Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Zombrex · 14-02-2012 2:55pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

Would you care if he did?

I have to agree with the Christians on this one, I'm sort of at a loss why people are getting so offended.

For a start it is difficult to believe everyone here didn't already know that Christianity considered homosexual acts to be sinful. So the idea that someone would be offended by that commonly known fact simply being repeated seems silly.

Also a very simply solution to finding Christian doctrine illogical or repulsive is to not be a Christian.

It seems though that people not only don't want to believe this stuff, but they want Christians to stop believing it as well. That is also some what silly.

There are anti-homosexual movements within Christianity that attempt to impose Christian notions of sexual purity on others despite not having grounds within the standard modern notions of what justifies civil restrictions (ie is it harming anyone). These movements should be fought against.

But people seem to be taking offense at the very existence of Christianity and the beliefs. People don't need to respect them, but are people honestly offended by their existences? Why would anyone care that much?

JimiTime · 14-02-2012 3:46pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

@JimiTime - We'll have to wait til he posts again for clarification - it's what I took from his posts.

No problem.

I am not opposed to the idea that some experience change in their attraction but those examples are few and far between in my experience

Fair enough, but thats no reason to dismiss those who testify to such a thing I'm sure you'd agree? Especially in the venomous manner many do.

My point is the church can be a cold place for those struggling with this issue,

Any group claiming to be Christian who decides that certain sinners are unwelcome, are not Christian thats for sure. Equally, any group that claims to be Christian who affirms a persons sin is also not Christian. This is the crux of it. Not affirmational inclusion but transformational inclusion! THAT is what Jesus thought. We all need to be transformed in Christ and repent, but if the leaders of our churches tell us that our particular sin is ok, it really betrays our spiritual welfare and what Christ thought us.

SonOfAdam · 14-02-2012 4:27pm

^^^ It's an emotive issue for sure - people naturally want others to validate their lifestyles - when they fail to do so immediate incredulity and outrage follows.

JimiTime wrote:

Not affirmational inclusion but transformational inclusion!

I agree.

Morbert · 14-02-2012 4:48pm

philologos wrote: »

It's amazing how bitter and hostile this gets.

I believe that God was right about sexuality, and I'm quite happy to get into a discussion as to the benefits of a Christian approach to sexuality. Simply put, I disagree with the perspective currently put across by many LGBT activists, and indeed many heterosexual people who choose to live contrary to God's standards concerning sexuality.

I will happily get into this discussion too.

It is generally accepted that the Bible opposes the homosexual lifestyle, as I'm sure you will agree. My question is why. Is it a decree from God, without any explanation or motive exhibited? Or do you believe God's objection to the homosexual lifestyle can be understood in the context of mental and physical well-being, just as we can understand why God opposes stealing, murdering and paedophilia.

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 5:16pm

Morbert wrote: »

I will happily get into this discussion too.

It is generally accepted that the Bible opposes the homosexual lifestyle, as I'm sure you will agree. My question is why. Is it a decree from God, without any explanation or motive exhibited? Or do you believe God's objection to the homosexual lifestyle can be understood in the context of mental and physical well-being, just as we can understand why God opposes stealing, murdering and paedophilia.

Seems it something to do with the theology of marriage and what that means in a Christian context. The trouble with that is that theology is man made, a sort of guessing game as to how God's intentions play out in the real world.
They screwed up with slavery and IMNSHO are screwing up on this one as well.

As to why people would be offended by the churches attitude to anything, they don't. Its when 'my way or the highway' becomes the argument that people tend to get hostile.
People get offended when an aggressive tone is used. Forthright or direct is one thing but words carry an emotional charge and some people fail to allow for this.

Doc Farrell · 14-02-2012 5:32pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

Would you care if he did?

I have to agree with the Christians on this one, I'm sort of at a loss why people are getting so offended.

For a start it is difficult to believe everyone here didn't already know that Christianity considered homosexual acts to be sinful. So the idea that someone would be offended by that commonly known fact simply being repeated seems silly.

Also a very simply solution to finding Christian doctrine illogical or repulsive is to not be a Christian.

It seems though that people not only don't want to believe this stuff, but they want Christians to stop believing it as well. That is also some what silly.

There are anti-homosexual movements within Christianity that attempt to impose Christian notions of sexual purity on others despite not having grounds within the standard modern notions of what justifies civil restrictions (ie is it harming anyone). These movements should be fought against.

But people seem to be taking offense at the very existence of Christianity and the beliefs. People don't need to respect them, but are people honestly offended by their existences? Why would anyone care that much?

Of course I'm interested because he's one of the less reactionary posters here. There seem to be few on here, including your self who are familiar with the attempts in Catholicism to drop the condemnation and attempt a little inclusivity. I don't have the time or interest in going into it here so instead here's a little article about what Jesus actually said about gay people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/elizabeth-cunningham/what-were-jesus-views-on_b_554230.html

Zombrex if you honestly think that the catholic church is the same now as it was a hundred years ago or in the middle ages then there's nothing left to say.

Zombrex · 14-02-2012 5:45pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Of course I'm interested because he's one of the less reactionary posters here. There seem to be few on here, including your self who are familiar with the attempts in Catholicism to drop the condemnation and attempt a little inclusivity.

Why though would you want the Catholic church, or any Christian church, to be more inclusive? If you don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, why would you want to be a Catholic? Why would anyone?

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 6:24pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Why though would you want the Catholic church, or any Christian church, to be more inclusive? If you don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, why would you want to be a Catholic? Why would anyone?

Because you believe and accept the core message, it's the little nuances that have to be sorted out.
Also a faith isn't a static thing it a living, growing and evolving understanding of
our relationship with God. Its not a social club.

PDN · 14-02-2012 6:53pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Because you believe and accept the core message,

Like the Bible being God's revelation to man?

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 8:16pm

PDN wrote: »

Like the Bible being God's revelation to man?

Define revelation?
I don't think anyone sees the bible as a list of commands and strictures. It's a record of a peoples relationship with God. Told in poetry, myth, song and story.
It contains things that are relevant to us now and things that are irrelevant.
It's not and never was intended to be read as anything other than a record.
Theirs a strain of Christianity that seeks certainty so it try s to nail everything down to; this is, that isn't, no shades of gray.

Doc Farrell · 14-02-2012 10:42pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Of course I'm interested because he's one of the less reactionary posters here. There seem to be few on here, including your self who are familiar with the attempts in Catholicism to drop the condemnation and attempt a little inclusivity.

Why though would you want the Catholic church, or any Christian church, to be more inclusive? If you don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, why would you want to be a Catholic? Why would anyone?

I'm very sorry zombrex but I can't discuss this at the moment. A couple of quick points, 100 years ago a Jesuit theologian was refused a Catholic burial because of what he wrote. I found that story extraordinarily sad and I'm glad we are moving away from that kind of thinking.
I personally would be considered a liberal catholic but fundamentally I believe in a supernatural dimension to reality because of a couple of experiences I have had so I don't have much of a problem anymore believing in the Resurrection.
I genuinely think that Catholicism has been a source of goodness to the poor in education, medicine, social concerns. I also believe that the sins committed by the church has caused its own implosion and that this was a necessary and eventually an incredibly revitalising step.
On this particular subject, homosexuality, the key word is dignity. You cannot show compassion without believing that all people deserve dignity, rich and poor, straight and queer. All deserve equal dignity.
The church moves at a glacial pace, if you are genuinely interested in my views I would be happy to discuss any subject with you here. There are many diverging views within church hierarchy, as Vatican II highlighted 50 years ago, but fundamentally the central teaching of Compassion is shared by all and also believed in by me.
In 50 years the world will have changed greatly and the church will have opened up to married priests, women priests and gay weddings, well maybe 100 years, and we will look back at the turn of the 21st century as the end of male dominated church.
And I hope that there will also be respect for old fashioned subjects such as celibacy, Latin and Greek, incense, rituals and most importantly that commonly mocked subject, the supernatural.
That in a nutshell is why I have returned to and deeply admire the many wonderful people (and the odd nutter) who make up the Catholic church.

Zombrex · 15-02-2012 9:02am

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I'm very sorry zombrex but I can't discuss this at the moment.

Fair enough.

Zombrex · 15-02-2012 9:06am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Because you believe and accept the core message, it's the little nuances that have to be sorted out.

The core message being that God exists and has a correct way he wants humans to live their lives and an incorrect way that will result in righteous punishment? And that this is revealed through the Bible? And includes homosexual acts as a sin?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Also a faith isn't a static thing it a living, growing and evolving understanding of
our relationship with God. Its not a social club.

Yes you can believe anything you like. You can believe in Zeus for all I care. What I don't get is why anyone would take a religious group that has a defined set of beliefs and then demand that that religious group change those core beliefs in order to be more inclusive to those that don't actually share those beliefs.

Zombrex · 15-02-2012 9:07am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Define revelation?
I don't think anyone sees the bible as a list of commands and strictures. It's a record of a peoples relationship with God. Told in poetry, myth, song and story.
It contains things that are relevant to us now and things that are irrelevant.
It's not and never was intended to be read as anything other than a record.
Theirs a strain of Christianity that seeks certainty so it try s to nail everything down to; this is, that isn't, no shades of gray.

Do you believe in sin? Do you believe that unrepentant sinners will face hell? If you don't personally believe in sin do you accept that it is a core concept in most Christian denominations including Catholism?

PDN · 15-02-2012 9:21am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Define revelation?

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:1-3)

"Scripture cannot be set aside" (John 10:35)

Revelation is where God shows Himself and His will to mankind. It is, by definition, a one-way communication. Man does not try to search out God's will by his own logic or reasoning. God reveals His will to us because otherwise we could not know it.

I don't think anyone sees the bible as a list of commands and strictures. It's a record of a peoples relationship with God. Told in poetry, myth, song and story.
It contains things that are relevant to us now and things that are irrelevant.
It's not and never was intended to be read as anything other than a record.

The Bible is a record, but it is also a call to follow God. Not to follow some made-up god that fits with our personal whims, but to follow the real God who has revealed Himself.

If the Bible is a record, then that does not give us the option of picking and choosing those parts of the record that we like and rejecting the bits that make us uncomfortable.

Theirs a strain of Christianity that seeks certainty so it try s to nail everything down to; this is, that isn't, no shades of gray.

And there's a strain of 'Christianity' which tries to argue that black is really white.

tommy2bad · 15-02-2012 4:14pm

PDN wrote: »

Revelation is where God shows Himself and His will to mankind. It is, by definition, a one-way communication. Man does not try to search out God's will by his own logic or reasoning. God reveals His will to us because otherwise we could not know it.

And there's a strain of 'Christianity' which tries to argue that black is really white.

Theirs a certain irony in that bit

No one is saying black is white, we might say not as black as you think though.
This is one of those 'bible believing Christian' v Christian things. How you read the bible will always claim to be the right way and the other guy will be an idolater. The joke is the insult will come from both sides.

Benny_Cake · 15-02-2012 6:13pm

It's 16 years old at this point, but there is a transcript of an interesting discussion / debate here between the Baptist pastor Tony Campolo and his wife, Peggy, in relation to this issue (he believes gay men and women are called to celibacy, she believes that gay marriage is permissible). It helped me to understand the issue a little better anyway.

Zombrex · 16-02-2012 12:09am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs a certain irony in that bit

No one is saying black is white, we might say not as black as you think though.
This is one of those 'bible believing Christian' v Christian things. How you read the bible will always claim to be the right way and the other guy will be an idolater. The joke is the insult will come from both sides.

What is a non-bible-believing Christian?

lmaopml · 16-02-2012 1:01am

Zombrex wrote: »

What is a non-bible-believing Christian?

True.

However, I do believe that our brothers, sisters, cousins etc. etc. who identify as gay are more than worthy to thread the path, just so long as they know where the bar is set - just like me, who falls short many times over. They deserve as much hairy eyeball as I would receive as a heterosexual who is finding my way too, and falls below it, always will and looks to Christ - nobody is beyond the borders of looking to Christ for mercy.

They shouldn't be told 'bad you' or 'those crazy Christians, look elsewhere' if connection with Jesus is what they desire, because he is always waiting, always, and willing to change a heart any moment, and knows every single one.

They are no different to anybody else imo that falls short and doesn't even realise it in so many ways.

However, yes, the 'bar' is set, no point in moving it or even trying, it's immoveable, it's set in something stronger than stone, so yes you are committing a sin, yes so am I when I act contrary to God everyday; imo, the emphasis should be on not only the 'sin' every single person commits, but moreso on growing in a relationship and faith in Christ - everything else is secondary and comes naturally to it.

'Daniel' is a name that I love; it means 'God is my Judge' - it also signifies 'Daniel in the Lions Den' -

This is the lions den, and yes, God is Judge. However, sin is sin, but his mercy is boundless and anybody who seeks companionship with him no matter how tricky the road will be judged accordingly, there are no perfect stone throwers here.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:30am

Zombrex wrote: »

What is a non-bible-believing Christian?

Their you go, its not my phrase.
I wonder if this is a pond thing? Americans tend to be about 'in' and 'out' more than we do, so her 'not a Christian' comment may not mean what I think it means. She may mean good Christian more than non Christian.

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 1:31am

lmaopml wrote: »

They are no different to anybody else imo that falls short and doesn't even realise it in so many ways.

A person who realises its sinful and struggles with it is indeed no different to any of us who struggle against sins clutches. The issue with homosexuality that sets it apart though, is the campaign to have it affirmed as ok, and NOT sinful. A homosexual person who accepts Christ and recognises their sin, should be treated no differently to anyone else in Christ. However, anyone trying to claim to be a brother or sister while at the same time trying to have what God has condemned, affirmed as ok should be met with strong opposition in the Church. I think thats the REAL issue for Christians in relation to homosexuality.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:34am

Some homophobic withered;
The issue with homosexuality that sets it apart though, is the campaign to have it affirmed as ok,

Homosexuality is not a sin. Get over it.

Zombrex · 16-02-2012 1:45am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their you go, its not my phrase.
I wonder if this is a pond thing? Americans tend to be about 'in' and 'out' more than we do, so her 'not a Christian' comment may not mean what I think it means. She may mean good Christian more than non Christian.

You would agree though that it is difficult to call someone who doesn't believe in the Bible a "Christian" though, wouldn't you?

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 1:48am

tommy2bad wrote:

Homosexuality is not a sin. Get over it.

I'm not sure if you are a professing Christian, if so, I'm afraid you'll have to do a bit better than proclamation. If you're not a professing Christian, then I understand your position, but its irrelevant to the point.

Oh, and I don't mind being called homophobic (As i said earlier, I'm not easily offended. Especially by strangers on the internet. Speaking of which, didn't you try lecture me about manners?)it belongs to a category of lazy minded pejoratives that look to stifle debate and silence opposing viewpoints. So now its off your chest, do you want to grow up a bit and leave the name-calling out?

lmaopml · 16-02-2012 1:58am

JimiTime wrote: »

A person who realises its sinful and struggles with it is indeed no different to any of us who struggle against sins clutches.

No they aren't.

The issue with homosexuality that sets it apart though, is the campaign to have it affirmed as ok, and NOT sinful.

Yes, but that campaign has nothing to do with a person who may identify as homosexual, but also as a Christian, and is looking towards Christ. It's a political movement, we shouldn't react to it like a prejudice exists that sets homosexuality apart from all the crazy mad sinners that we ourselves are.

[A homosexual person who accepts Christ and recognises their sin, should be treated no differently to anyone else in Christ.[/quote]

Absolutely they shouldn't - they are just starting out on a journey and may have tremendous faith too. Who knows where it leads.

However, anyone trying to claim to be a brother or sister while at the same time trying to have what God has condemned, affirmed as ok should be met with strong opposition in the Church. I think thats the REAL issue for Christians in relation to homosexuality.

Ok, I understand the 'REAL' opposition part in response to a political motive to change the faith should be stated as fact. However, I would rather have faith in the 'faith' and above all in those who are just normal people who need Christ in their lives and seek him out.

The simple fact is that the Scripture the Church the Faith - Christianity is not going to redefine 'sin' for anybody EVER - well at least I know my Church isn't going to, but the truth is that it is full up to the total brim with sinners and that is exactly what it is made for - both a rebuke, but also a welcome too for anybody who takes the first steps. We're not a Church of perfect people, we're anything but...

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 2:06am

lmaopml wrote: »

No they aren't.

Yes, but that campaign has nothing to do with a person who may identify as homosexual, but also as a Christian and is looking towards Christ. It's a political movement, we shouldn't react to it like a prejudice exists that sets homesexuality apart from all the crazy mad sinners that we ourselves are.

[A homosexual person who accepts Christ and recognises their sin, should be treated no differently to anyone else in Christ.

Absolutely they shouldn't - they are just starting out on a journey and may have tremendous faith too.

Ok, I understand the 'REAL' opposition part in response to a political motive to change the faith. However, I would rather have faith in the 'faith' and above all in those who are just normal people who need Christ in their lives and seek him out.

The simple fact is that the Scripture the Church the Faith - Christianity is not going to redefine 'sin' for anybody ever - well at least I know my Church isn't going to, but the truth is that it is full up to the total brim with sinners and that is exactly what it is made for - both a rebuke, but also a welcome too for anybody who takes the first steps.

I think we're on the same page. I just feel that sometimes people forget about the rebuke part;) Again, the wisdom of Paul to the Corinthians:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

lmaopml · 16-02-2012 2:18am

Exactly! We can't leave this world or judge anybody on it, but we never lower the bar ever, not for ourselves or anybody, or indeed can close the gates of our Churches to anybody or tell them they aren't or can't become Christ like, because that's not in our remit to do, we're in the process ourselves only. All sinners are welcome, that means everybody no exceptions.

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 11:26am

lmaopml wrote: »

Exactly! We can't leave this world or judge anybody on it, but we never lower the bar ever, not for ourselves or anybody, or indeed can close the gates of our Churches to anybody or tell them they aren't or can't become Christ like, because that's not in our remit to do, we're in the process ourselves only. All sinners are welcome, that means everybody no exceptions.

Thats it. What do you think about what is said about judging people who claim to be brothers or sisters within the church but who are sexually immoral etc? Its a fairly strong command given. Actually, I think I'll start a thread about that. Might be interesting.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:36pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You would agree though that it is difficult to call someone who doesn't believe in the Bible a "Christian" though, wouldn't you?

Hmmm. Good question. It depends on what you mean by believe in the bible. 'Bible Believing Christian' tends to be a self description that denotes born again evangelical christian, some more Calvinist than others but ist less about being christian and more about tribal identity.
All Christians believe in the bible but not all give it the same weight, tradition and the guidance of the holy spirit are counted too.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:45pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are a professing Christian, if so, I'm afraid you'll have to do a bit better than proclamation. If you're not a professing Christian, then I understand your position, but its irrelevant to the point.

Oh, and I don't mind being called homophobic (As i said earlier, I'm not easily offended. Especially by strangers on the internet. Speaking of which, didn't you try lecture me about manners?)it belongs to a category of lazy minded pejoratives that look to stifle debate and silence opposing viewpoints. So now its off your chest, do you want to grow up a bit and leave the name-calling out?

Oh the irony!

Your attitude is somewhat combative, so if you get the same in return don't complain.
To assert that homosexuality is sinful is nonsense, no denomination makes that claim. To say that this is the biggest issue facing christianity is laughable. Worse it shows a sense of priorities that are so askew they make Jesus cry.
Yes I am a professing Christian.

Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Comments