Compelled not to change

Originally posted by knightmeister
Therefore, is it not problematic for such leaders in the church to be in positions of authority when their authority seems to usurp the authority of scripture? WHODEY

Isn't this what the creationists said when Darwin came along? Looking at scripture with a touch of science and humanity is not usurping authority of scripture it's just having some common sense about it. Are you a creationist? If not why not?

For my own part, I have jelled creationism with science/evolution without usurping the authority of scripture. For example, it has been my finding that Genesis is misunderstood because it is not taken literally enough from the original translation and not that it is "flawed". This is why I repeatidly ask, how can Leviticus 18:22 be taken in any other way than to say that homosexual conduct is an abomination?

Originally posted by whodey
I think that ALL sins should be adressed within the church.

But that wasn't the issue at all. The issue is how it is addressed. Should any Church leader who is known to have sinned be removed from the post? Should he be removed if he does not admit his sin? Who gets to decide what is a sin and what isn't? If your Church leader smiles at your wife should you remove him for coveting another mans wife even if he denies it?
Also, why are you 'addressing' sins. Is is because you love the person in question? Is it because you feel that his sinful behavior will lead to others copying him and thus he is not a good leader? Is it because you want to enforce Gods laws? Is it because his sinful behavior shows that he is not a 'true Christian' and thus should not be a leader?
You still have not said anything about smoking or obesity. Are you guilty of one of them?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that wasn't the issue at all. The issue is how it is addressed. Should any Church leader who is known to have sinned be removed from the post? Should he be removed if he does not admit his sin? Who gets to decide what is a sin and what isn't? If your Church leader smiles at your wife should you remove him for coveting another mans wife even if he deni
You still have not said anything about smoking or obesity. Are you guilty of one of them?

Morality is dervied from higher authority. You may argue this point, but it is true nonetheless. Therefore, when you have such leadership openly acting in an "immoral" fashion, it tends to draw those under such leadership towards the same behavior. If the church recognizes the Bible as authority in which to live by and a religious leader is usurping this authority a power struggle within the church insues. Will the people follow one who is openly violating the Biblical authority or will they uphold the Biblical morality over the personality in question? Statistically, the longer the "apostate" is left within the church unchallenged the greater the possiblity of people following after him or her.

What further complicates the matter is that not all church's can agree if the Biblical authority should be the ultimate authority. For example, some church's don't even teach that Christ died for our sins and that ALL paths lead to God thus negating the Biblical reason for him even coming and dying on the cross. However, when they do agree that the Biblical authority is the ultimate authority they can't then always agree with the interpretation of such authority. Therefore, it is important to pick and choose a church that mirrors what you believe the scriptures to be saying or not to be saying in this respect. Then if you do agree you are welcome to join a church and participate in these beleifs. However, if you choose to go back on your word that you intend to uphold the beliefs of the church when you joined or even have a change of heart you should be held accountable for agreeing to adhere to these beliefs in the first place and go from there.

Originally posted by whodey
For my own part, I have jelled creationism with science/evolution without usurping the authority of scripture. For example, it has been my finding that Genesis is misunderstood because it is not taken literally enough from the original translation and not that it is "flawed". This is why I repeatidly ask, how can Leviticus 18:22 be taken in any other way than to say that homosexual conduct is an abomination?

This is why I repeatidly ask, how can Leviticus 18:22 be taken in any other way than to say that homosexual conduct is an abomination? WHODEY

I don't think it can , my argument is that the Bible doesn't always get everything right all the time. I'm sure that you can find scripture in the OT that backs up the idea that not being circumcised is wrong, but we all know that's bunk and infact we also know that circumsion is actually harmful and can be abusive (we also have rejected this idea ). And yet it is there in the OT is it not. Therefore , I feel I have the right to question other stipulations which to the rational mind don't make sense or don't seem to be there for any reason other than the fact they are a reflection of the culture in which the OT was written.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is why I repeatidly ask, how can Leviticus 18:22 be taken in any other way than to say that homosexual conduct is an abomination? WHODEY

I don't think it can , my argument is that the Bible doesn't always get everything right all the time. I'm sure that you can find scripture in the OT that backs up the idea that not being circumcised is wrong, ason other than the fact they are a reflection of the culture in which the OT was written.

Such edicts as circumcision and not eating pork etc etc. may seem "wrong" in today's world or even silly. However, when assessing them from a medical perspective are the wrong? I would argue that circumcision is actually beneficial. In fact, I know of several men who had medical problems because they had not been circumcised previously and then had to undergo the procedure later. Also not eating pork I think is generally a good idea. The Bible says not to drink blood nor to eat fat and medically we can see why today. They are simply not healthy practices that can cause a myriad of health problems. For me this is one of the reasons why pork is mentioned because pork tends to have a high percentage of fat in the meat.

From Pauls perspective, however, medical concerns should not outweigh spiritual concerns thus these edicts should not hold as much weight because mankind had achieved a new spiritual connection with God through Christ. However, matters that effect us spiritually should be of paramount concern. Paul seemed more concerned with men being carnal as opposed to being spiritual. He viewed the carnal body to be at war with our spiritual man. He taught that the body minds the things of the body and the spiritual man minds the things of your spiritual welfare. The spiritual man should take precadence over the physical man because one will live forever and the other is actively perishing. Of coarse he was not suggesting that we not tend to our bodily needs, rather, his arguement was that they should not rule our actions that may conflict with our spiritual man. Our spiritual man should rule our bodies and bring our bodies in line with the word of God because according to Jesus in Matthew 4:4 our spiritual man is fed via the word of God. Therefore, we should hold captive our physical desires to our spiritual needs and if they conflict then they should be dealt with accordingly. As for eating pork and circumcision, I am not sure you can make an arguement that they are physical desires that may interfere with spiritual pursuits, rather, they are simply physical acts that have no bearing on our spiritual man. Granted, your physical body may not be as healthy if you practice eathing pork and do not get circumcised. Conversly, I think you will agree that there is a spiritual aspect to our sexuality. Also bear in mind that Paul was not nearly as harsh on the Mosaic law as you seem to be. In fact, he seems to have concurred with the Mosaic mandate that homosexuality remained an abomination in the eyes of God. In fact, Paul's position was that the Mosaic law was good and that it was not flawed. We simply have a better covenant through Christ that negates many ceremonial aspects teh Mosaic law because now we have been made alive spiritually through Christ.

Having said all of that, I think you would have a better arguement tearing Paul's theology apart for ignoring Mosaic mandates not to be circumcised and eating pork that you would tearing apart the Mosaic law. This is because Christ himself constantly referred to the Mosaic law thus openly endorsing and embracing it. After all, we are all followers of Christ are we not?

Originally posted by whodey
Such edicts as circumcision and not eating pork etc etc. may seem "wrong" in today's world or even silly. However, when assessing them from a medical perspective are the wrong? I would argue that circumcision is actually beneficial. In fact, I know of several men who had medical problems because they had not been circumcised previously and then had to unde ...[text shortened]... s openly endorsing and embracing it. After all, we are all followers of Christ are we not?

Having said all of that, I think you would have a better arguement tearing Paul's theology apart for ignoring Mosaic mandates not to be circumcised and eating pork that you would tearing apart the Mosaic law. This is because Christ himself constantly referred to the Mosaic law thus openly endorsing and embracing it. After all, we are all followers of Christ are we not? WHODEY

Yes. Christ was always on the side of the person marginalised over and above religiuos rules that cannot be reasoned properly . No-one is being asked to step down in the church due to non- circumcision or pork eating are they? I bet no-one ever asks. Certainly circumcision might be too personal and one could argue why God would care so much about such a thing. For some men it is beneficial but for others it has been harmful. Anyway it's silly anyway because it sugggests that God mis -designed us and he needs us to make a correction to our bodies so that we work properly (a bit clumsy of him?)

The idea of circumcision is to numb the tip of the penis and de-sensitise it which to me seems wrong and cruel and a denial of the pleasure God intended between man and wife. I would certainly have been unhappy to have been circumcised and to have lost some sensitivity , my wife would not have been able to get to work in quite the same way (if you know what i mean) .

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes. Christ was always on the side of the person marginalised over and above religiuos rules that cannot be reasoned properly . No-one is being asked to step down in the church due to non- circumcision or pork eating are they? I bet no-one ever asks. Certainly circumcision might be too personal and one could argue why God would care so much about such a wife would not have been able to get to work in quite the same way (if you know what i mean) .[/b]

Christ was on the sid of the sinner. There is no arguement there, however, his position was that he hated the sin and loved the sinner. For example, when he showed mercy on the adulterous woman his parting words were to go and sin no more. The object was to deliver her from the cycle of sin. No doubt, without Christ intervening she would have felt compelled to continue in that same sin. He has come to set us free from such enslavement. However, how can he set us free from sins that we can't even agree are sins?

Originally posted by whodey
Christ was on the sid of the sinner. There is no arguement there, however, his position was that he hated the sin and loved the sinner. For example, when he showed mercy on the adulterous woman his parting words were to go and sin no more. The object was to deliver her from the cycle of sin. No doubt, without Christ intervening she would have felt compell ...[text shortened]... such enslavement. However, how can he set us free from sins that we can't even agree are sins?

However, how can he set us free from sins that we can't even agree are sins? WHODEY

Isn't it down to personal conviction of the spirit though. Personally not being homosexual I don't have this struggle and I also don't think we can pick and choose which sins are sins or not and water down the whole Bible. However , as I have said I think homosexuality is a very very unique case and is highly complex and we are finding out things all the time. If science is able to prove that sexuality is connected with very deep brain structure set in place in the womb (and we are not too far away) then the only way a homosexual can be free of "sin" would be to have a miraculous healing of some sort for every individual. Any amount of cleansing and repentance would not make it go . It would be like you asking God to turn you into a homosexual , can you imagine how that would feel (if hetrosexuality was a sin)?

Your refusal to accept that this is a special case distinct from others is where you go wrong. The fundamental mindset is to start from scripture and then work out an argument from there. The liberal mindset is to place high regard on scripture but to accept that it can be informed by discoveries and science (eg Darwin)

Originally posted by whodey
The Bible says not to drink blood

Except for Jesus' blood.

Originally posted by knightmeister
However, how can he set us free from sins that we can't even agree are sins? WHODEY

Isn't it down to personal conviction of the spirit though. Personally not being homosexual I don't have this struggle and I also don't think we can pick and choose which sins are sins or not and water down the whole Bible. However , as I have said I think homosexual on scripture but to accept that it can be informed by discoveries and science (eg Darwin)

I have to admitt, so long as you are not convicted of sin you will not repent. You got me there. It then boils down to what God is convicting you to repent of if anything. I view scripture as an aid in this regard because not everyone that needs to repent feels as though they do. I think the Bible is full of such examples.

As far as the whole medical issue, it is argueable as to whether people are born that way because I have heard the arguements. However, for me it merely boils down to them having such inclinations whatever the source may be. Actually, I think it of little importance as to whether it is of biological origin or otherwise. The simple fact is, is that the struggle with such inclinations.

Having said that, what if they are born with a biological inclination to sin? I said earlier that people may be born with genetically "addictive" attributes they are born with thus they may have an inclination towards alcoholism and drug abuse etc, etc. I even know people who claim they have a strong libido and feel the need to have sex with many, many people. In effect, our flesh has been "corrupted". It is important in realizing this fact when discussing such issues. Did God create us this way? No, he did not create us with a sin nature, rather, mankind chose it.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Except for Jesus' blood.

😴😴😴