Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

wolfsbane · 07-02-2012 10:50pm #1

A fine word, speaking the truth in love! Every sinner should hear this and see what it means to be an authentic Christian.

Indeed, every Christian too, as we can so easily slip into the world's way of thinking.

Thank you, dear sister!

NOTE: The subject she addresses is homosexuality, but all she says applies to every sort of sinner!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHyMGocflrk&feature=share

**************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Morbert · 07-02-2012 11:13pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKOjI1IL7Fo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbQktCccyIA

tommy2bad · 07-02-2012 11:23pm

"Thank you, dear sister!" Walks on and puts pamphlet in bin
So whats the point, homosexuality or sin in general or telling people that they are not Christians?

Nasty lady by the way, couldn't watch to the end. Hate those bible thumping American born again losers. No problem condemning anything that fits their version of sin but cant see whats wrong with prosperity gospel and as to being Christian? Leviticusites is a better name.

RichieC · 07-02-2012 11:36pm

Her first reaction was the correct one imo.

Doc Farrell · 07-02-2012 11:53pm

Atrocious bigotry. Near the end she says that you cannot be gay and be a Christian. If that is your position OP then I am very disappointed with you.

This is the official Catholic position. Of course you can be a Catholic and gay. If you don't believe that then look t up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYW3YQe0Dao&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This entire thread should be merged into the homosexuality thread.

tommy2bad · 08-02-2012 10:49am

Doc Farrell;
Of course you can be a Catholic and gay

Ah but Doc she wouldn't consider catholics Christian.

Benny_Cake · 08-02-2012 6:53pm

When she said that "Even the demons believe that—and shudder" (James 2:19) in response to the notion that a gay person could be a Christian - I shuddered.

There is an excellent film - it's available on Netflix and may be some other places online called "For the Bible Tells Me So". It's basically about gay people from Christian families and how their parents reacted - if you want to see real, true love in action, you should watch it. There is a girl in the movie whose parents think that homosexual behaviour is immoral, but they still love and support their daughter, and although I can't agree with their views on the issue, I can respect their sincere love. Anyway, a clip from the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 7:34pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

"Thank you, dear sister!" Walks on and puts pamphlet in bin
So whats the point, homosexuality or sin in general or telling people that they are not Christians?

Nasty lady by the way, couldn't watch to the end. Hate those bible thumping American born again losers. No problem condemning anything that fits their version of sin but cant see whats wrong with prosperity gospel and as to being Christian? Leviticusites is a better name.

The point is being honest with people about what Christianity actually teaches, and doing it with loving concern.

I see you hate such Christians. We have always been hated, for the same reason. God's way is hateful to the carnal mind, the mind that is ruled and moved by Satan. Christians know that, for we all have been there. Enemies of God in our heart:
Titus 3:3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

You accuse her of having no problem with the prosperity gospel - have you proof of that? I would be very surprised.

*************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 7:43pm

Doc Farrell said:

Atrocious bigotry. Near the end she says that you cannot be gay and be a Christian. If that is your position OP then I am very disappointed with you.

This is the official Catholic position. Of course you can be a Catholic and gay. If you don't believe that then look t up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYW3Y...e_gdata_player

You can be a Christian and have homosexual temptations. But you cannot be a Christian and live as a homosexual, any more than you can as a fornicator, adulterer, paedosexual or any other sort of sinful person.

As to the priest portraying the RCC position, I doubt it. I am no fan of the RCC, but I'm pretty sure they hold to the historic view on homosexuality.

If you can reference any of the RCC official statements on homosexuality, I'll be glad to read them.

This entire thread should be merged into the homosexuality thread

It addresses all sins and those who think they can practice them and still be a Christian. Homosexuality is a big one at the moment. Fornication a closer runner-up.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 7:48pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

When she said that "Even the demons believe that—and shudder" (James 2:19) in response to the notion that a gay person could be a Christian - I shuddered.

There is an excellent film - it's available on Netflix and may be some other places online called "For the Bible Tells Me So". It's basically about gay people from Christian families and how their parents reacted - if you want to see real, true love in action, you should watch it. There is a girl in the movie whose parents think that homosexual behaviour is immoral, but they still love and support their daughter, and although I can't agree with their views on the issue, I can respect their sincere love. Anyway, a clip from the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

True Christians continue to love their wayward children. But they do not support them in their sin. They do not tell them their sin is really not a sin.

They love them enough to tell them the truth.

Let me ask you: if your daughter slept with a new person every week, would you support her in that? Would you tell her It's OK, and God is pleased with you.

************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Morbert · 08-02-2012 7:50pm

Wolfsbane, give me that shovel.

Benny_Cake · 08-02-2012 7:53pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

True Christians continue to love their wayward children. But they do not support them in their sin. They do not tell them their sin is really not a sin.

They love them enough to tell them the truth.

Let me ask you: if your daughter slept with a new person every week, would you support her in that? Would you tell her It's OK, and God is pleased with you.

************************************************************************
[COLOR="Blue"]1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.[/COLOR]

Sleeping around is a choice, be you straight or gay. Being gay isn't a choice - so I don't see the equivalence.

The Quadratic Equation · 08-02-2012 7:55pm

Wolfsbane is right, homosexual or not, sodomy is sodomy, there is no point trying to dress sodomy up any other way. Whatever the laudable aim regarding kindness and understanding, sodomy or other homosexual acts cannot be condoned any more than any other sexually immoral act, unpopular as it may be to say so, this also includes heterosexual sex outside the sanctity of marriage. Just because someone is born with the urge to carry out to certain acts, it does not make the acts ok.

gawker · 08-02-2012 7:59pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me ask you: if your daughter slept with a new person every week, would you support her in that? Would you tell her It's OK, and God is pleased with you.

There is a difference between homosexuality and promiscuity. If you cannot see that difference, then perhaps you should go read a book on the topic and stop talking nonsense.

BTW, Jesus has a message for ya:

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."

(NRSV, Matthew 7:1-5)

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 8:14pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Sleeping around is a choice, be you straight or gay. Being gay isn't a choice - so I don't see the equivalence.

Having sexual temptation is not a choice. How we deal with it is. If one claims they are by nature homosexual that is no different from saying I am by nature selfish, or quick to anger, or given to lustful thoughts.

I have my doubts about much of the 'nature' claims of modern homosexuality. But whether it is by nature or not doesn't change the sinfulness of accepting it.

And I've heard the same claims from paedophiles - 'That's who I am', 'God made me this way', etc. Certainly they err further in that they impose on non-consenting people - but the principle of their sexuality being OK because God made them that way is just the same.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 8:26pm

gawker wrote: »

There is a difference between homosexuality and promiscuity. If you cannot see that difference, then perhaps you should go read a book on the topic and stop talking nonsense.

BTW, Jesus has a message for ya:

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."

(NRSV, Matthew 7:1-5)

Your misuse of Christ's teaching on judging others shows the paucity of your Scriptural knowledge. Christ is speaking of unjust judgement and hypocritical judgement, not judgement per se. That's why He also tells us: John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

And His apostles said:
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Paul commands us to pass judgement on sexual sin, and expel the unrepentant sinner.

***********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Benny_Cake · 08-02-2012 8:36pm

Paul had no knowledge of the modern science in relation to sexual orientation, and nor could he have. Homosexuality, as it is understood today, simply didn't exist in the culture Paul came from, men havng sex with men was associated with prostitution and exploitation, and in any case practically every man would have been married. The idea of 2 men or 2 women living in a committed and monogamous relationship would have been simply inconceivable to Paul. Paul also commanded women to wear veils at worship and commanded people to submit to the civil authorities - people seem to read those passages in the context of the times they were written and the audiences they were intended for.

tommy2bad · 08-02-2012 8:43pm

So your homophobic, we get it.
So 'the bible tell us...' anything it suits our agenda mostly.
I have no idea if God cares one way or the other about homosexuals, He never said. Mosses said and St Paul said but Jesus ?
Love seemed to be the message not self congratulatory bashing of your pet hates.
Anyway can't you just accept that your denomination sees things one way and others can rightly see it differently. Or is being right more important than being Christian?
God ain't as obsessed with our genitalia as we are, He even thought them utilitarian enough to have dual use. Bet man would have designed them differently:p

The Quadratic Equation · 08-02-2012 9:00pm

gawker wrote: »

BTW, Jesus has a message for ya:

He also had a few for you

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” - John 7:24

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” - Luke 17:3

gawker · 08-02-2012 9:07pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your misuse of Christ's teaching on judging others shows the paucity of your Scriptural knowledge. Christ is speaking of unjust judgement and hypocritical judgement, not judgement per se. That's why He also tells us: John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

And His apostles said:
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Paul commands us to pass judgement on sexual sin, and expel the unrepentant sinner.

So, Paul>Jesus?

I mean Jesus obviously said that sitting around judging other people is wrong. That's precisely what you seem to be doing. Jesus also never mentioned homosexuality. Paul said "well, it's okay sometimes." Paul was a man, but you believe Jesus was God. Paul, like all men of his time, had no understanding of human sexuality as there had been no research done and they were primitive times by all accounts - he was a man writing about things from his human perspective.

When you say "Your misuse of Christ's teaching on judging others shows the paucity of your Scriptural knowledge", I say "Your misuse of Paul's writings shows the paucity of your knowledge of human sexuality."

Case in point - Paul clearly thought that the world was about to end in his lifetime. He went sofar as to advice people not to bother getting married anymore because the end times were on their way anyway:

7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

So clearly Paul was a man of his time and not some all-knowing genius.

gawker · 08-02-2012 9:08pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

He also had a few for you

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” - John 7:24

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” - Luke 17:3

Almost seems like a contradiction if you ask me... :rolleyes:

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 9:15pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Paul had no knowledge of the modern science in relation to sexual orientation, and nor could he have. Homosexuality, as it is understood today, simply didn't exist in the culture Paul came from, men havng sex with men was associated with prostitution and exploitation, and in any case practically every man would have been married. The idea of 2 men or 2 women living in a committed and monogamous relationship would have been simply inconceivable to Paul. Paul also commanded women to wear veils at worship and commanded people to submit to the civil authorities - people seem to read those passages in the context of the times they were written and the audiences they were intended for.

Paul spoke from God - it is God's view on homosexuality Paul passes on to us.

Most homosexuals I know today are married, with children. Same in Paul's day. Being free to live openly in a homosexual relationship may be more modern, but it is just as much homosexual to prefer men while using a family for cover.

Paul did indeed command women to cover their heads in worship. That stands today, despite rebellion in many Christian quarters. And submission to governing authorities stands also - the only difference is that in a democracy the people are the voice of God and the authorities rule on their sufferance.

Maybe 'love your enemies' was only meant for that time of material weakness in the Church? When it had the chance to persecute its enemies, it was quite right to do so?

I don't think so.

People should be honest with themselves and others - if they don't like what Christianity teaches they should abandon it and look elsewhere, rather than lying about what its Scripture teaches.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

gawker · 08-02-2012 9:17pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Paul spoke from God - it is God's view on homosexuality Paul passes on to us.

Most homosexuals I know today are married, with children. Same in Paul's day. Being free to live openly in a homosexual relationship may be more modern, but it is just as much homosexual to prefer men while using a family for cover.

Paul did indeed command women to cover their heads in worship. That stands today, despite rebellion in many Christian quarters. And submission to governing authorities stands also - the only difference is that in a democracy the people are the voice of God and the authorities rule on their sufferance.

Maybe 'love your enemies' was only meant for that time of material weakness in the Church? When it had the chance to persecute its enemies, it was quite right to do so?

I don't think so.

People should be honest with themselves and others - if they don't like what Christianity teaches they should abandon it and look elsewhere, rather than lying about what its Scripture teaches.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Was he speaking "from God" when he told people not to bother marrying because the world was going to end in their lifetime anyway?

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 9:29pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

So your homophobic, we get it.
So 'the bible tell us...' anything it suits our agenda mostly.
I have no idea if God cares one way or the other about homosexuals, He never said. Mosses said and St Paul said but Jesus ?
Love seemed to be the message not self congratulatory bashing of your pet hates.
Anyway can't you just accept that your denomination sees things one way and others can rightly see it differently. Or is being right more important than being Christian?
God ain't as obsessed with our genitalia as we are, He even thought them utilitarian enough to have dual use. Bet man would have designed them differently:p

So you're Christophobic, I get it.

Moses and Paul spoke from God. Otherwise we wouldn't treat their words any different from those of Carlyle, or Marx, or Jerry Springer. Jesus sent His apostles to bring the fullness of His word to us - all we need for holy living.

If you read the NT even once, you will see your non-judgemental Jesus is a myth.

My denomination has nothing to do with it. My position on sexuality is common to all the historic denominations. Yours is shared by only those who have departed from the Faith - 'liberals', 'modernists'.

It was God who made an issue of sex outside marriage. Just do a search on 'fornication' or 'sexual immorality' in any Bible. He made sex for one man with one woman, and that is the only acceptable relationship.

**************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 9:40pm

gawker wrote: »

Was he speaking "from God" when he told people not to bother marrying because the world was going to end in their lifetime anyway?

You refer to the passage:
1 Corinthians 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.

29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.

32 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord.

Paul did not teach that the world was going to end in their lifetime. He knew no one knew the time. Only that it was coming. He knew the gospel had to reach every nation; that Antichrist had to arise and persecute the Church. That could happen in a generation. Or it might take a thousand years. Or more. Only God the Father knows.

But the Church was in distress through persecution even as Paul spoke. His point was that being married carried with it responsibilities and concerns. The single Christian could be free of those, able to devote him/herself to God's work.

But he gave no commandment for them not to marry. Indeed, if they were having trouble with their sexual desires, he commanded them to marry:
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Doc Farrell · 08-02-2012 9:59pm

There are tens of thousands of men and women in single sex relationships on this island. Their interests are; who is cooking, who is cleaning up, who is feeding the cat, who is taking out the bins.

They will continue to live their lives, paying taxes, traveling, suffering, dying and paying for the funerals of their partners.

The obsession in this thread with sodomy, sexual acts, fornication, call it whatever you want is truely depressing. That I have spent this much time reading such self righteous hateful judgmental fundamentalism is something I should be ashamed of.

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a loving relationship and a sexual act is dangerous.

Please merge this attention seeking thread with the homosexuality thread.

The Quadratic Equation · 08-02-2012 10:02pm

gawker wrote: »

Almost seems like a contradiction if you ask me...

Not if you look at the bible as whole, as you're meant to, scripture explains scripture.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 10:38pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

There are tens of thousands of men and women in single sex relationships on this island. Their interests are; who is cooking, who is cleaning up, who is feeding the cat, who is taking out the bins.

They will continue to live their lives, paying taxes, traveling, suffering, dying and paying for the funerals of their partners.

The obsession in this thread with sodomy, sexual acts, fornication, call it whatever you want is truely depressing. That I have spent this much time reading such self righteous hateful judgmental fundamentalism is something I should be ashamed of.

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a loving relationship and a sexual act is dangerous.

Please merge this attention seeking thread with the homosexuality thread.

If you don't like to discuss homosexuality, why not discuss the other sins mentioned? It is the issue of endorsing sin in the name of Christianity I am concerned with.

I'm all for loving relationships between men and between women, and between men and women. Christians are commanded to love one another, as Christ loved them. But sexual love is another matter. The only proper expression of that, whether it involves physical acts or not, is between an man and a woman. The only proper fulfilment of it (sexual intercourse) is in heterosexual marriage.

That's what The Bible says. That's what the Church has always taught. Calling it judgemental fundamentalism is just non-historical nonsense. If folk don't like it, they should not claim to be Christians.

*******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

tommy2bad · 08-02-2012 10:38pm

wolfsbane pronounced;

My denomination has nothing to do with it. My position on sexuality is common to all the historic denominations. Yours is shared by only those who have departed from the Faith - 'liberals', 'modernists'.

Dear God! how hard is it for you to realize that tolerance is not some liberal, modernist, wishy-washy PC ideal but one of the healthier, hardheaded and more pragmatic approaches to the real world.
Not my denominations idea btw just how I see the world.

tommy2bad · 08-02-2012 10:45pm

Wolfsbane;
It is the issue of endorsing sin in the name of Christianity I am concerned with.

Well why didn't you say so?
OK lets see how that works then. Do we declare all who sin excommunicated? Do we decide who and who is not Christian rather than the usual thing of deciding what is and is not Christian?
By all means declare your tenants and rules but if someone says they dont agree then tell them not in my church you don't. Going around crying heretic or apostate or sinner isn't helping anyone.

georgieporgy · 08-02-2012 10:47pm

if a person called a spade a spade would he be accused of being obsessed with gardening?

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 10:48pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Dear God! how hard is it for you to realize that tolerance is not some liberal, modernist, wishy-washy PC ideal but one of the healthier, hardheaded and more pragmatic approaches to the real world.
Not my denominations idea btw just how I see the world.

Tolerance of sin is not a virtue. I'm sure you don't tolerate what you regard as crimes. You don't even seem to keen to tolerate Christians like myself.

In other words, you tolerate anything that doesn't conflict with your life. Which rules out God and His word.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

tommy2bad · 08-02-2012 10:56pm

georgieporgy wrote: »

if a person called a spade a spade would he be accused of being obsessed with gardening?

Definitely, unless he called it a bloody shovel then he's a toolist.;)

Now back to the matter in hand, Wolfsbane;

You don't even seem to keen to tolerate Christians like myself.

Ah but I do tolerate you and other as daft, even Mormons. Toleration isn't agreement, its agreeing to differ. As to tolerating sin not being a virtue, I think that applies to yourself first: motes in eyes and planks an all that.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 11:10pm

tommy2bad said:

Well why didn't you say so?

I did. From my opening post:
NOTE: The subject she addresses is homosexuality, but all she says applies to every sort of sinner!

OK lets see how that works then. Do we declare all who sin excommunicated?

Yes, if they refuse to repent of their sin:
1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Of course, one cannot excommunicate the heathen, since they are not members of the Church in the first place. God deals with them.

Do we decide who and who is not Christian

Only as far as their doctrine and practice permit it. They might be heathens in their heart and pretend to be the best of Christians.

rather than the usual thing of deciding what is and is not Christian?

The Church does both. We can say Mormonism is not Christian - that's a 'what'. But we can also say a Mormon is not a Christian, based on his espousal of Mormon doctrine - that's a 'who'.

By all means declare your tenants and rules but if someone says they dont agree then tell them not in my church you don't. Going around crying heretic or apostate or sinner isn't helping anyone.

The Church is called to clearly identify what is and what is not Christian doctrine and practice - especially in the face of the claims to be Christian from those plainly in conflict with basic Christian doctrine and practice.

It isn't helping anyone to muddy the water of truth. That's what the liberals and modernists are doing.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane · 08-02-2012 11:17pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Now back to the matter in hand, Wolfsbane;
Ah but I do tolerate you and other as daft, even Mormons. Toleration isn't agreement, its agreeing to differ. As to tolerating sin not being a virtue, I think that applies to yourself first: motes in eyes and planks an all that.

I'm sorry then, I must have read too much into your comment: Hate those bible thumping American born again losers.

It does indeed apply to myself first. To walk with Christ I must be intolerant with any sinful thought, never mind the word or deed that would arise from it.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

philologos · 08-02-2012 11:40pm

Excommunication is a strange term to use. I would simply say that if one is going to accept God one must also accept that His ways are best. Rejecting his ways and living instead for ourselves also to some degree means rejecting God. That applies to every sin, that's why as Christians we're on a journey to try and reject sin and glorify God fully in every single thing that we do.

I agree with wolfsbane in this respect. Living for Jesus does mean forsaking our own selfish desires and focusing on Him.

tommy2bad · 09-02-2012 1:59am

Wolfsbane;
I'm sorry then, I must have read too much into your comment: Hate those bible thumping American born again losers.

Indeed, hyperbole can be a weapon of self destruction.

philologos;
Rejecting his ways and living instead for ourselves also to some degree means rejecting God.

Cant disagree, of course I'm going to anyway just to be contrary

Rejecting God has to be more than just disagreeing with what someone else tell you the scriptures mean. I can read it myself and come to my own conclusions, no?
Hope you see the irony in a protestant objecting to this one.
Isn't the whole point of being right with God being in a relationship with Him, not just personally but the whole church. Relationships change, the way I treat my children changes as they grow and become adults. Is it not possible for what God commands to also change? In fact it the most used explanation for the inconsistency in the bible.
Some on will come along with the chapter and verse (I hope) I cant recall it now, that specifically describes the laws and rules this way?
Dose the restriction on women priests still hold? Are the CoE now not a Christian denomination? Or are their specific things that can never change and things that can change? How about Papal infallibility? (rhetorical question, lets not go their)
My point is that somehow we are left with living in the world now with an instruction manual written for 2000 years ago, a bit like trying to run Win7 with an old 3.1 manual, lots still applies but so much is missing.

lmaopml · 09-02-2012 2:12am

No God never changes Tommy. Them's the rules....there are good things and bad things.

There are no entirely 'good' people or entirely 'bad' people imo though, and all sins are bad, everybody has a struggle, the Catholic, Protestant, Gay, Straight, Mother, Father etc. etc. person are no different in sin, except in how they express their relationship or no with Christ, and how much that means.... the biggest rule of all is to love God and your neighbour as yourself, no matter whom, no matter their choices, no matter what, most likely they are aware of the rules themselves too and are hurting and doing their best - and the best example imo is to live a Christian life with a smile ear to ear ( but not a freaky one :P) that actually shows Christ inside.

Wolfe is right though - as much as the Gay person who feels shyte or indignant about being aware that the action is contrary to God - they are no different to me who is contrary every single day of the week numerous times over. They are my brother and sister - we all have something, there aint nobody special or especially without sin.

Sonics2k · 09-02-2012 2:30am

I'm sorry, did I just see wolfsbane claim that Homosexuality is the same as Paedophilia, and wasn't red carded for that outrageous and disgusting comment?

Benny_Cake · 09-02-2012 7:37am

lmaopml wrote: »

No God never changes Tommy. Them's the rules....there are good things and bad things.

There are no entirely 'good' people or entirely 'bad' people imo though, and all sins are bad, everybody has a struggle, the Catholic, Protestant, Gay, Straight, Mother, Father etc. etc. person are no different in sin, except in how they express their relationship or no with Christ, and how much that means.... the biggest rule of all is to love God and your neighbour as yourself, no matter whom, no matter their choices, no matter what, most likely they are aware of the rules themselves too and are hurting and doing their best - and the best example imo is to live a Christian life with a smile ear to ear ( but not a freaky one :P) that actually shows Christ inside.

Wolfe is right though - as much as the Gay person who feels shyte or indignant about being aware that the action is contrary to God - they are no different to me who is contrary every single day of the week numerous times over. They are my brother and sister - we all have something, there aint nobody special or especially without sin.

I can respect where your coming from, and there isn't a whole lot to disagree with in your post. OK, maybe a little!

I think the reason that the debate over homosexuality is so intense is because most people have come to accept that it's something that a person doesn't choose. Now one can argue that being homosexual isn't the problem, just homosexual acts, but the problem is that a person's sexual orientation is something inbuilt, it will be close to impossible for them to be a whole, complete person if something which is so natural and intrinsic to them can never find expression.

Now I haven't mentioned scripture yet. Phil is right in one sense - it is part of human nature to look for loopholes that we can use to justify our wrongdoing. I'm sure I do it all the time. My knowledge of scripture is limited compared to most of the posters here. I'm not a biblical literalist and I try to read the Bible with what it would have meant to the audience at the time in mind - and it's no less inspiring and challenging as a result. I also don't believe that science and scripture have to clash. As such I truly believe that it would be possible for a gay person in a committed relationship to be a genuine follower of Christ.

philologos · 09-02-2012 7:56am

I feel a discussion on women in ministry deserves a new topic if you want to discuss it.

As for the CofE, and other Anglican churches, I believe there are huge difficulties in the Anglican communion right now. I believe that in many churches the Gospel is being compromised.

There isn't enough emphasis on Scripture in many churches, and on personal acceptance of Jesus, which means laying down our sinful nature and living and speaking for Jesus in our daily lives. It's a challenge, but it's clearly what we've been called to do.

PDN · 09-02-2012 8:32am

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry, did I just see wolfsbane claim that Homosexuality is the same as Paedophilia, and wasn't red carded for that outrageous and disgusting comment?

I don't think you did, I looked back through the thread and saw no such claim. However, if you think you did then use the Reported Post button.

But other posters saw you induldging in backseat modding you weren't yellow carded. Next time please address any questions about modding via PM. Understood?

tommy2bad · 09-02-2012 10:34am

philologos;
There isn't enough emphasis on Scripture in many churches, and on personal acceptance of Jesus, which means laying down our sinful nature and living and speaking for Jesus in our daily lives. It's a challenge, but it's clearly what we've been called to do.

Remove the bit in blue and I agree, Define the bit in red and we all agree.
I have trouble with terms like 'sinful nature' gets too close to complete depravity and worse, implies dualism.
I know I brought them up but lets not do another women priests or papal infallibility thread oh and scriptural interpretation should be buried too but its at the heart of this discussion. Not so much how this time but what and when.

gawker · 09-02-2012 4:50pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have my doubts about much of the 'nature' claims of modern homosexuality. But whether it is by nature or not doesn't change the sinfulness of accepting it.

And I've heard the same claims from paedophiles - 'That's who I am', 'God made me this way', etc. Certainly they err further in that they impose on non-consenting people - but the principle of their sexuality being OK because God made them that way is just the same.

This seems like a clear attempt to compare homoexuality and paedophilia to be honest, PDN. Sure, it could be a coincidence but this is a card often played against gay people.

PDN · 09-02-2012 5:20pm

gawker wrote: »

This seems like a clear attempt to compare homoexuality and paedophilia to be honest, PDN. Sure, it could be a coincidence but this is a card often played against gay people.

Go and look up reductio ad absurdum on Wikipedia, then move to the bottom of the class.

Wolfsbane used a perfectly understandable logical device to demonstrate how illogical is to claim that an action must be morally OK if it comes naturally to us. He took an example that is so wicked that none of us would call it moral (paedophilia) and demonstrated that there are those who say they are 'born that way'.

Reductio as absurdum only works as a logical device when you are not equating the two things. You are using an extreme example to demonstrate the bad logic that sounds plausible to some people (usually those incapable of thinking analytically) when used to justify something less extreme.

It really depresses me when reductio ad absurdum is used in a debate and someone cries out "Ah, you're equating homosexuality with paedophilia!" I can't decide if this is a dishonest tactic to obscure the logical point made, or whether our education system really is churning out people who can't think clearly.

Here's another example of the same kind of thing.

Person A: "You'll enjoy lemon juice poured over your potatoes because lemon juice is yellow."
Person B: "Not necessarily, urine is yellow - but I wouldn't like that poured over my potatoes."
Person A: "So you're equating lemon juice with urine?"
Person B: "Beam me up, Scotty!"

Zombrex · 09-02-2012 6:59pm

gawker wrote: »

This seems like a clear attempt to compare homoexuality and paedophilia to be honest, PDN. Sure, it could be a coincidence but this is a card often played against gay people.

It is not comparing the two, it is pointing out that the excuses for homosexual behavior (I was born this way, it is natural, i can't help it, it is not a choice, I can't change who I am) have no baring on the morality of homosexual actions. This fact is demonstrated by replacing homosexuality with something that is considered immoral by all (in this example pedophile) and highlighting that if you applied all the same excuses that still wouldn't make pedophile actions moral.

Or to put it another way, take a sentence such as

I was born a homosexual, I cannot change that it is who I am it is not a choice therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong.

and simply replace the word "homosexual" with "pedophile"

I was born a pedophile, I cannot change that, it is who I am, it is not a choice therefore pedophilia cannot be wrong.

Now, is pedophilia considered morally acceptable because of any of those reasons? No, of course not. Being born a pedophile has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't moral to have sexual relations with children.

So why would it make homosexuality moral? In reality it has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is or isn't moral, any more than it does with pedophilia.

Lets try another

Homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Infanticide is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Does that mean infanticide is therefore moral? Nope, how wide spread infanticide is in nature is irrelevant to the question of whether it is moral. Thus it must also be irrelevant to the question of the morality of homosexuality.

This is a very common method of highlighting the weakness of an argument in support of something. Any argument for the morality of homosexuality that would also require that pedophile, murder, arson, child battery, infanticide etc etc also be considered moral is obviously flawed.

People need to get straight why they think homosexuality is moral (which to me is blindingly simply, it is a freely chosen consensual choice to be in a homosexual relationship which can be done in a healthy safe manner, so why would it be immoral) and base their reasoning of such first principles. The answer is actually far simpler than a lot of people make out. Huge problems arise when people try and marry Christianity with homosexuality, personally I think this is ridiculous. Homosexuality is demonstrably not a bad thing, to me Christianity proclaiming it is the equivalent of proclaiming the Sun goes around the Earth. You don't try and marry modern understanding with such an idea, you simple say the people who came up with the idea have no idea what they are talking about and reject it. Simples.

philologos · 09-02-2012 8:30pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Remove the bit in blue and I agree, Define the bit in red and we all agree.
I have trouble with terms like 'sinful nature' gets too close to complete depravity and worse, implies dualism.
I know I brought them up but lets not do another women priests or papal infallibility thread oh and scriptural interpretation should be buried too but its at the heart of this discussion. Not so much how this time but what and when.

Remove the bit in blue? - You mean my main point. I guess I should ask why do you disagree with what is in blue.

The bit in red is a statement of reality. It's not dualistic at all. Human nature is inclined towards sin. I believe in total depravity. We've rejected God and sinned against Him, we need to be saved from sin.

The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.

Biblically speaking, it's true to suggest that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

philologos · 09-02-2012 8:39pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Cant disagree, of course I'm going to anyway just to be contrary
Rejecting God has to be more than just disagreeing with what someone else tell you the scriptures mean. I can read it myself and come to my own conclusions, no?
Hope you see the irony in a protestant objecting to this one.

There's no irony at all. Reformed Christianity doesn't suggest that everyone is right, or that every interpretation is equally valid. If we are to believe that God exists, and that there is objective truth, we must also agree that there is objective truth about Him, no matter how difficult we find it.

To say that every opinion about Christianity is true, is a form of postmodernism. I wouldn't suggest that all.

For example.
If proposition A is the belief that Jesus Christ is Lord.
And proposition B is the belief that Jesus Christ is not Lord.
It is very easy to see that both positions cannot be objectively true as B is really proposition not A.

If God is real there's something true out there independent of opinion. If as Christianity describes, that we will be brought before Jesus in judgement then we'll find out what is true and what is false. I don't believe the Bible is so unclear that we can't understand it though.

gawker · 09-02-2012 9:18pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not comparing the two, it is pointing out that the excuses for homosexual behavior (I was born this way, it is natural, i can't help it, it is not a choice, I can't change who I am) have no baring on the morality of homosexual actions. This fact is demonstrated by replacing homosexuality with something that is considered immoral by all (in this example pedophile) and highlighting that if you applied all the same excuses that still wouldn't make pedophile actions moral.

Or to put it another way, take a sentence such as

I was born a homosexual, I cannot change that it is who I am it is not a choice therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong.

and simply replace the word "homosexual" with "pedophile"

I was born a pedophile, I cannot change that, it is who I am, it is not a choice therefore pedophilia cannot be wrong.

Now, is pedophilia considered morally acceptable because of any of those reasons? No, of course not. Being born a pedophile has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't moral to have sexual relations with children.

So why would it make homosexuality moral? In reality it has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is or isn't moral, any more than it does with pedophilia.

Lets try another

Homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Infanticide is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Does that mean infanticide is therefore moral? Nope, how wide spread infanticide is in nature is irrelevant to the question of whether it is moral. Thus it must also be irrelevant to the question of the morality of homosexuality.

This is a very common method of highlighting the weakness of an argument in support of something. Any argument for the morality of homosexuality that would also require that pedophile, murder, arson, child battery, infanticide etc etc also be considered moral is obviously flawed.

People need to get straight why they think homosexuality is moral (which to me is blindingly simply, it is a freely chosen consensual choice to be in a homosexual relationship which can be done in a healthy safe manner, so why would it be immoral) and base their reasoning of such first principles. The answer is actually far simpler than a lot of people make out. Huge problems arise when people try and marry Christianity with homosexuality, personally I think this is ridiculous. Homosexuality is demonstrably not a bad thing, to me Christianity proclaiming it is the equivalent of proclaiming the Sun goes around the Earth. You don't try and marry modern understanding with such an idea, you simple say the people who came up with the idea have no idea what they are talking about and reject it. Simples.

I take your point. However, I do think if you are going to draw similarities between things (in this case, being Biblically immoral) then you should draw fair comparisons. I do not think acting on paedophilia and acting on homosexuality are comparable. The poster could have said "If somebody covets something, that's a natural instinct but that is no excuse." However, they chose paedophilia as an example and I guess it's up to the reader if that was just a chance winner from all the possible examples they could have used or not.

Morbert · 09-02-2012 10:01pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Whatever the laudable aim regarding kindness and understanding, sodomy or other homosexual acts cannot be condoned any more than any other sexually immoral act, unpopular as it may be to say so, this also includes heterosexual sex outside the sanctity of marriage. Just because someone is born with the urge to carry out to certain acts, it does not make the acts ok.

Therein lies the rub. Mainstream Christian theology maintains that Homosexual commitment, not just sex, is illegitimate. While people are free to pull the "God doesn't have to explain Himself" card, much of Christian morality resonates with the overall narrative of God saving us from ourselves. Even opposition to sex outside of marriage fits their narrative. But the refusal to acknowledge homosexual bonds sticks out like a sore thumb, as an arbitrary rule, or a rule reflecting the ignorance of people thousands of years ago.

tommy2bad · 09-02-2012 10:11pm

philologos wrote: »

Remove the bit in blue? - You mean my main point. I guess I should ask why do you disagree with what is in blue.

The bit in red is a statement of reality. It's not dualistic at all. Human nature is inclined towards sin. I believe in total depravity. We've rejected God and sinned against Him, we need to be saved from sin.

Biblically speaking, it's true to suggest that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

I don't think their is a lack of emphasis in most churches, scripture is read every Sunday and taught in faith preparation. I think some Christians use the bible as a tool to bash other Christians each claiming to be more biblical than the other.
I reject TULIP Calvinism as heresy, total depravity isn't even scriptural. We disagree. See how if we could define scripture exactly then we would all agree?
I guess irony is lost on you then.
By no means do I say each and every interpretation is right but as to which one is right or more right? You claim the bible is the last word on whats right and others say we have to use the bible in the light of tradition, Me I'l settle for we all do our best and trust in the mercy of God.

Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Comments