Condoning sin vs. forgiving sin

[Carico]

It seems that a lot of churches and most of the world doesn't see the difference between condoning sin and forgiving sin. Forgiveness pre-supposes a wrongdoing and a desire to alter the behavior. Condoning on the other hand, sees no wrongdoing and seeks to justify behavior. God forgives sin; the devil condones sin.

God forgives homosexuality, the devil condones homosexuality. The problem with condoning homosexuality is that the homosexual can never receive forgiveness for his sin and enter heaven. He is thus left having to continue it.

None of us can help our lust, envy, gluttony, anger, greed, gluttlony or pride which is rpecisely why Jesus Christ is the only solution to the sin problem. Otherwise, we have no choice but to continue the above because human nature can't fix human nature as all homosexuals realize. That's the blind leading the blind who together will fall into a pit.

So all of us have to be able to see our own sins in order to receive forgiveness. Otherwise, we will die without our sins ever having been taken away.

 

[ElijahFalling]

Condoning sin means encouraging it. You should not encourage it, but you should also not judge others. You should forgive unconditionally.

 

[artybloke]

Who died and made you God to decide what is and isn't a sin?

 

[Carico]

Condoning sin means encouraging it. You should not encourage it, but you should also not judge others. You should forgive unconditionally.

One can only forgive a wrongdoing, not something that isn't a wrongdoing which is of course, the point of my post.

 

[Carico]

Condoning sin means encouraging it. You should not encourage it, but you should also not judge others. You should forgive unconditionally.

Who died and made you God to decide what is and isn't a sin?

God tells us that homosexuality is a sin in the bible and I agree with him. I'm not arrogant enough to disagree with him as many people claim to be.

 

[ebia]

God tells us that homosexuality is a sin in the bible and I agree with him. I'm not arrogant enough to disagree with him as many people claim to be.

God tells us that homosexuality is a sin in the bible

No he doesn't. Some people interpret the bible to imply that homosexuality is a sin, but putting your interpetation on a par with God sounds pretty dodgy to me too.

and I agree with him. I'm not arrogant enough to disagree with him as many people claim to be.

I've yet to meet any Christians who claim to disagree with God.

 

[ReformedChapin]

No he doesn't. Some people interpret the bible to imply that homosexuality is a sin, but putting your interpetation on a par with God sounds pretty dodgy to me too.

Typical relativistic answer form a liberal...and yes he does. You have yet to provide resonable answer to the verses which clearly state it's a sin. Not that I expect you to provide a good response since there isn't one...all you argue is crazy theories and semantics.

I've yet to meet any Christians who claim to disagree with God.

I have, there is pleanty in this website...so called "christians."


There is no logical reason why God would make anyone a homosexual when he would just make them the opposite sex. Homosexuality is just another perversion of God's plan, all you are doing is putting postmodern thought into the bible which is ironic since you claim we are doing it when you have no proof.

 

[ReformedChapin]

God tells us that homosexuality is a sin in the bible and I agree with him. I'm not arrogant enough to disagree with him as many people claim to be.

It isn't about arrogance, it's about people adjusting the bible to postmordern thought. In no time in history has homosexuality been accepted by Christians, now since it's socially accepted people want to cram it into the church.

God wont let it happen.

 

[ebia]

Typical relativistic answer form a liberal...

"I don't think that word means what you think it means"

and yes he does. You have yet to provide resonable answer to the verses which clear state it's a sin.

I've done that numerous times on numerous threads. An answer doesn't stop being reasonable simply because you don't accept it.

Not that I expect you to provide a good response since there isn't one...all you argue is crazy theories and semantics.

Since you dismiss any argument you disagree with as "crazy theories and semantics", I'm not overly fussed that you tag those with the same label. When you base everything value and believe on a text, however, you really should take semantics rather more seriously. That's assuming you really do care what the text says, and aren't just using it to prop up what you want to be true:

semantics
/suh'mantiks/
noun
1. Linguistics the systematic study of the meanings of words and changes thereof.
2. Logic the branch of modern logic that deals with the relations between signs and what they denote or signify

.

I have, there is pleanty in this website...so called "christians."

Firstly, I do hope you aren't suggesting that anyone here isn't really a Christian.

Secondly, I've yet to see anyone here claim to disagree with God; perhaps you could point out where someone has done so. Note that disagreeing with you and your beliefs about God does not count as claiming to disagree with God.

 

[ReformedChapin]

"I don't think that word means what you think it means"

Nope, more like "you're wrong" THE END...Look up the definition of relativism, it's basically what you posted up there. " What it means to me, means to me...what it means to you it means to you...It's all relative."

The bible should be interpreted as objectively as possible, you AREN'T doing that.

I've done that numerous times on numerous threads. An answer doesn't stop being reasonable simply because you don't accept it.

I pointed out the flaws of your argument a million times. Just because you don't accept you're wrong doesn't mean you're right.

Since you dismiss any argument you disagree with as "crazy theories and semantics", I'm not overly fussed that you tag those with the same label. When you base everything value and believe on a text, however, you really should take semantics rather more seriously. That's assuming you really do care what the text says, and aren't just using it to prop up what you want to be true.

I do care what it says, you have no reasonable answer. All you do come up with is crazy theories.

<edited SJ>

Secondly, I've yet to see anyone here claim to disagree with God; perhaps you could point out where someone has done so. Note that disagreeing with you and your beliefs about God does not count as claiming to disagree with God.

Homosexuality? That's what we are talking about? And it's more like YOUR BELIEFS, not the bibles. I like how you try to pin everything on me. It's not going to work.

You can have the last word on this argument since you're stabborn. I don't feel like arguing another 50 pages because your ego doesn't let you admit you're wrong. God isn't going to let you pervert his word, no serious bible beliving Christian is going to fall for this.

 

[ebia]

Nope, more like "you're wrong" THE END...Look up the definition of relativism.

relativist, noun.
/'reluhtivizuhm/
noun Philosophy the theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that criteria of judgement are relative, varying with the individual, time, and circumstance.

's what I thought. I don't hold to it, and it doesn't relate to what I said. "Your interpretation may be wrong" is not relativism.

I pointed out the flaws of your argument a million times

.
Yeh. Right. Of course you did. Silly me.

Just because you don't accept you're wrong doesn't mean you're right

.
Absolutely true. Neither does it mean I'm wrong.

I do care what it says,

If you do, then you need to care about semantics. Using semantics in a derogatory way doesn't imply that you take it seriously, which in turn doesn't imply you take the text seriously. Perhaps you need to be more careful about what you say.

you have no reasonable answer. All you do come up with is crazy theories. No one with 1/2 a brain will fall for this crap.

I better not make the obvious response to that...

Homosexuality? That's what we are talking about? And it's more like YOUR BELIEFS, not the bibles. I like how you try to pin everything on me. It's not going to work.

You can have the last word on this argument since you're stabborn. I don't feel like arguing another 50 pages because your ego doesn't let you admit you're wrong.

I take it that means you've worked out that you can't support your statements.

 

[GregoryTurner]

No he doesn't. Some people interpret the bible to imply that homosexuality is a sin, but putting your interpetation on a par with God sounds pretty dodgy to me too.



I've yet to meet any Christians who claim to disagree with God.

What "bible" are you reading that does not point out that homosexuality is not a sin?

 

[ebia]

What "bible" are you reading that does not point out that homosexuality is not a sin?

Some translations would have one believe homosexuality is a sin, but translations are just that. When one l ooks beyond that to what the text actually says, the context within which it is said, and the wider context of the societies and communities to which it was originally addressed it becomes increasingly clear that the bible (quite reasonably) condemns abusive sexual relationships of all types (same sex and inter-sex) and has absolutely no direct references to permanent, loving, equal, concentual, faithful homosexual relationships either way (not really surprising since if they didn't exist at the time of writing).

 

[Proeliator]

Some translations would have one believe homosexuality is a sin, but translations are just that. When one l ooks beyond that to what the text actually says, the context within which it is said, and the wider context of the societies and communities to which it was originally addressed it becomes increasingly clear that the bible (quite reasonably) condemns abusive sexual relationships of all types (same sex and inter-sex) and has absolutely no direct references to permanent, loving, equal, concentual, faithful homosexual relationships either way (not really surprising since if they didn't exist at the time of writing).

Your so called context doesnt hold water either. Because there is plenty of poeple that have beautiful loving out of wedlock relationships, but that is still sin.

As for your translation issue. Well here you go, heres the greek.

[SIZE=+1]1 Corinthians 6:9 | h <2228> {OR} ouk <3756> oidate <1492> (5758) {KNOW YE NOT} oti <3754> {THAT} adikoi <94> {UNJUST ONES [THE]} basileian <932> {KINGDOM} qeou <2316> {OF GOD} ou <3756> {NOT} klhronomhsousin <2816> (5692) {SHALL INHERIT?} mh <3361> planasqe <4105> (5744) {BE NOT MISLEAD;} oute <3777> {NEITHER} pornoi <4205> {FORNICATORS,} oute <3777> {NOR} eidwlolatrai <1496> {IDOLATERS,} oute <3777> {NOR} moicoi <3432> {ADULTERERS,} oute <3777> {NOR} malakoi <3120> {ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES AS WOMEN,} oute <3777> {NOR} arsenokoitai <733> {ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MEN,}[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]

G733
&#945;&#787;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#769;&#964;&#951;&#962;
arsenokoite&#772;s
ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace
From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

Seems all pretty direct to me.
[/SIZE]

 

[Maccie]

I see this thread has turned into a rant about homosexuality! Why am I not surprised??

However, on the subject of forgiveness and condoning sin, perhaps we should ge clear wehat we are talking about.

When we condone a sin, we "let it go", we don't do anything about it. We might agree that it is a sin, but we just ignore it. So someone who is very arrogant and full of pride might know perfectly well that is a sin, be he himself condones it.

Or, the media, other groups and other individuals might condone a sin. Either they don't think it is a sin, which, if they are not Christians, is perfectly reasonable, so they don't treat it as a sin, or a group knows it is sinful, but ignores this fact and acts as if it is OK.

For example, a church group might know perfectly well that gossip is sinful, and can lead to divisions and bad feelings, but does nothing about Mrs. (or Mr.) A who spreads all sorts of false rumours.

Forgiveness, on the other hand, is only ours to give when someone has hurt us. We cannot forgive someone who has hurt another person. We cannot forgive someone who has sinned against God. So to say you forgive homosexuals (or don't forgive them, whatever) is not for you to do. neither can you forgive the thief who stole your neighbours car. That is for your neighbour to do.

Forgiveness is not easy, especially when the hurt is deep. You may need to forgive over and over again, as your feelings of resentment, anger and desire for revenge take over, again.

Right, I've said my piece. Now you can go back to your obsession with homosexuality again.

 

[KJVisTruth]

I see this thread has turned into a rant about homosexuality! Why am I not surprised??

However, on the subject of forgiveness and condoning sin, perhaps we should ge clear wehat we are talking about.

When we condone a sin, we "let it go", we don't do anything about it. We might agree that it is a sin, but we just ignore it. So someone who is very arrogant and full of pride might know perfectly well that is a sin, be he himself condones it.

Or, the media, other groups and other individuals might condone a sin. Either they don't think it is a sin, which, if they are not Christians, is perfectly reasonable, so they don't treat it as a sin, or a group knows it is sinful, but ignores this fact and acts as if it is OK.

For example, a church group might know perfectly well that gossip is sinful, and can lead to divisions and bad feelings, but does nothing about Mrs. (or Mr.) A who spreads all sorts of false rumours.

Forgiveness, on the other hand, is only ours to give when someone has hurt us. We cannot forgive someone who has hurt another person. We cannot forgive someone who has sinned against God. So to say you forgive homosexuals (or don't forgive them, whatever) is not for you to do. neither can you forgive the thief who stole your neighbours car. That is for your neighbour to do.

Forgiveness is not easy, especially when the hurt is deep. You may need to forgive over and over again, as your feelings of resentment, anger and desire for revenge take over, again.

Right, I've said my piece. Now you can go back to your obsession with homosexuality again.

Amen. It cannot get any clearer than that.

 

[vossler]

Interesting thread with the typical responses.

Those who condone homosexuality as a legitimate and Godly relationship vs. those who see it clearly as a sin and ungodly.

Those who condone it point to arguments like: "that's your interpretation" implying that we each can have our own 'interpretation' which then leads to the twisting, prostituting and perverting of Scripture that we continually see here. They have no basis from Scripture to support their beliefs so they then resort to the ever popular 'interpretation' red herring.

Those who respect God's Word enough to not compromise it with worldly beliefs in order to maintain it's virtue and holiness are viewed as bigoted and intolerant, somehow making themselves godly because they believe what God said. If you believe what God says and you don't compromise His Word then yes, you are intolerant, as well you should be, but certainly not godly.

I'm not here to judge others but to stand for the Truth. If you wish to believe homosexuality is within God's design that is your perogative and I'm not here to convince you otherwise, only the Holy Spirit can penetrate and regenerate a heart that hard. I'm only here to highlight God's view on this subject and that can only be done by highlighting His Word.

As long as the Truth of God's Word is continually corrupted by the humanistic moral relativism that seems to be continually pushed here there will be people, who won't be popularly received, reminding us of the the Truth.

Praise the Lord.

P.S. What's really sad, to me, about this issue is that it really shouldn't be an issue. God's Word is clear yet many wish to pollute it on an issue that have been clear for hundreds of years. The by product of this is that we've unfortunately taken the focus off of other more important areas of discussion. Sad, quite sad.

 

[artybloke]

Those who condemn homosexuality are very fond of using the "that's your interpretation" argument.

However,

They have no basis from Scripture to support their beliefs so they then resort to the ever popular 'interpretation' red herring.

Once again, who gave you the authority to tell me how to read the Bible?

 

[127Rockledge]

I love how it will always break down into - you are perverting God's word and ONLY we see things clearly.

YES, it will always come down to an interpretation argument, call it fun little things like a "red herring" all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE.

It certainly is not clearly and concisely spelled out, thus there is this argument. Nobody argues that murder or adultery are sins, because it's very specifically spelled out as a sin.

So yes, absolutely, this is open to interpretation and only when we stand before God will we know who had it right, or even if there is a "right."

 

[Proeliator]

Those who condemn homosexuality are very fond of using the "that's your interpretation" argument.

However,



Once again, who gave you the authority to tell me how to read the Bible?

I love how it will always break down into - you are perverting God's word and ONLY we see things clearly.

YES, it will always come down to an interpretation argument, call it fun little things like a "red herring" all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE.

It certainly is not clearly and concisely spelled out, thus there is this argument. Nobody argues that murder or adultery are sins, because it's very specifically spelled out as a sin.

So yes, absolutely, this is open to interpretation and only when we stand before God will we know who had it right, or even if there is a "right."

Maybe I am a little confused here. Do you 2 even find issue with EXACTLY what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians? Not the translation, the straight greek has been presented, and you talk about interpretation. Is there a need to interpret "Thou shalt not kill"? If not, then why do you need to interpret that sodomites are sinners?