex with children. Does that mean its IS moral?

Some people personally believe its ok to kill anyone who isn't the same skin color. Does that mean that IS moral?






willow_girl said:


> You are certainly welcome to your opinion and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I ask only that you allow those of us who do not share your beliefs to live freely in accordance with our convictions and consciences.


That's what Christ told us to do. But if you have followed this thread you see a lot of people seem to think He got some things wrong and even when they are confronted with His very words they still think they need to correct His errors.




willow_girl said:


> Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Christ saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and Watcher replying, "Alrighty then!" and hurling away. :hysterical:


Can you point out anywhere I said I was without sin?

Also there's a Catholic joke along those lines. It was told to me by a Catholic and isn't anything about their religion. If the moderator tells me its ok I'll tell it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> :bowtie: bump:bowtie:


and grind.

Sorry but with the subject matter that just HAD to be done.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> Watcher, so are you saying that, since you believe you have the right and obligation to point out other's sins, that you are totally and completely without sin?


Point out to me where Christ says we must be totally free of sin before we help our brother? Is that in the Bible or is that something you have added? If that's the standard how and any stand up and proclaim the Word of God? Using that standard we need to stop using the Bible because it was written by men and we know all men sin. 




Karen said:


> That you have every single sin in your own life under control and are sin free?


So because I don't know how to knit I shouldn't offer help to someone who needs his sink unclogged? Or maybe because I had to clear a massive clog out of my sink I'm better prepared to help them than a knitter.

And again I have to ask you if you think Christ got it wrong or was He lying to us when He told us we are to go to a sinning brother?




Karen said:


> See, I'm not getting where you think you're righteous enough to condemn any sinner. Unless it's because it goes back to what I posted in post #306 about which 'log' you're talking about; as I'm a little confused on that and how you view all of that.


All my righteousness comes from Christ and *He* tells us (its not what I say or what I think or what I believe, its what HE says), as I have posted and posted and posted and you and others have ignored and ignored and ignored, when we see a brother sinning (you have to judge someone based on the standard God has set in the Bible to know if what they are doing is a sin) you are to go to him and help him. To claim to be a Christian and do otherwise means you are telling Him "Sorry Christ, I know you are the Son of the Almighty God but you got that WRONG and I'll handle it the RIGHT WAY!"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> But, what if its not a root or stump that can be dug up or covered over? What if its something you wish you could change, that you try and try to change, that you pray to change, but it just doesn't change, and God doesn't,won't, or can't remove it from your life? What then, "wretched man that I am"?


So if you have a sin in your life how long do you work on fixing it until you tell God, "Well I tried but I guess you don't really want me to stop <insert your weakness here> so I that means its OK for me keep doing it." A month? Six months? Or maybe as long as a whole year? 

What would you think if someone who claimed to be a Christian told you "Well I tried to stop screwing around on my wife but I couldn't so I figured that was God telling me He's fine with me keeping on doing it."


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Many people are just saying the same things over and over -- why bother? :smack 
You've said your piece, I've said mine, some people agree and some don't -- time to move on.

See y'all in another thread.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Why are you comparing so many things to other unrelated things?
If such a study were conducted, and frankly i would have no problem with that. It would have to explain why so many straight people are abused and remain straight. As I have repeatedly said, I have never been abused so for me that obviously isn't the root of my being gay.

As social animals, prison environments are hardly a good place to look at 'relationships' or why/how they evolve. By the way they may be having sex but for a gay couple there is more involved than that, actually liking and having feeling for somebody does often play a role and that is exactly why I and other have no sin in our hearts.



watcher said:


> So the fact that some people smoke for 40+ years and don't get lung cancer means the smoking can cause lung cancer doesn't have any substance? The fact that there have been people killed in auto accidents while wearing their seat belts means the argument for wearing them has no substance?
> 
> Your reaction is why we will NEVER see such a study. It would be completely non-PC to even begin to see if there might be some kind of even slightly possibility there is psychological "cause" for even a miniscule percentage of homosexuality.
> 
> ...


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Oh and as for options I have plenty of women who may be interested in me and have become good friends, since pure sex is not my motivation, it ain't gonna happen. For some reason gay men are fewer in the country so i am single for now.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

watcher said:


> So if you have a sin in your life how long do you work on fixing it until you tell God, "Well I tried but I guess you don't really want me to stop <insert your weakness here> so I that means its OK for me keep doing it." A month? Six months? Or maybe as long as a whole year?
> 
> What would you think if someone who claimed to be a Christian told you "Well I tried to stop screwing around on my wife but I couldn't so I figured that was God telling me He's fine with me keeping on doing it."


I was lightly referring to Paul's words in Romans 7 

"[I14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. 15 I don&#8217;t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don&#8217;t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] I want to do what is right, but I can&#8217;t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don&#8217;t. I don&#8217;t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. 20 But if I do what I don&#8217;t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

21 I have discovered this principle of life&#8212;that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God&#8217;s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power* within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God&#8217;s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.][/I]"

 This is not the only time Paul speaks if his own struggles, and failure to conquer his own carnality. I think that Paul, no slouch of a Christian, struggled fiercely with sin and often lost. I am far, far from being able to conquer sin in my own life, and don't know anyone who can. Maybe you can, but I'd have to see that to believe it.*


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I totally give up. It's futile when your talking about apples and another insists they are pears. :doh:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

vicker said:


> I was lightly referring to Paul's words in Romans 7


Ok but you failed to answer my questions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Karen said:


> I totally give up. It's futile when your talking about apples and another insists they are pears. :doh:


I've been talking about and trying to keep the talk on pears the entire time. I even posted a stand alone msg stating I was talking about those who claim to be Christians not the lost.

NO ONE has posted anything other than what THEY think to counter my post of scriptures showing we are to judge the actions of fellow Christians. That's the pear which everyone has been ignoring.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> This is not the only time Paul speaks if his own struggles, and failure to conquer his own carnality. I think that Paul, no slouch of a Christian, struggled fiercely with sin and often lost. I am far, far from being able to conquer sin in my own life, and don't know anyone who can. Maybe you can, but I'd have to see that to believe it.


You and this Paul fellow seem to lead much more exciting lives than I do. I'm one of those lost, fallen, pagan types, but mostly I just want to milk cows and work in my garden! Perhaps I lack imagination? :shrug:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Well, one never quits trying, but one realizes how powerless and without hope they are at having power over their own selves and learns to really value the gift of forgiveness and understanding. One gives up illusions of sainthood and power over their own lives, and humbly accepts their father's forgiveness and understanding. One learns the power of suffering defeat and giving their sins to God. One learns to fear pride in themselves and trust in ones own abilities.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> You and this Paul fellow seem to lead much more exciting lives than I do. I'm one of those lost, fallen, pagan types, but mostly I just want to milk cows and work in my garden! Perhaps I lack imagination? :shrug:


Lol! You took a shortcut.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

And one learns to quit worrying about all that, to avoid these kind of debates, to just trust God and worry about living their daily life, thankfully.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> I've been talking about and trying to keep the talk on pears the entire time. I even posted a stand alone msg stating I was talking about those who claim to be Christians not the lost.
> 
> NO ONE has posted anything other than what THEY think to counter my post of scriptures showing we are to judge the actions of fellow Christians. That's the pear which everyone has been ignoring.


I'll see if I can do that for you, I'm pretty sure it won't take long.

Romans14: 1-23
14 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,

&#8220;As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess* to God.&#8221;
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Do Not Cause Another to Stumble

And this.....

1 Corinthians 4:1-21
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Ministry of Apostles
1 Corinthians 4:1-21
4 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers,[a] that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! 9 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. 11 To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, 12 and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; 13 when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.

14 I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me. 17 That is why I sent[c] you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ,[d] as I teach them everywhere in every church. 18 Some are arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power. 20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. 21 What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?





In the meantime, a friendly reminder, from one brother to another.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, can be absolutely sure who on this earth IS a Christian, except the heart knower, or as He likes to be called "I AM".
So, while I agree with your reference about judging actions and not people, and I agree with the additional reference about going to that brother and pointing it out, in love, for his own well being, without being able to see his or her true soul, doesn't that put us at a disadvantage? And automatically cause us to tread lightly?:huh:



vicker said:



I was lightly referring to Paul's words in Romans 7 

"[I14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. 15 I don&#8217;t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don&#8217;t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] I want to do what is right, but I can&#8217;t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don&#8217;t. I don&#8217;t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. 20 But if I do what I don&#8217;t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

21 I have discovered this principle of life&#8212;that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God&#8217;s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God&#8217;s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.][/I]"

 This is not the only time Paul speaks if his own struggles, and failure to conquer his own carnality. I think that Paul, no slouch of a Christian, struggled fiercely with sin and often lost. I am far, far from being able to conquer sin in my own life, and don't know anyone who can. Maybe you can, but I'd have to see that to believe it.

Click to expand...




An in-depth chapter to be sure. Often used to steer people in the wrong direction, as that was the original reason for Paul's letter. The new Christians in Asia minor were trying, but being misled. Paul's admission about his own shortcomings are more simply put in an old expression from Grandma.
"You best sweep your own porch, before you go telling your neighbor to clean hers."

Paul, bless his heart lol, a well educated former Pharisee and master of several languages, struggles over and over to make the one point you've referred to many times in this thread. It's much more simple that we try to make it.
Love God, love one another.

Get THAT down first, and the rest will automatically follow.
When we skip this important FIRST step, we stumble all over ourselves and each other, trying to keep "the law".



willow_girl said:



You and this Paul fellow seem to lead much more exciting lives than I do. I'm one of those lost, fallen, pagan types, but mostly I just want to milk cows and work in my garden! Perhaps I lack imagination? :shrug:

Click to expand...

:umno:
Excitement isn't the main theme, it's understanding.*


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

My point was that I'm a nonbeliever, but for the most part, I'm not particularly interested in "sinning." (Well, there is fornication, I guess, but DBF and I would be married by now if it weren't for the health insurance angle.) From the Christian viewpoint, lacking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I should be engaging in all sorts of depravity, right? 



> Some people personally believe its ok to have sex with children. Does that mean its IS moral?
> 
> Some people personally believe its ok to kill anyone who isn't the same skin color. Does that mean that IS moral?


I would say we each have our opinion as to what is moral and what's not, and the rules and laws of society are hashed out in the court of public opinion, when they're not imposed by some potentate. 



> Can you point out anywhere I said I was without sin?


I think Jesus' point, here and elsewhere, was that one ought to be free from sin (having removed the beam from your own eye) before accusing another. I understand that you feel that as long as you don't engage in a _particular _sin, you're free to confront others who indulge in it. That's an interesting interpretation. I'm curious as to the results. Do most of the people that you confront take offense? Or does your message inspire them to clean up their act?


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Watcher, Willow's last paragraph is what has me confused about your views. 

If you believe you have removed the sin (of 1 particular sin in your own life so you are able to condemn others of that particular sin now) then I respectfully disagree that the 'log' has been removed from you own eye. 

That one sin is only 'splinter' in our lives as sinners. We remain sinful all our lives and that 'log' is never removed until we are perfected in heaven.


----------

