Gays!!!

[Beanieboy]

So although you fully admit that you do not qualify as a Christian in any traditional or scriptural manner you call yourself a Christian simply because you want to. Ok at least I understand now, there will be no confusion in the future.

Thank you for answering.

By the same token, some on this board call themselves Christian, and have no fruit of the Spirit that I have seen. Some will claim to follow Christ, who commanded that we love our neighbor as ourselves, and then ask why they have to love their neighbor, or feed the poor when the Christian worked for the money. The Bible says that all good gifts around us come from heaven above, but then say that all good gifts they have they earned and worked for, and had nothing to do with God. I have had Christians on another board tell me that the most loving thing they could do for me (because i am gay) is to hate me, rather than love me all the way to hell.

So, I would say, If you want to discern whether KCKID is a Christian, rather than looking at his theology, look at his posts, his words, his intent, and look for fruit of the Spirit.

I see it very strongly.

Remembering running to my mom in a panic, sobbing that I didn't want to go to hell, told that I would because I wasn't Catholic by my neighbor when I was 4 or 5, I don't think that theology is as important as loving your neighbor, and how you live your life. If you claim to be Christian, but don't live a loving life, all you have done is white washed a tomb.

Luke 18
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."



The Pharisee kept the law. He thanked God for not being like others, tithed, fasted, and yet, was not justified by God at all.

 

[No Swansong]

By the same token, some on this board call themselves Christian, and have no fruit of the Spirit that I have seen. Some will claim to follow Christ, who commanded that we love our neighbor as ourselves, and then ask why they have to love their neighbor, or feed the poor when the Christian worked for the money. The Bible says that all good gifts around us come from heaven above, but then say that all good gifts they have they earned and worked for, and had nothing to do with God. I have had Christians on another board tell me that the most loving thing they could do for me (because i am gay) is to hate me, rather than love me all the way to hell.

So, I would say, If you want to discern whether KCKID is a Christian, rather than looking at his theology, look at his posts, his words, his intent, and look for fruit of the Spirit.

I see it very strongly.

Remembering running to my mom in a panic, sobbing that I didn't want to go to hell, told that I would because I wasn't Catholic by my neighbor when I was 4 or 5, I don't think that theology is as important as loving your neighbor, and how you live your life. If you claim to be Christian, but don't live a loving life, all you have done is white washed a tomb.

Luke 18
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."



The Pharisee kept the law. He thanked God for not being like others, tithed, fasted, and yet, was not justified by God at all.

Beanieboy you seem to misunderstand my intention in the question and I am happy to explain it.

I have no desire to determine whether KCKID is a Christian or not, he says he is that's enough for me. It certainly isn't up to me to decide whether he is or not. The reason I asked is because he seems to deny any authority or standard by which one would normally consider themselves a Christian and I was simply interested in why he considered himself one in light of that apparent denial.

Neither he nor anyone else on this board has to prove to me or anyone else that they are a Christian. As for fruit of the Spirit I understand what you are claiming however I am sure you realize that what you consider fruit of the spirit and what others, especially Christians, and more importantly and separate from both what God considers fruit of the Spirit may be different things.

 

[Beanieboy]

Beanieboy you seem to misunderstand my intention in the question and I am happy to explain it.

I have no desire to determine whether KCKID is a Christian or not, he says he is that's enough for me. It certainly isn't up to me to decide whether he is or not. The reason I asked is because he seems to deny any authority or standard by which one would normally consider themselves a Christian and I was simply interested in why he considered himself one in light of that apparent denial.

Neither he nor anyone else on this board has to prove to me or anyone else that they are a Christian. As for fruit of the Spirit I understand what you are claiming however I am sure you realize that what you consider fruit of the spirit and what others, especially Christians, and more importantly and separate from both what God considers fruit of the Spirit may be different things.

Oh. The "That explains it..." comment made me misunderstand.

Many of us here are going to be hard to pinpoint. Here I am, a Buddhist, quoting the bible, and fruit of the Spirit, and how I speak in tongues, and pray to God. That has to sound equally confusing, but I suppose "Buddhist" is the closest I can find for an accurate label, and don't have to be concerned about those who would say, "You aren't a REAL Buddhist." As you pointed out, it isn't our place to worry about that.

The fruit of the Spirit that I refer to is:
love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance.

I don't expect perfection, as I certainly am not. However, if the person's Spirit is cruel, and lacks them all, I have to question if they are not a wolf in sheep's clothing. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. So, even if the person is atheist, if they produce good fruit, thinking no heavenly reward, how can I not see the Spirit within them? To do so would be to claim that the good within them is from man, and not God, where I think the God within us, leads us to evolve past our human nature to that which is more divine.

Matthew 7
6"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

 

[morningstar2651]

I have a question related to the direction this thread is going in.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Unless I am not a descendant of Adam, I should know good from evil without having to refer to the Bible. How did we go from knowing good from evil to having to be told the difference?

 

[Beanieboy]

I believe that we all do. You can build up a callous so that you no longer feel it, or think it wrong.

I can't imagine going into war. However, the first time that you have to kill, I'm sure that something inside you is really torn, knowing that killing is wrong. However, as with Massacre at My Lai, you can become so deadened to it that you kill civilians, kill children, and not once feel bad about it.

What is disturbing to us as humans is that we want to think "good" people are the people out of jail, and "bad" people are those inside jail. But then we see this, and realize that average people are capable of attrocity:

The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, entirely civilians and some of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on March 16, 1968. Some of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of Mỹ Lai and My Khe of Sơn Mỹ village during the Vietnam War. Of the 26 US soldiers initially charged with criminal offences for their actions at My Lai, only William Calley was convicted. He served four and a half months of his two-year sentence.

The incident prompted widespread outrage around the world. The massacre also reduced U.S. support at home for the Vietnam War. Three U.S. servicemen who made an effort to halt the massacre and protect the wounded were sharply criticized by U.S. Congressmen, received hate mail, death threats and mutilated animals on their doorsteps. Only 30 years after the event were their efforts honored.

How would you then think of the US?

 

[No Swansong]

Oh. The "That explains it..." comment made me misunderstand.

Many of us here are going to be hard to pinpoint. Here I am, a Buddhist, quoting the bible, and fruit of the Spirit, and how I speak in tongues, and pray to God. That has to sound equally confusing, but I suppose "Buddhist" is the closest I can find for an accurate label, and don't have to be concerned about those who would say, "You aren't a REAL Buddhist." As you pointed out, it isn't our place to worry about that.

The fruit of the Spirit that I refer to is:
love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance.

I don't expect perfection, as I certainly am not. However, if the person's Spirit is cruel, and lacks them all, I have to question if they are not a wolf in sheep's clothing. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. So, even if the person is atheist, if they produce good fruit, thinking no heavenly reward, how can I not see the Spirit within them? To do so would be to claim that the good within them is from man, and not God, where I think the God within us, leads us to evolve past our human nature to that which is more divine.

Matthew 7
6"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

Beanieboy again I was not, am not, nor will question whether KCKID is a Christian. As I posted earlier, he claims to be a Christian that's good enough for me. I was simply interested in why he considered himself one.

As for the Fruit of the Spirit my comment is directed more towards the definitions of the words goodness, temperance, faith, longsuffering etc. I am sure for example that what some consider good, others do not. A great example is recent discussion about same sex marriage. Another example would be the definition of faith, or the definition of gentleness. What seems to be obvious fruit of the Spirit in one person, others may not see. What you see as a lack of the Fruit of the Spirit others may see in abundance.

 

[Beanieboy]

Beanieboy again I was not, am not, nor will question whether KCKID is a Christian. As I posted earlier, he claims to be a Christian that's good enough for me. I was simply interested in why he considered himself one.

As for the Fruit of the Spirit my comment is directed more towards the definitions of the words goodness, temperance, faith, longsuffering etc. I am sure for example that what some consider good, others do not. A great example is recent discussion about same sex marriage. Another example would be the definition of faith, or the definition of gentleness. What seems to be obvious fruit of the Spirit in one person, others may not see. What you see as a lack of the Fruit of the Spirit others may see in abundance.

Can you give me an example?

On the other forum, many of the Christians there said that if one was kind to another, especially of they were unsaved, they would be hand holding them to hell, so they were incredibly some of the rudest people, vulgar, mocking, just plain mean.

They called that "the fruit of the Spirit", but who are they kidding?

I mean, if a wolf puts on your gramma's nighty, you aren't going to look at the wolf and say, "My Granny, what big ears you have." You are going to say, "Hey, Wolf. What up with you wearing my Granny's nighty?"

So, can you give me examples how the fruit of the Spirit can be misunderstood by the same people?
And if it is one thing to one, and another thing to another, then why would Christ say, "by their Fruit shall you know them" if people won't be able to recognize the fruit itself?

Can you not tell the difference between someone who is loving, and someone who is not? Someone who is gentle, and someone who is harsh? Someone who is kind, and someone who is mean spirited, and just says things to get a rise out of another?

 

[Beanieboy]

Doesn't Jesus say to beware of wolves that come in sheep's clothing?

 

[No Swansong]

Can you give me an example?

On the other forum, many of the Christians there said that if one was kind to another, especially of they were unsaved, they would be hand holding them to hell, so they were incredibly some of the rudest people, vulgar, mocking, just plain mean.

They called that "the fruit of the Spirit", but who are they kidding?

I mean, if a wolf puts on your gramma's nighty, you aren't going to look at the wolf and say, "My Granny, what big ears you have." You are going to say, "Hey, Wolf. What up with you wearing my Granny's nighty?"

So, can you give me examples how the fruit of the Spirit can be misunderstood by the same people?
And if it is one thing to one, and another thing to another, then why would Christ say, "by their Fruit shall you know them" if people won't be able to recognize the fruit itself?

Can you not tell the difference between someone who is loving, and someone who is not? Someone who is gentle, and someone who is harsh? Someone who is kind, and someone who is mean spirited, and just says things to get a rise out of another?

Sure I already gave you an example. The current debate over same sex marriage. Both sides are convinced they are on the side of "goodness". I know people who I believe to be loving devout Christians on both sides of this issue. I think this is an excellent example but there are others.

Let's look at the abortion issue. There are also many loving devout Christians on each side of this issue who are also convinced they are on the side of "goodness". What one woman considers a compassionate act that prevents a young woman or even a young teenager from being heavy burdened with a Child that is not wanted and would keep her in poverty for her life, others see as an act that ends an innocent human life. Surely there are those on both sides of this issue that are motivated by love.

Other such examples could be picked from this thread but doing so would be inappropriate and perhaps break the rules of the board.

 

[No Swansong]

Doesn't Jesus say to beware of wolves that come in sheep's clothing?

Absolutely so are you lifting up their skirts to know who the wolves are?

 

[KCKID]

On what 'set of rules' SHOULD one base their Christianity? Is Christianity a club for the righteous? One might be forgiven for believing this as they read some of the posts on this forum.

I base my Christianity these days on 'gut feeling' more so than absorbing myself in mere 'words' from the Bible. I can't be bothered for the most part with 'traditional' Christianity. It SO bores me. The same with saturating myself in ancient scriptures that hardly address the situations and issues that we face today. If that's 'wrong' in your mind then it's wrong and I can't do anything about that. However, the more I read some of the posts from such as - well, I won't mention names - the more my 'gut feeling' tells me that these folks have little 'heart knowledge' as to what Christianity is really all about. Somewhere on the road to attaining whatever it is they hope to attain they reach a point of becoming self-righteous. And, THIS can, and often is, dangerous since they see themselves in a lofty and powerful position. It's ALL in their minds, I quickly add.

I'm not exactly a 'fan' of the biblical God. But I DO admire and have a good 'gut feeling' about Jesus. Yep, feeling! I realize that 'feelings' are pretty well a 'no-no' with some of the rather militant Christians. I mean, we mustn't let our feelings get in the way of some good 'fire and brimstone' preaching! Whether Jesus and God are one and the same I don't much care. I also can't know how accurate the Bible is in regard to its account of Jesus; however, I CHOOSE to accept Jesus and the 'love' concept of (Christ)ianity in its ideal form. As said, it's a 'heart' thing. Sitting in a pew every week, listening to a sermon, singing a few songs, condemning those I don't like in the guize that I'm speaking for God, going home and feeling 'holy', doesn't cut it for me.

Ideal Christianity doesn't come from preaching harsh words to others from the pages of a book ...and, YES, the Bible IS a book whether one desires to make a religious icon out of it or not. It seems (to me) that the whole purpose of some on this forum is to zap others with lightning bolts (from their version of God) from their lofty self-righteous perch. If THIS is an example of Christianity then that's enough for me to denounce such 'Christianity' while still referring to myself as a 'Christian'.

So although you fully admit that you do not qualify as a Christian in any traditional or scriptural manner you call yourself a Christian simply because you want to. Ok at least I understand now, there will be no confusion in the future.

Thank you for answering.

You're welcome. However, I don't think I said that I don't qualify as a Christian in a scriptural manner. In fact, I hope that I do. I guess being a Christian in a scriptural manner is open to interpretation.

As explained, there are a number of professed Christians on this forum who consider themselves as such because of their (alleged) adherence to the Bible. The truth is, they don't really adhere to the scriptures anyway! No one can. One can do their best but lip service does not necessarily a Christian make. To me, however, these folks are simply legalists when their intent seems to be solely to condemn others with scripture. They are unqualified to do so. They are the ones - I believe - that Jesus referred to as hypocrites and condemned THEM because He could!

Let's face it, most of us are hypocrites in some form or another ...I know I am. This is why, for the most part, I can never judge another person even if I want to. And, while I still get annoyed by the actions of others (some of which are similar to my own!) I try not to judge them under the pretext of speaking for God. This, simply, is one of the reasons (there are other reasons) that I will NOT condemn 'gays' and also why I will oppose those that DO condemn 'gays' when using the Bible as a tool to do so.

On topic. One's sexual orientation should not even be open to discussion if the said individual would prefer that route. Furthermore, one's sexual orientation cannot be a sin. To specifically target a homosexual as being a sinner (take note you militant Christians!) is not only hypocritical but also unChrist-like.

I, KCKID, have spoken.

 

[KCKID]

Doesn't Jesus say to beware of wolves that come in sheep's clothing?

Absolutely so are you lifting up their skirts to know who the wolves are?

One doesn't have to. One just has that 'gut feeling' that I spoke of.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Sure I already gave you an example. The current debate over same sex marriage. Both sides are convinced they are on the side of "goodness". I know people who I believe to be loving devout Christians on both sides of this issue. I think this is an excellent example but there are others.

Let's look at the abortion issue. There are also many loving devout Christians on each side of this issue who are also convinced they are on the side of "goodness". What one woman considers a compassionate act that prevents a young woman or even a young teenager from being heavy burdened with a Child that is not wanted and would keep her in poverty for her life, others see as an act that ends an innocent human life. Surely there are those on both sides of this issue that are motivated by love.

Other such examples could be picked from this thread but doing so would be inappropriate and perhaps break the rules of the board.

I disgaree, theres no way you can be truly loving and yet support infanticide and the killing of the innocent unborn. Contradiction in terms ,against the commandments, and un-christian. Abortion has always been motivated by convienience, greed, and selfishness. THeres nothing loving about a mother executing her own child, nothing. It would be like saying you are against the Nazi's killing the Jews, but for choice sake they should still be able to. There are some things that are so against the standards and morals of the christian faith that no amount of words can justify it.

 

[BigBadWlf]

HairClubforMendash, the Bible has been a basis for secular law in England and Colonial America. Perhaps you mean it should not be the basis. And in that case in the USA all you have to do is elect enough folks who share your opinion.

Your history is faulty.

English common law was copied pretty much word for word from Roman law. Rome based its written laws on the laws of the Greeks. So the ancestry of the laws of the Untied States are Greek and as such Pagan not Christian.


If one wants to claim Christian basis for the laws of the United States then one is left to explain the incredible amount of unchristian laws practiced in the United States.
Freedom of religion
Universal suffrage
Laws banning marital rape
The abolition of slavery
Civil rights

All non-Chritian ideals and at root anti-Christian laws

 

[CreedIsChrist]

You're welcome. However, I don't think I said that I don't qualify as a Christian in a scriptural manner. In fact, I hope that I do. I guess being a Christian in a scriptural manner is open to interpretation.

As explained, there are a number of professed Christians on this forum who consider themselves as such because of their (alleged) adherence to the Bible. The truth is, they don't really adhere to the scriptures anyway! No one can. One can do their best but lip service does not necessarily a Christian make. To me, however, these folks are simply legalists when their intent seems to be solely to condemn others with scripture. They are unqualified to do so. They are the ones - I believe - that Jesus referred to as hypocrites and condemned THEM because He could!

Let's face it, most of us are hypocrites in some form or another ...I know I am. This is why, for the most part, I can never judge another person even if I want to. And, while I still get annoyed by the actions of others (some of which are similar to my own!) I try not to judge them under the pretext of speaking for God. This, simply, is one of the reasons (there are other reasons) that I will NOT condemn 'gays' and also why I will oppose those that DO condemn 'gays' when using the Bible as a tool to do so.

On topic. One's sexual orientation should not even be open to discussion if the said individual would prefer that route. Furthermore, one's sexual orientation cannot be a sin. To specifically target a homosexual as being a sinner (take note you militant Christians!) is not only hypocritical but also unChrist-like.

I, KCKID, have spoken.

You really need to read this post again if you claim you don't judge. The underlined in red are already pronounced judgements and claims....In fact your whole post is a form of judgement. Theres no way you can give your opinion or proof of something without some form of judgement

Also Christ does say that you can judge once you take the log out of your own eye. THat means someone who understands the atonement of Christ and the Gospel has the authority to judge in matters. Why does Jesus say we should take our matters and problems to the church instead of to secular judges?


The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has something to judge him: The word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day, - John 12:48

 

[BigBadWlf]

Interesting that people claim that one should never listen to your heart, and in the same breath, claim that they invited Jesus into their heart. It explains a lot....

Well its different when THEY do it

 

[CreedIsChrist]

My understanding of "accepting Jesus/God" whomever is to simply acknowledge that God is a part of us.

There is a part of me that says, "Beanie, hold on. Take a breath. Read that again. Is that really what you want to say? Isn't that harsh? Isn't what you are saying done out of spite, rather than to edify?" And I look, and I think, yeah, you're right...grumble grumble...and hit the delete key.

That's not me. That's God. I know that's God.

And I know the difference between what I want, and what God wants, when what I want, even if the desire is great, is not loving.

I wholehearted agree that you are not saved by saying a prayer!!!! You don't invite Jesus into your heart, in the way we think of it, and in doing so, save yourself. You simply acknowledge God's presence that has always been in it. You can squash the voice by being cruel and not caring, not unlike the way gymnasts or dancers build up callouses. Or you can nurture it, and become more in tune with it, hear it more clearly.

But there are so many Christians who look up at the clouds, saying, "God??? Are you there????" as if God went bowling on Neptune, and isn't everywhere all the time. God is a part of your very soul, knows your thoughts, knows you better than you know yourself, as much a part of you as your very breath, and pulsing blood. It's what Buddhists mean when they say that if you see the Buddha pass you on your path, kill him. The Buddha isn't outside. It's inside and outside. You are the Buddha, and everything around you the Buddha. If you think The Buddha is outside of you only, and you are not the Buddha, you don't understand.

Change Buddha with God and I believe that it is the same concept.

So, when people say that their heart is evil, I wonder who it is that lives within them. If we are temples for the HS, how is it that evil lives inside and God lives outside?

That is why we say "Namaste": I bow to the God within you.

This is nothing more than Pantheistic Monism. And is not conclusive with the God of the bible. Considering God created the universe ex-nihilo and not from himself

God created the universe ex nihilo and not from Himself, nor within Himself, so that the Creator is not to be confused with creation, but rather
transcends it (metaphysical dualism).

Augustine tells us:


Ought not men of intelligence, and indeed men of every kind, to be stirred up to examine the nature of this opinion? For there is no need of excellent capacity for this task, that putting away the desire of contention, they may observe that if God is the soul of the world, and the world is as a body to Him, who is the soul, He must be one living being consisting of soul and body, and that this same God is a kind of womb of nature containing all things in Himself, so that the lives and souls of all living things are taken, according to the manner of each one’s birth, out of His soul which vivifies that whole mass, and therefore nothing at all remains which is not a part of God. And if this is so, who cannot see what impious and irreligious consequences follow, such as that whatever one may trample, he must trample a part of God, and in slaying any living creature, a part of God must be slaughtered? But I am unwilling to utter all that may occur to those who think of it, yet cannot be spoken without irreverence.
Concerning the rational animal himself,—that is, man,—what more unhappy belief can be entertained than that a part of God is whipped when a boy is whipped? And who, unless he is quite mad, could bear the thought that parts of God can become lascivious, iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable? In brief, why is God angry at those who do not worship Him, since these offenders are parts of Himself?



"For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen - Romans 1:25"

 

[KCKID]

You're welcome. However, I don't think I said that I don't qualify as a Christian in a scriptural manner. In fact, I hope that I do. I guess being a Christian in a scriptural manner is open to interpretation.

As explained, there are a number of professed Christians on this forum who consider themselves as such because of their (alleged) adherence to the Bible. The truth is, they don't really adhere to the scriptures anyway! No one can. One can do their best but lip service does not necessarily a Christian make. To me, however, these folks are simply legalists when their intent seems to be solely to condemn others with scripture. They are unqualified to do so. They are the ones - I believe - that Jesus referred to as hypocrites and condemned THEM because He could!

Let's face it, most of us are hypocrites in some form or another ...I know I am. This is why, for the most part, I can never judge another person even if I want to. And, while I still get annoyed by the actions of others (some of which are similar to my own!) I try not to judge them under the pretext of speaking for God. This, simply, is one of the reasons (there are other reasons) that I will NOT condemn 'gays' and also why I will oppose those that DO condemn 'gays' when using the Bible as a tool to do so.

On topic. One's sexual orientation should not even be open to discussion if the said individual would prefer that route. Furthermore, one's sexual orientation cannot be a sin. To specifically target a homosexual as being a sinner (take note you militant Christians!) is not only hypocritical but also unChrist-like.

I, KCKID, have spoken.

You really need to read this post again if you claim you don't judge. The underlined in red are already pronounced judgements and claims....In fact your whole post is a form of judgement. Theres no way you can give your opinion or proof of something without some form of judgement.

I don't see what I said as being judgmental; however, if I AM being judgmental by using the only way I know by which to express myself on a forum then I apologize. I DID tell you that I was a hypocrite!

Also Christ does say that you can judge once you take the log out of your own eye.

Obviously this is hyperbole. It also means that one will NEVER remove the log from their own eye as long as they are human and therefore NEVER be in a position to judge someone else. Remember the 'filthy rags' text that refers to ALL of us?

That means someone who understands the atonement of Christ and the Gospel has the authority to judge in matters. Why does Jesus say we should take our matters and problems to the church instead of to secular judges?

Someone 'judging' someone else is implying that they are a lesser sinner than the other. Working out matters and problems within the Church need not amount to judging another. It would be more often than not the Church responding to an issue and making an appropriate 'Christian' decision as to how to deal with it.

 

[Beanieboy]

Sure I already gave you an example. The current debate over same sex marriage. Both sides are convinced they are on the side of "goodness". I know people who I believe to be loving devout Christians on both sides of this issue. I think this is an excellent example but there are others.

Let's look at the abortion issue. There are also many loving devout Christians on each side of this issue who are also convinced they are on the side of "goodness". What one woman considers a compassionate act that prevents a young woman or even a young teenager from being heavy burdened with a Child that is not wanted and would keep her in poverty for her life, others see as an act that ends an innocent human life. Surely there are those on both sides of this issue that are motivated by love.

Other such examples could be picked from this thread but doing so would be inappropriate and perhaps break the rules of the board.

Now I understand. Those are good examples.

I was misunderstanding because of those on another board who said that hating sinners with a holy hate was the most loving thing they could do, to which I said, "if that is the most loving thing you could do, that's really sad."

 

[No Swansong]

Now I understand. Those are good examples.

I was misunderstanding because of those on another board who said that hating sinners with a holy hate was the most loving thing they could do, to which I said, "if that is the most loving thing you could do, that's really sad."

Did they really use the term Holy hate? I haven't heard that for 30 years and then it referred not to people but an ideology.