Christian landlord defeats politically correct law! A victory over persecution.

[CSMR]

"Judge not lest thou be judged" is a very important verse. What it doesn't mean is this: if you hold no morals at all then nothing will be required of you. You don't receive eternal life by denying God and morality. There is more than one interpretation. Here's mine, which I will be happy to argue against any other.
Judge=correctly identify another's sin, be judged=be under God's judgement against sin
If you judge, you are right, and you rightly identify that law under which you yourself will be judged (judged guilty that is)
Forgive=realise another's sin i.e. judge, but not look down on him because you yourself are judged by God, and also don't hold his sin against him, because you know the forgiveness of God. Only one who knows God's forgiveness can forgive; i.e. one who forgives must be forgiven.
"Condemn"=somewhere between "judge" and "do not forgive"

 

[CSMR]

Thanks for your contribution...

No problem. Lots more verses where that came from!

I hope this isn't directed towards the discussion between Sharp and I; if it is it's a Strawman argument. We are discussing the obligation under God to discriminate against homosexuals and other minorities, not the human rights implications of renting to homosexuals. Sharp is inferring that it is our God-given right/obligation to discriminate based on [DELETE]our opinion of[/DELETE] the sins of another. I am offering an argument from an opposite perspective.

I wasn't discussing human rights I don't think, whatever they are. I was just making a coment relating to this thread, that may justify the action taken by the landlord. I haven't followed your argument in detail, I'm afraid.
One point: I think you need to delete the marked text because it's highly unlikely that Sharp or anyone would argue that it is a God-given right to discriminate based on a wrong opinion of the sins of another.

 

[Playerslight77]

i

 

[Dark_Lite]

Playerslight, arguing with Sharp is like arguing against a brick wall. He likes to assume that only his intepretation of the Bible is correct. No one else's is. Remember, if you're not conservative, YOU ARE OF THE DEVIL!!!!!!!!

RAHHHHH!

 

[Playerslight77]

i

 

[Playerslight77]

i

 

[Davidatwaypointe]

Thank you for your input. Maybe I should replace the word opinion with conclusion. If there is an absolute list of sins that have been indelibly agreed upon as THE SINS AGAINST GOD then I would love to hear it. If that is not forthcoming then it is merely one persons opinion over another...

If you believe scripture is authority, there are plenty of places where you can read what sins are against God. I compiled a huge list one time when I was researching things like judgment and judgment day, and there's tons of stuff.

I was leading a Bible study, and the guys wanted to study Revelation. I said, fine, if we make it applicable. Why does God include the book of Revelation in scripture? I think it's to warn us about judgment and give us encouragement to repent. So, look at all Revelation-oriented scripture -- don't forget stuff like Daniel, and things said about the end times, etc. -- and you'll find these things.

The guys were kind of stunned to find that lying was right there alongside homosexuality and witchcraft and such.

I think sexual sin is often an easy one for us to judge (as opposed to "discern," which I think is different), and homosexuality is some people's pet sin because it's not part of their lives and therefore more abhorrent. But we don't get to pick and choose which offenses are worse against God, because drunkeness, lying, and adultery are all there. More of us function by lying than we do by homosexuality, but that doesn't mean one is more abhorrent than the other.

I think the landlord has the right to not rent to someone based on their lifestyle, whether it's homosexuality, smoking, pet ownership, or having children in thin-walled apartment buildings. There's a downside to that, in some ways, but I still think it's the landlord's right, unless he or she is receiving subsidy from elsewhere; then the landlord has parceled off some of those rights.

 

[Davidatwaypointe]

...I found my notes, if you or anyone else is interested.


From early on, God intimates that the world will end

Gen 3:14 - Gen 3:15 (NIV)

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."



(after the flood)

Gen 8:22 - Gen 8:22 (NIV)

22 As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."





Why should we know about the end times?

Time to repent



Eze 18:30 - Eze 18:30 (NIV)

30 Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.



Zep 1:14 - Zep 2:1 (NIV)

1 Gather together, gather together, O shameful nation, 2 before the appointed time arrives and that day sweeps on like chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD comes upon you, before the day of the LORD's wrath comes upon you. 3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the LORD's anger.

Repent of what?

sorcery, adultery, perjury, defrauding laborers, oppressing widows and the fatherless, depriving aliens of justice, not fearing God (Malachi 3:5) arrogance and doing evil (Malachi 4:1), apathy, abusing laborers, drunkenness (Matthew 24:48-49), apathy, ill preparedness (Matthew 25:3-5), not cultivating your gifts (worthlessness Matthew 25:30) (Matthew 25:18), neglect of the needy (hungry, thirsty, the stranger, needing of clothes, sick, imprisoned) (Matthew 25:41-43), not cultivating what God gives you (Luke 19:23), being an enemy of God, refusing His Lordship (Luke 19:27), stubbornness, unrepentance (Romans 2:5), being self-seeking, rejecting truth, following evil (Romans 2:8), doing evil (Romans 2:9), being spiritually asleep (1 Thessalonians 5:6), lacking self-control (1 Thessalonians 5:7), grumbling against each other (James 5:9), following corrupt desire, despising authority, arrogance, slandering celestial beings (2 Peter 2:10), scoffing and following evil desires (2 Peter 3:3), distorting Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[CSMR]

Thank you for your input. Maybe I should replace the word opinion with conclusion. If there is an absolute list of sins that have been indelibly agreed upon as THE SINS AGAINST GOD then I would love to hear it. If that is not forthcoming then it is merely one persons opinion over another...

I should correct my criticism a little. Sometimes it may be argued (I am not so arguing, just commenting) that one can discriminate on the basis of an opinion based of what someone has done. There may be some sort of requirement on how that opinion is reached e.g. witnesses in the case of a crime. If someone has a lot of evidence against him for a crime, that may justify that punishment even if the person is innocent. It may be argued. So I was wrong to say only the fact of sin can possibly justify discrimination.
However what needs to be a fact is the sin itself that one is judging. If a court thinks that a person is a murderer and he is not and it punishes him for being one, it may be acting properly. But if it thinks that not wearing a hat is wrong and it punishes someone for not wearing a hat, it is not acting properly even though it is punishing someone for what it considers wrong.
So I think the right answer has to do with a fact of what is wrong and an opinion (perhaps reasonably formed) on whether someone did in fact do that. Sorry to go on; there is more to it than I originally thought.

As for knowing sins, we can often know when something is wrong. Firstly the law is something written in our hearts, so we have an innate awareness of it. Secondly we may obscure this knowledge, but the law as given in the Old Testament and the commentary on it in the New Testament and even later can help to set us right. Thirdly, morality is objectively there even if no one knows anything about it.

 

[CSMR]

Correctly? Fascinating. How would one know if they have correctly identified anothers sin? What are the absolute requirements for making this identification?

One doesn't have to be a genius to decide that someone else sins. It isn't necessary to know all their sins. Only one will do, in fact. But people sin all the time constantly, in not helping other people, in spitefullness, in greed, in laziness, in dishonesty, in sexual disobedience, in ignoring God. People sin so much all the time that you don't need to be an expert in the law to diagnose it! Even a corrupted conscience can still recognise sin in others - we may however try to avoid what it says about us - but Jesus prevents any such attempt.
Jesus isn't concerned with judging falsely. Consider his statement "with the measure you mete, it will be meted to you". He doesn't mean that if we measure how good others are by how many prayers we say that is how we will be judged. He is considering true judgement. That is why there is the relation to the judgement of God, which is according to the truth.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. If I judge then I am automatically right? So any judgement I make is automatically correct? This seems to open a whole new can of worms.

No. You can judge wrongly. But Jesus isn't talking about wrong judgement here. The problem he is concerned with is not that people judge wrongly but that they judge others and not themselves. Even though our judgement is not perfect, it can be good enough as a perception of the truth to tell us accurately that others sin and to tell us accurately that we sin: if it cannot do this, then Jesus' argument doesn't work.

Does this mean I forgive a man for sins against me? Or that I forgive him for sins against God?

Sins against God. Sins against you are sins against God because the other is under the law of love. You have no power to absolutely forgive either; his need it to be forgiven by God. Your forgiveness means something different but related, which I gave my take on earlier.

This isn't very illuminating. What are you saying here?

Condemnation is not quite judgement. I can judge but not condemn. I condemn if I judge the other as evil AND do not forgive him.

 

[Playerslight77]

i

 

[immersedingrace]

"This doesn't mean we support the oppression of non-whites. It doesn't mean we want to scare or hurt non-whites." -KKK

Oh yes, I'm going to take the word of an organization who's history shows that they do EXACTLY what they claim not to, as fact. Using this example to claim that the KKK is a Christian organization becomes quite laughable when the above quote is taken into consideration. They can CLAIM Christianity all they want, they can CLAIM to believe in Jesus - heck, even the demons believe- but their actions don't back it up in the least.

Blessings

 

[immersedingrace]

I agree with those who are saying we can't judge, but I think there's a DIFFERENCE between bringing judgment and bringing correction. There are sins that are very specific in the bible, and if we know a believer is sinning, then we need to bring correction in love. However, we are not to bring judgment. That's God's job.

Galatians 6:1-2: 1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

This tells us that we CAN recognize another's sin, and we ARE to give correction, BUT we need to do it in proper form. This is fulfilling the law of Christ.

Matthew 18 15-17 again tells us that we are to bring correction. I don't think bringing correction to someone is to judge them. I believe we can bring correction without being judgmental. I can tell a friend something in love, but another may say the same thing to her in a judgmental way, and she's going to take offense. I can speak from experience because this happened recently. She was happy that I brought it to her attention as she wasn't even aware of it, but was upset because someone else approached her with an attitude of judging her.

As for the OP, I'm mixed on this. If I were to rent a room in my home or a basement/attic/garage apartment, I would DEFINITELY want the right to determine who I rented to as those places would directly affect my family. As for an apartment building that I owned, and did not have daily contact with, then I'm undecided if I would agree with this ruling or not.

In the field of Adoption Social Work, similar instances occur. Christians in this field are sometimes confronted with the issue of adoptions for "couples" they feel are living in sin, whether that be same sex, or cohabitating. My theory here, is, that we have so many children and not enough homes that I can't see a child being any worse off in those homes, then in the group settings or in limbo as they are currently. However, I'm not sure that I, personally, would be able to support or complete an adoption under those circumstances. It would be politically correct for me to do so, and would probably insure my job in the very liberal world of social work, but I would not be able to do so with a clean conscience.

I applaud this landlord who knew what he believed and stood up for it. That's all any of us can do. Know WHAT we believe, WHY we believe, and WHO we're serving with our beliefs. In the end, it better line up with biblical truth.

Blessings

 

[Playerslight77]

i

 

[CSMR]

Everyone is a sinner, from the time they are born.

That is a judgement; a correct judgement. It is a correct judgement about others, and, lo! and behold! you are also judged by this same judgement.

My argument is that Jesus strictly warned us about judging the sins of others.
I don't recall him saying "Once you are done judging your own sins, feel free to go and judge everyone else."

If we interpret judge as discern sin (as we are doing and immersedingrace isn't) then certainly we can do that. You have done so when you call others sinners. I do so when I identify a particular sin like murder. I cannot hide from myself that a murderer in murdering is committing a sin.
As immersedingrace says, there is a right and a wrong way to discern sin in another. The wrong way is to discern it as one who does not recognise the true nature of the law, that it condemns all people. The wrong way is to correct another as if there were no plank in one's own eye, from a position of superiority. The right way, having recognised this plank, and having sought and found the way to remove it with the power of God through faith in Christ, is to recognise the speck in the other's eye with a true understanding of the law from a position of equality; then one will be able to see rightly to remove it with the power of the gospel. If we don't notice the speck in the others eye (which you do when you judge all as sinners) then we cannot help him.

I assume you mean Matthew 7:1-2: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." It sounds like he is saying that whatever standards we use to judge others are going to be applied to us.

But we have to reject this interpretation because God judges according to the truth and not according to our own standards. Imagine the most vicious idolator who denied God proclaims his own actions as the standard of righteousness. According to this interpretation, he will be judged according to his own standards and therefore be judged righteous by God in his own actions. Or someone who holds no moral standards or completely trivial ones. The Pharasees had moral standards which they would love to have been judged by: God's standards are higher.
Jesus to them: in judging others, they truthfully recognise the moral law. By this law they will be judged.

Jesus was pretty emphatic with regards to the pharisee and tax collector in the temple; looking down on someone because of their sins is not the way to please God.

Absolutely; we agree completely on this.

But Jesus is also quite emphatic that the only reason he had the right to judge others was because he was the son of God.

If you are referring to the episode with the woman caught in adultery, note that those who are about to stone her are right in judging her as a sinner, but wrong in their attitude towards her on account of their not realising their own sin. Jesus points out to them not their fault in identifying her sin but that they should recognise their own sin.

I would love to agree with you, but Matthew 6:14-15 says "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." So it sounds like men can sin against me, which I am required to forgive. Maybe I am misreading this text.

I think forgiveness can be both for sins against man and sins against God. However since sins against man can are also sins against God we may as well consider them all as in one category, sins against God. Just a suggestion.

Just to remember the verse we are arguing: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned." To me it sounds like the exact same wording. I should, therefore, be able to apply your argument for our right to judge towards our right to condemn. Why is condemnation different from judgement? I must have a different definition for judgement...

Well, I don't know greek unfortunately. My interpretation of condemn is similar to immersedingrace's interpretation of judge. Condemn seems to imply willing damnation on another; but that's just based on the English word. It may be that the parallelism means that Jesus intended meanins of judge/condemn that don't have such a clear-cut distinction; that is true.

 

[CSMR]

It may be that one can intrepret judge in the sense of condemn, will damnation on another. But this is more complex: it assumes that we undertand the law well enough that we should condemn others if it were not for understanding the gospel. That makes judge not the same as forgive.
The argument would go:
Judge=condemn => haven't understood the gospel => judged=condemned
Do not judge, but understand the law => must have received forgiveness => not judged=not condemned
I still prefer my definition of judged, because it leads to a more direct interpretation:
If you Judge=discern sin, understand that you yourself are to be judged sinful
In order not to be judged, we have to deny God's moral law, and then we should have nothing with which to judge others, which is rightly unacceptable to those Jesus is speaking to (rightly, but for the wrong reasons).

 

[Playerslight77]

i

 

[Sharp]

A rather bizarre set of verses stretched beyond recognition...

Just stick to the truth of the Word of God and don't try to read or imiagine something clearly not there...



The passage from Romans does not deal with a clearly condemned sin. It deals with clearly acceptable personal options. Read the passage again. Homosexual sex is never describe as an optional choice anywhere in Scripture. Homosexual sin is always condemned. Obervance of holy days and abstinance from certain foods are.

This means we as Christians may and should reject and oppose the homosexual agenda and lifestyle both religiously and politically.

The rest of your message is so far removed from the topic that it needs more explaination from you before there is anything to argue. Please tell us more if you care to ... or not.

NOTE: There is really good news for homosexuals like the rest of us. All sins can be totally forgiven by repenting of them and trusting Christ as Saviour. A homosexual does not have to become a heterosexual first, but he does have to be willing and intend to live a celibate (sex free) life until he marries a woman. Jesus Christ requires it.

 

[Playerslight77]

i

 

[CSMR]

Sometimes it is blatantly obvious. But even in the example of murder that you provided there remains room for ambiguity. For if we agree that murder is a sin, which is quite prevalent throughout the bible, how do we reconcile murder committed during acts of self defense? Capital punishment? During lapses of judgement (like drunk driving)?

Murder is not the same as killing. Murder is always wrong. There may some circumstances in which it is uncertain whether killing is murder, but as you say, sometimes it is blatantly obvious.

I totally agree. I also think this is far more prevalent that I would like it to be. And I am curious if this only works in terms of sins we believe we are not guilty of (e.g. homosexuality, etc) or if we have to wait until we are 'clear' of all major sins before we are able to start removing specks. You know what I mean? I don't think I am being clear here...

Once we are forgiven, we are clear of all sin. We still sin, but before God we are forgiven and judged without sin; that constitutes the removal of the "plank". (If we haven't internalised the grace of God fully, I am sure we should still go out and try to help others with the understanding that we do have.)

So up until now I have been trying to get across the point that, yes, homosexuality may be a sin, but discriminating against them might be just as bad. Not only that, but it does remove any possibility of converting them through association and the influence of the gospel. The worse thing is that now there are a group of homosexuals, maybe a large group, who have immediately viewed the Christian faith as shallow, short-sighted, and unable to look beyond a person's sins. If our goal is to bring the gospel to ourselves and to unbelievers, it may be that this is one of the worse infractions of all.

Yes; how about: If our goal is to bring the gospel to others, we have to tell of God's judgement against sin; but the gospel and not the judgement should always be the aim.

The only reason I didn't do this was that I don't think I have the right to forgive sins against God; only against myself. I agree that a sin against me is also a sin against God, but that can only be forgiven when the sinner is forgiven by God. I can only speak for myself here...you know what I mean?

Yes; I think so. We certainly haven't got the power to forgive ultimately.

As another aside, I looked at your profile and see that you're a grad student in economics in Princeton. This is pretty funny, considering that I'm an economics grad student (Masters) in Ontario (not as well known as Princeton, but a good school nonetheless). Economist seem to be of a rare breed that can see the total joy of arguing as a form of learning. To everyone else it probably seems as interesting as watching paint dry! Plus we're usually opinionated stubborn people who always have to have the last word . I'm not walking away from this argument; just thought I would throw that in there. PS: You're only 22? That is quite an accomplishment to be at the doctorate level at that age. You must be quite the wiz!

I don't find that much argument in Economics - just speculation after speculation! Nevertheless, I enjoy arguing, whether to learn or not . I tell you, at the rate I'm going with my PhD, I'll be 40 by the time I finish!