27 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI have had similar experience, however, at times I have felt God leading me to give to them and at other times not.
[I gave twenty bucks to a stranger last night. I was delivering a pizza and this black gentleman ran up to me saying something about needing some money and a ride. Having been extended the hand of grace myself and therefore always ready to carry out my Lord's command of never turning away those who would ask something of me, I did not hesitate to give him ng according to the appearance does, it keeps us from obeying God in the Spirit of Christ.
I think we have to be careful about a broad command of NEVEr judging just like we should be wary of a braod command of ALWAYS giving to those who ask of us. After all, if someone asked for your house and car would you give it to them? What if yes, what if they asked for your children? I think all laws for the most part have exceptions and it all comes down to the wisdom to know when laws should be appled. Specifically, we should be in tune with the spirit of the laws at hand just as Christ pointed out when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath.
27 Mar 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasI agree with what you are saying but that is not the issue at hand. The issue should be if or if we should not judge behavoir as sin. If Christ could point to sinful behavoir and Paul could do so, why are we then seemingly put in a situation where we cannot do so? Then if we are able to do so, what then shoujld be done about it?
All over America, Christian congregations are obsessed with homosexuality. Never before have so many people in the name of love given such weight to the prejudices of bigots. Forget for a moment the questionable application of scripture to justify singling out homosexuals as abominable in the eyes of God, let's say for a moment that the accusers are right ...[text shortened]... without strings attached[/i], i.e., kindnesses unsullied by an eye on "curing" the homosexual.
I think there are differences as to what to do about sinful behavior based upon where it is occuring. for example, if they are a sinner off the street, we should not expect them to know any better. However, if they are in the church or a religious leader, a different approach should be used. I think Christ demonstrated this fact. After all, he only went after the religious leaders who were not doing their respective jobs while doing it all in the name of God.
Having said that, what if someone within the church endorsed behavoir you would agreee is sin? In fact, what if they denied Christ as being the sacrifice for our sins? Should they not be dealt with or allowed to continue unabated?
27 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhen did I say someone was unfit to attend a church? I have said that certain religious leaders are unfit if they are not submitted to the will and laws of God. After all, they are doing their job in his name, no? Are we then to allow them to lead other astray?
[b]I don't know if you're really that dense or so bigoted that you can't see clearly. So I'll put it as simply as possible. Who are you, or anyone else, to judge someone as unfit to attend a given church?
The whole issue of whether homosexuality is a sin or not has been discussed at length before so I don't see the need to continue that discussion. We simply do not see the matter in the same way. As I have said, I recognize that those who are have often been persecuted within the church as a result and I do not condone such behavoir. To me, it is just like any other sin we may be talking about. However, just like any other sin, if the leaders are openly engaged or promoting an acitivity I believe scripture prohibits, I have an issue with that.
27 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhen did I say someone was unfit to attend a church?
When did I say someone was unfit to attend a church? I have said that certain religious leaders are unfit if they are not submitted to the will and laws of God. After all, they are doing their job in his name, no? Are we then to allow them to lead other astray?
The whole issue of whether homosexuality is a sin or not has been discussed at length before nly engaged or promoting an acitivity I believe scripture prohibits, I have an issue with that.
As I recall, in an earlier thread you said that you supported a church having by-laws that excluded homosexuals from being leaders or members of their church. Plus you added that you'd "confront" any "openly gay" homosexual in your church. I thinking that this pretty much adds up to judging homosexuals as unfit to attend your church.
I have said that certain religious leaders are unfit if they are not submitted to the will and laws of God. After all, they are doing their job in his name, no? Are we then to allow them to lead other astray?
Sounds like you are saying that you would not allow anyone who continues to commit sin a position of leadership. Somehow I doubt you'd include greed, gluttony, etc.
As I have said, I recognize that those who are have often been persecuted within the church as a result and I do not condone such behavoir.
But you wouldn't allow them membership or a position of leadership. Plus you'd feel compelled to "confront" them. Sounds like persecution to me.
You continue to talk out both sides of your mouth. It's remarkable that you seemingly can't see how your bigotry leads to double standards, hypocrisy, etc. If you're in a position of leadership, I can only hope you take measures to remove yourself.
27 Mar 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou're quite right. Christ's message, in Matt 7.1 and Luke 6.37, is to think charitably of others, difficult though this is. Realistically we can't avoid judging others from time to time, and courts of law must, but we should do so mercifully and with regard to our own shortcomings. It is probably too much for us mere mortals to go as far as loving everyone else, that is, having an attitude of positive, unconditional regard. Jesus was condemning the smugness of the priestly hierarchy.
I was talking to someone the other day about judging other people. When Christ said not to judge lest you be judged, what was he really getting at? After all, when he made railing accusations to the religious leaders of his day that they were hypocrites and a bunch of vipers, was he not being judgemental?
It is my interpretation that what he was really g ...[text shortened]... is due to economic status as well as educational status from what I have observed.
28 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat I said was that those who decide to join a membership to a church are usually told what is expected of them. Specifically, the church I attend openly tells you what they believe and what they stand for and if you decide to join based upon these beliefs you are welcomed to do so. However, if do not embrace their core beliefs you are not encouraged to join. For example, the core beliefs such as Christ being the Son of God who came to die for our sins etc, etc, are core beliefs. If you don't believe in these core beliefs and join what is your objective? Is it to undermine their core belief system? I can only assume this if you join despite these conflicts and then openly defy them. In fact, this goes for other behavior such as any sexual activity outside of marriage, any gossiping/backbiting etc etc. And yes, I have seen examples of other types of sins other than homosexuality that have been dealt with inside the church. In fact, I have seen very few issues with people embracing the homosexual lifestyle within my church as opposed to other types of sinful behavoir. When they are confronted, they are reminded of the agreement they openly and freely made when joining the church and their obligation to abide by it. They then have a choice of recieving correction or rejecting it. If they recieve it, they are by no means asked to step down and are helped in overcoming the bondages of a particular sin, but if they openly defy correction, they are asked to step down from their position within the church. They are then welcomed to attend by no longer have a position of authority within the church. Of course, not all church's operate in this manner and if no such expectations are beforehand made of its members, then I suppose they can behave in any manner they wish with impunity so long as they are not breaking any laws of the state.
[b]When did I say someone was unfit to attend a church?
As I recall, in an earlier thread you said that you supported a church having by-laws that excluded homosexuals from being leaders or members of their church. Plus you added that you'd "confront" any "openly gay" homosexual in your church. I thinking that this pretty much adds up to judging homosexuals as unfit to attend your church.
It is a shame that you are fixated on the issue of homosexuality in regards to this debate. It is obvious to me that you have judged ALL Christians who view it Biblically as sin as being bigoted, homophobic, hypocrites. If so, as Christ once said may you be judged in the same manner in which you judge those Christians.
28 Mar 09
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIt is obvious to me that you have judged ALL Christians who view it Biblically as sin as being bigoted, homophobic, hypocrites.
What I said was that those who decide to join a membership to a church are usually told what is expected of them. Specifically, the church I attend openly tells you what they believe and what they stand for and if you decide to join based upon these beliefs you are welcomed to do so. However, if do not embrace their core beliefs you are not encouraged to jo as Christ once said may you be judged in the same manner in which you judge those Christians.
What shows you to be "bigoted, homophobic and hypocritical" is that you support the exclusion of homosexuals. Unless you support the exclusion of ALL who commit ANY sin, you are JUDGING homosexuality as a sin that makes them "unworthy" of membership in your church despite the sins that you and the members of your church likely continue to commit.
Evidently the meaning of these words is completely lost on you:
" Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
This passage is tailor made for you. If you and your fellow members continue to commit ANY sin, then who are you or your church to judge homosexuals as unfit for membership? "You hypocrite[s], first take the log out of your own eye[s], and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." The reason I am "fixated on the issue of homosexuality in regards to this debate" is because it's issues like this that are exactly what Jesus was trying to address. Jesus also said, "You have ears but cannot hear." Try to set aside your bigotry long enough to actually "hear" the words of Jesus.
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo are you saying that someone who is in an openly adulterous relationship should be allowed to remain in place as a church leader or even a pedophile? I don't think this is your argument because I think we can both agree that this is sinful behavior that should not be promoted by church leaders. I think your only beef is the notion that a homosexual lifestyle is viewed as sinful or am I reading you the wrong way?
[b]It is obvious to me that you have judged ALL Christians who view it Biblically as sin as being bigoted, homophobic, hypocrites.
What shows you to be "bigoted, homophobic and hypocritical" is that you support the exclusion of homosexuals. Unless you support the exclusion of ALL who commit ANY sin, you are JUDGING homosexuality as a sin that makes ...[text shortened]... ry to set aside your bigotry long enough to actually "hear" the words of Jesus.[/b]
28 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI think your only beef is the notion that a homosexual lifestyle is viewed as sinful or am I reading you the wrong way?
So are you saying that someone who is in an openly adulterous relationship should be allowed to remain in place as a church leader or even a pedophile? I don't think this is your argument because I think we can both agree that this is sinful behavior that should not be promoted by church leaders. I think your only beef is the notion that a homosexual lifestyle is viewed as sinful or am I reading you the wrong way?
You're working really hard to be particularly dense about this. I've told you several times what my "beef" is. I even restated it in my last post:
"What shows you to be 'bigoted, homophobic and hypocritical' is that you support the exclusion of homosexuals. Unless you support the exclusion of ALL who commit ANY sin, you are JUDGING homosexuality as a sin that makes them 'unworthy' of membership in your church despite the sins that you and the members of your church likely continue to commit....If you and your fellow members continue to commit ANY sin, then who are you or your church to judge homosexuals as unfit for membership?"
What part of the above don't you understand? For that matter, what part of the passage from Jesus didn't you understand?
When it comes to this "sin" that you're certain that YOU won't commit, YOU judge very harshly - going so far as to exclude them from membership in your church. However, you deem yourself and your fellow members as worthy of membership even though you have sins of your own. Reread the passage from Jesus. He's speaking to you. Open your "ears". "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" What do you think Jesus is saying there? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." Jesus is calling out your hypocrisy.
29 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSetting aside the whole issue of homosexuality for one moment, from this I would gather that you would be in favor of allowing leaders within the church to openly and continually be engaged in sinful behavoir. So what message does this give to the rest of the members? Is it not the message that continuing in sinful behavoir is allowable and should even be expected because we are all "sinners"? When Christ showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery, what was his warning to her? Was it not to go and sin no more? Christ's message was that sin brought people into bondage and that through him we have the power to over come sin, was it not?
[b]I think your only beef is the notion that a homosexual lifestyle is viewed as sinful or am I reading you the wrong way?
You're working really hard to be particularly dense about this. I've told you several times what my "beef" is. I even restated it in my last post:
"What shows you to be 'bigoted, homophobic and hypocritical' is that you sup he speck out of your brother’s eye." Jesus is calling out your hypocrisy.[/b]
29 Mar 09
Originally posted by whodeyI believe it is even simpler than that! I believe we are and will be
I was talking to someone the other day about judging other people. When Christ said not to judge lest you be judged, what was he really getting at? After all, when he made railing accusations to the religious leaders of his day that they were hypocrites and a bunch of vipers, was he not being judgemental?
It is my interpretation that what he was really g ...[text shortened]... is due to economic status as well as educational status from what I have observed.
judged by reality, we setup ourselves by acknowledging sin in others
we lose out defending ourselves for the same behavior. We go after
someone for lying, when we lie we have left ourselves no excuse,
when we complain someone stole from us, we left ourselves no
excuse for when we steal. When ever we demand another act a
specific way, if we are not acting that way we have no excuse. I
believe that Jesus was basically warning us that we really do need
to take care of ourselves first over others, but I don’t think we
need fear for example if our judgments are true, if we live our
talk and walk it out in our lives where we say this is wrong, and
live accordingly that we need fear judgment for ourselves.
Kelly
29 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhy do you continue to ignore what I post and continue to infer things that you have no basis for?
Setting aside the whole issue of homosexuality for one moment, from this I would gather that you would be in favor of allowing leaders within the church to openly and continually be engaged in sinful behavoir. So what message does this give to the rest of the members? Is it not the message that continuing in sinful behavoir is allowable and should even be e ught people into bondage and that through him we have the power to over come sin, was it not?
For one, my post was clearly about MEMBERSHIP. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?
For another, my post clearly states that the issue I am raising is about bigotry and hypocrisy.
Once again, if you only allow leaders that NEVER commit ANY sin whatsoever, then your policy is not hypocritical and does not employ a double standard. If you do allow those who are EVER guilty of greed, gluttony, pride, envy, lust, lying etc., then your policy is hypocritical and employs a double standard. For that matter, if you allow those who have wealth, what kind of message does this give the rest of the members when it clearly goes against the teachings of Jesus?
Why are you being so dense about this?
30 Mar 09
3 edits
Just so I'm being clear, my whole point here is to point out the judgements that Christ aspoused. Specifically, he attacked the religious leaders of his day. In fact, he seemed to do the opposite with the "sinners". So the question is why? I think it is because peolpe need to be able to identify that they have sinned and need redemption/deliverance before they can be helped. As a result, those who believed they did not need such redemption/deliverance were in a worse state than the average sinner. So should we not follow suite as followers of Christ? Just as God desired shepherds for his sheep duing the time of Christ, so to is he looking for some today. So if there is none, where does that leave his lost sheep? Judgement begins at the level Christ initiated it. It begins in the House of God.
It is my belief that Christ attacked these leaders because of their violation of the greatest commandment which was to love God with all your heart and to love your fellow man. According to Christ, these genetlemen were more concerned about their leader status than they were with doing the will of the Father or helping his lost sheep. Their hypocrisy stemmed not from their "sinning", rather, it stemmed from their heart which desired things counter to the will of God. In short, it left them in a perpetual state of sin It all boiled down to the condition of their hearts. This is what I am referring too. The question must be asked, am I following the will of God with all my heart or simply following my own desires/lusts/goals. Of course, not all religious leaders were in the same camp. Clearly, leaders such as Nicademous endevoured to seek the truth above all else. The others, however, had alteriour motives for not seeking the truth. Perhaps it was because they enjoyed the pleasures of a particular sin or perhaps they had a some other self interest reasons for not seeking God above all else.
30 Mar 09
Originally posted by whodeyThey cared more about the views of man than God.
Just so I'm being clear, my whole point here is to point out the judgements that Christ aspoused. Specifically, he attacked the religious leaders of his day. In fact, he seemed to do the opposite with the "sinners". So the question is why? I think it is because peolpe need to be able to identify that they have sinned and need redemption/deliverance before ...[text shortened]... or perhaps they had a some other self interest reasons for not seeking God above all else.
Kelly
30 Mar 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere are a few openly gay members in my church, and they are loved and accepted as children of God. Not all churches exhibit reprehensible behaviour
Believe it or not, there are many "Christians" today who are particularly judgemental towards homosexuals. Somehow they don't see anything wrong with judging homosexuals as unfit to attend their church. Some even proudly declare that they would "confront" any "openly gay" individual about their "sin". What's particularly pathetic is that they wouldn't con ...[text shortened]... 's church? Especially when it is unclear that it's a "sin" to begin with.