How to get through to Conservatives?

[Gregory Thompson]

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)

This is in the same chapter as the sermon on the Mount in the bible, and I think this is how Jesus got through to conservatives. Of the church fathers, I think only Origen took this passage literally and gouged his eyes out and this says something.

To Jesus and God the Father "lust" is an issue of the heart, and the reality of the heart is the closest thing we have to the reality of God, so to burn lustfully towards someone is equated to adultery in the same way that hating someone in your heart is equated to murder, there is then a greater principle at work here. But Jesus does leave some instructions for those fixated on the outward reality of things .. guess what? if your eyes are causing you to sin .. then gouge them out, if you can't keep your hand off yourself, then cut it off.

However, in reality .. I could cut off each body part as it "caused me to sin" and it would be revealed through death and my release from the reality of sin .. that the body wasn't causing me to sin . cutting off people from my company or parts from my body solves nothing .. Jesus taught some hard teachings so people would see the absurdity of their thinking and be accepting of all as he was is and always will be.

 

[Truthfrees]

According to Jesus, any exceptions made to allow people to divorce is because their hearts are hardened. The reason for it ultimately not being okay is "because in the beginning it was not so" .. therefore, christians intolerant of gay marriage for the reason that "in the beginning it was not so" should in consistency be equally intolerant (or tolerant) of divorce.

Kindly note that the hypocritical righteousness of the pharisees does need to be surpassed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

So true. The hypocrite would be the party with the hard heart.

The innocent party in the divorce would be taken care of by a biblical reason for divorce.

Here's what Jesus says: "Matthew 19:9, Matthew 5:42 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

Here's what Paul says: "1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace."

Christians who oppose the gay lifestyle or SSM do so because of this scripture: "1 Corinthians 6:9 Surely [ Don’t…?] you know that the ·people who do wrong [unrighteous; wicked; unjust] will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be ·fooled [deceived]. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are ·male prostitutes [or passive homosexual partners], or ·men who have sexual relations with other men [or active homosexual partners], those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, ·lie about others [slander others; use abusive language], or ·rob[swindle]—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom." - 1 Corinthians 6:9

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So true. The hypocrite would be the party with the hard heart.

The innocent party in the divorce would be taken care of by a biblical reason for divorce.

Here's what Jesus says: "Matthew 19:9, Matthew 5:42 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

Here's what Paul says: "1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace."

Christians who oppose the gay lifestyle or SSM do so because of this scripture: "1 Corinthians 6:9 Surely [ Don’t…?] you know that the ·people who do wrong [unrighteous; wicked; unjust] will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be ·fooled [deceived]. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are ·male prostitutes [or passive homosexual partners], or ·men who have sexual relations with other men [or active homosexual partners], those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, ·lie about others [slander others; use abusive language], or ·rob[swindle]—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom." - 1 Corinthians 6:9

Hmmm so if there is an innocent party clause in your theology, it needs to apply to all people in order to not be hypocritical.

If scripture was applied consistently in all cases not just the cases with emotional impact, I would then believe the "basis of scripture" argument. Christians who do not oppose SSM also use scripture.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

for some background I look at the covenants as a hierarchy because Jesus outlined it that way.

For example creation gives voice to law, God gives voice to grace, love and the new creation

the law's form of love expresses itself as helping those in need conditional of what we have to give

God's form of love expresses itself as giving us what we cannot give to ourselves unconditionally

When the love that God embodies is matured within us, we can have confidence on the day of judgment because we're just like him in this present age.

So citing the written code, when elsewhere the creation is appealed to, the creation trumps the law where they appear to have a difference of opinion. In the same way grace trumps law by virtue of Jesus Christ, and love trumps death.

 

[Hetta]

Here's what Paul says: "1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace."

This scripture does not mention divorce, only separation, so it is not a 'get out of jail free' card for those who wish to divorce, where no adultery has been committed. Anyone divorcing and remarrying on the basis of this scripture is committing ongoing adultery - this is by the conservative reading of scripture, not by my own btw.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, I at one time started to see scripture the way you're describing: a man-made powerless version of God's words, nothing authoritative or solid enough to lean on in complete faith and confidence.’

A human witness to God’s actions. That’s not powerless.

Was there ever a time in your life when God's words were literal and God-breathed for you?

Or did scripture always seem man-made to you?

No. I never ran into this kind of conservative Christianity until I was in grad school. And even since then I see it almost entirely just via the Internet.

But it’s always seemed to me like an exercise in ignoring evidence: scientific, historical, and even the nature of Scripture itself. I’ve never had the slightest attraction to it, in part because the resulting Christianity has always seemed to me to be contrary to what Jesus himself wanted.

Yes, Scripture has always seemed to me like a product of humans who have seen God’s actions and wanted to tell others about it.

 

[Truthfrees]

Hmmm so if there is an innocent party clause in your theology, it needs to apply to all people in order to not be hypocritical.

If scripture was applied consistently in all cases not just the cases with emotional impact, I would then believe the "basis of scripture" argument. Christians who do not oppose SSM also use scripture.

So true.

I guess I was just thinking out loud about the different scriptures and why certain behaviors God calls sins that keep people from entering heaven, and other behaviors are ok.

Like why is divorce wrong, but isn't a sin that keeps a person out of the kingdom of heaven?

And why is divorcing for the sake of infidelity and abandonment ok, but other reasons are called hard-hearted?

And why is adultery, dishonesty, abuse, homosexuality, etc a different class of serious sin, that keeps people out of the kingdom of heaven?

And what exactly is the kingdom of heaven? Does that phrase mean those kind of people don't go to heaven? OR does it mean they are disconnected from God here on earth? OR what does it mean? Literalists look at each word closely to find God's true meaning.

Hedrick expressed in one of his posts what crazy and dangerous interpretations people make, by NOT being careful to ponder what God was really saying. IOW, man can come up with some crazy stuff apart from God and His wisdom.

I never thought about all these questions until your and Gill's discussion.

I guess I'm still pondering these issues.

I probably shouldn't have thought out loud so that I don't give a wrong impression.

 

[Truthfrees]

for some background I look at the covenants as a hierarchy because Jesus outlined it that way.

For example creation gives voice to law, God gives voice to grace, love and the new creation

the law's form of love expresses itself as helping those in need conditional of what we have to give

God's form of love expresses itself as giving us what we cannot give to ourselves unconditionally

When the love that God embodies is matured within us, we can have confidence on the day of judgment because we're just like him in this present age.

So citing the written code, when elsewhere the creation is appealed to, the creation trumps the law where they appear to have a difference of opinion. In the same way grace trumps law by virtue of Jesus Christ, and love trumps death.

To me these are all an inseparable part of God's wisdom and need to used in a blended form.

IOW, mercy and justice TOGETHER create perfection.

One without the other is weak, ineffective, unbalanced.

God's laws were used to create everything. God's laws instruct us on everything.

God's love created everything. God's love instructs us on everything.

 

[Truthfrees]

This scripture does not mention divorce, only separation, so it is not a 'get out of jail free' card for those who wish to divorce, where no adultery has been committed. Anyone divorcing and remarrying on the basis of this scripture is committing ongoing adultery - this is by the conservative reading of scripture, not by my own btw.

True. Good point.

Thinking.....

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So true.

I guess I was just thinking out loud about the different scriptures and why certain behaviors God calls sins that keep people from entering heaven, and other behaviors are ok.

Like why is divorce wrong, but isn't a sin that keeps a person out of the kingdom of heaven?

And why is divorcing for the sake of infidelity and abandonment ok, but other reasons are called hard-hearted?

And why is adultery, dishonesty, abuse, homosexuality, etc a different class of serious sin, that keeps people out of the kingdom of heaven?

And what exactly is the kingdom of heaven? Does that phrase mean those kind of people don't go to heaven? OR does it mean they are disconnected from God here on earth? OR wha does it mean? Literalists look at each word closely to find God's true meaning.

Hedricks expressed in one of his posts what crazy and dangerous interpretations people make, by NOT being careful to ponder what God was really saying. IOW, man can come up with some crazy stuff apart from God and His wisdom.

I never thought about all these questions until your and Gill's discussion.

I guess I'm still pondering these issues.

I probably shouldn't have thought out loud so that I don't give a wrong impression.

Sometimes I think about it this way, in the earth spiritualist traditions "the kundalini" the flow of energy within the earth is what is central to everything, the kundalini flow feels somewhat like an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. now hold that thought.

Christianity, is a tradition that is out of this world, and is like a lot of the old "star" orders, in that in order to be aligned to the heaven we need to let go of all the earth related stuff (such as sexuality and the kundalini) to be aligned with the air around us, the sky, and the stars ... what is unique about Christianity is when we are born again by the Spirit (wind) we become the same materials as the heaven while inside an earthen vessel.

The earthen vessel will eventually die and join the earth, but the person we were born again as will enter the heaven and then the realm of God behind the heaven. The passages instructing us to not cultivate the earthly nature, are intended to help us save time in our focus so we can mature spiritually. But for sure, our bodies that are aligned with the earth are not coming with us, this is why we're being resurrected into new ones.

now what Paul said about the sin within him that was doing the sinning makes more sense.

To me these are all an inseparable part of God's wisdom and need to used in a blended form.

IOW, mercy and justice TOGETHER create perfection.

One without the other is weak, ineffective, unbalanced.

God's laws were used to create everything. God's laws instruct us on everything.

God's love created everything. God's love instructs us on everything.

I agree balance is important, but human minds are subject to imbalance consistently. Beyond all that, it is important to remember the scripture sums things up for us, any commandment is summed up in one brief saying that love does not harm their neighbour. So a commandment originally handed down for the good of the people that is now being applied in a hurtful way, we can take a hiatus on applying it that way indefinitely until a non-harmful way emerges. If the application of a law violates the premise of its creation, it is no longer the same law.

Love God with everything you've got and Love your neighbour as you would want to be loved, on these two hang all the teachings.

 

[Truthfrees]

A human witness to God’s actions. That’s not powerless.


No. I never ran into this kind of conservative Christianity until I was in grad school. And even since then I see it almost entirely just via the Internet.

But it’s always seemed to me like an exercise in ignoring evidence: scientific, historical, and even the nature of Scripture itself. I’ve never had the slightest attraction to it, in part because the resulting Christianity has always seemed to me to be contrary to what Jesus himself wanted.

Yes, Scripture has always seemed to me like a product of humans who have seen God’s actions and wanted to tell others about it.

Thanks for clarifying.

This helps me understand where liberals are coming from.

I don't know what to do with this information yet in order to help us get along better.

Right now it seems like a huge chasm to try to bridge.

We conservatives live by God's words like our life depends on it.

We conservatives may disagree on the right interpretation of God's words, but we all believe His words to be inerrant.

If God has the power to create everything, He most certainly has the power to make sure His words are safely and accurately communicated and preserved for us through all time.

We have the most miraculous life-time adventure with God from the day we believe and accept His words as truth to live by.

God's words are life, health, peace, safety, deliverance to us.

This is why we can't let go of what we KNOW EXPERIENTIALLY about God's words.

So from what you're saying, you haven't ever had this kind of experience concerning God's words, because to you the Bible is man's words.

So what then is your faith based on?

What do you do when faced with insurmountable odds?

Where does God fit (what role does He play) in science, life, prayer, etc, for liberals?

What use is the Bible to you then if you believe it's unreliable and unauthoritative, the words of man?

How then can any liberal know for sure what God wants, if the Bible is man's words not God's?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's the truth when spoken in love, apart from love .. it is only your truth with three fingers pointing back.

It's the truth when it sets free, when ideas are used to force people out of fellowship and encourage them to live outside of God's blessing because they are an abomination .. this is not truth . this is entanglement of the worst sort. God's people need to learn the difference.

It's truth when it sets everyone free. It's your truth when it sets you free. It's God's truth when it sets the whole creation free.

Even the devil can quote scripture, so we need to have a standard by which to understand when a passage is being read in good character or from a spirit of malice and be able to know .. it's just wrong.

Bible interpretations can be sinful, just because the scripture is being quoted doesn't mean the argument is correct, the scripture needs to follow the basis of its premise which is love.

 

[hedrick]

So true.

I guess I was just thinking out loud about the different scriptures and why certain behaviors God calls sins that keep people from entering heaven, and other behaviors are ok.

Standard Protestant theology is that there’s no sin so large that it can’t be forgiven and no sin so small that it won’t keep you out of the Kingdom if you don’t repent. Distinguishing some sins as keeping you out of the Kingdom and some not is pretty much considered heresy from a Protestant perspective, because it denies the reality of justification.

Looking at 1 Cor 6:9, it’s unlikely that Paul was distinguishing that particular list of sins from others. I believe they’re just a sample, possibly chosen as things most common in Corinth. It goes from drunk to idolatry, pretty much spanning the range from least to most. It’s also a list where if you’re honest, pretty much everybody fits someplace. (My assumption is that “revilers” is a reference to Jesus’ teaching in Mat 5:22.) 1 Cor 6:11, you have been washed, sanctified, justified doesn’t mean that Christians are wholly free of such sins. That would contradict Romans. Rather, they no longer define us, since we are now Christ’s. We’re not “sinners” even though we do continue to sin. Of course Paul is also saying that we’re not supposed to do them, since one of the points of this passage is to demand that his readers get with the program and deal with sin.

I’ve detected a tendency in some Protestants to warp Protestant theology in the interest of condemning homosexuality. People who otherwise would talk about justification by faith and reject the distinction between mortal and venal sin still want to say that no homosexual can enter heaven. But if you do that then you have to say that no one who is drunk or calls his brother “fool” (“revilers”) can enter heaven. Not what Paul meant, I don’t think.

 

[GillDouglas]

I've not come across any perfect people and I am certainly no exception. I've sinned against man and God more times than I can count in both thought, word and deed. I'm divorced, I cheated on my ex-wife, stole, and lied. I've caught myself looking lustfully at other women, sinning against my wife and pray like Paul "God please take this thorn away from me".

I do not condone and I hate my sinful actions. I strive daily to put this sin behind me through repentance, prayer and the work of the Holy Spirit. No one else should condone my sins, and some would be quick to judge as I have against others, its human nature. However, living in sin is another matter entirely and following the desires of ones flesh is sin! Agreeing with and encouraging others to live this way is not in line with the teachings of the Bible no matter how you try to spin it.

I pray for those who struggle with sin, because we all do. I pray that we would encourage our brothers and sisters in love. I pray that we would continue to show compassion by helping each other stay on the path of righteousness.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

it's not so much "encouraging them to sin" it's giving others the same space to make mistakes and figure things out that I had, even if they sin differently than me. God has his own way, and I need to trust him, perhaps I can point out if people are hurting themselves and it hurts me to watch them live that way. But in the case of homosexuality i'm just not seeing the harm, and that's the basis of all do not do commandments and any commandment according to scripture. Honestly, if the harm is not obvious (the scripture says they're obvious so this is an important qualifier) like with murder, or corporate greed, or the environment being destroyed, then it's really up to God to communicate it to the person why it's so harmful, and why they need to stop. Remember that Jesus gave the kingdom to children, so being mean to people for no good reason doesn't really make sense unless you grow up in a family like that .. and the family of God and God the Father are not abusive .. Amen?

 

[Jack of Spades]

However, living in sin is another matter entirely and following the desires of ones flesh is sin! Agreeing with and encouraging others to live this way is not in line with the teachings of the Bible no matter how you try to spin it.

What this practically says is that, living in a balanced, healthy relationship with another gay person while engaging in sex responsibly is far worse sin than occasionally banging some stranger on a dark alley. The whole concept of "living in sin" vs "falling in sin" can sometimes lead to a twisted moral standards.

I personally think it's much better for both, for the gays and for the environment, to have environment which encourages gays to form stable relationships. The other option is that they're supposed to create facade of normality, while occasionally "falling" into gay behavior in irresponsible and short-sighted manner. That kind of life is much more destructive for everyone involved than the stable relationship - model.

 

[hedrick]

Truthfrees asked about the Kingdom of heaven.

First, “heaven” is a circumlocution for God. Jews tried to avoid using the name “God”, and tended to replace it with heaven. So Matthew uses Kingdom of heaven where Mark and Luke use Kingdom of God. It’s the same thing.

Second, the Gospels use it a lot more than Paul. I’m going to assume it was Jesus’ term. But I’m also going to assume that when Paul uses it he means it the same way Jesus does. Take a look in a concordance or Bible search program. I think you’ll find that Jesus uses it both for the people of God now, and for eternal life. Indeed I’d argue that for Jesus, the Kingdom of God that exists now among his followers is the same thing as eternal life. It’s pretty clear in John (which tends to use “eternal life” rather than “Kingdom”) that eternal life starts now. The Synoptics say that Jesus' primary message was that the Kingdom is present among us now in him. However in 1 Cor 6:9 Paul seems to be emphasizing the future aspects, so he’s probably speaking of people’s eternal destination. At least that’s what I understand by “inherit.” If he meant the current Kingdom I assume he would say that wrongdoers aren’t members of the Kingdom, not that they don’t inherit it.

 

[Truthfrees]

Truthfrees asked about the Kingdom of heaven.

First, “heaven” is a circumlocution for God. Jews tried to avoid using the name “God”, and tended to replace it with heaven. So Matthew uses Kingdom of heaven where Mark and Luke use Kingdom of God. It’s the same thing.

Second, the Gospels use it a lot more than Paul. I’m going to assume it was Jesus’ term. But I’m also going to assume that when Paul uses it he means it the same way Jesus does. Take a look in a concordance or Bible search program. I think you’ll find that Jesus uses it both for the people of God now, and for eternal life. Indeed I’d argue that for Jesus, the Kingdom of God that exists now among his followers is the same thing as eternal life. It’s pretty clear in John (which tends to use “eternal life” rather than “Kingdom”) that eternal life starts now. The Synoptics say that Jesus' primary message was that the Kingdom is present among us now in him. However in 1 Cor 6:9 Paul seems to be emphasizing the future aspects, so he’s probably speaking of people’s eternal destination. At least that’s what I understand by “inherit.” If he meant the current Kingdom I assume he would say that wrongdoers aren’t members of the Kingdom, not that they don’t inherit it.

Yes, this scripture can open up many variations of understanding.

It won't affect what scripture calls sin, but it will affect what we think happens to those who live in sin.

I haven't studied it so I have nothing informative to share on what enter the kingdom of heaven means.

I have lots of questions that keep me thinking and praying though.

 

[GillDouglas]

What this practically says is that, living in a balanced, healthy relationship with another gay person while engaging in sex responsibly is far worse sin than occasionally banging some stranger on a dark alley. The whole concept of "living in sin" vs "falling in sin" can sometimes lead to a twisted moral standards.

I personally think it's much better for both, for the gays and for the environment, to have environment which encourages gays to form stable relationships. The other option is that they're supposed to create facade of normality, while occasionally "falling" into gay behavior in irresponsible and short-sighted manner. That kind of life is much more destructive for everyone involved than the stable relationship - model.

I do not mean that one sin is worse than any other. A sin is a sin. The act of living in continual and unrepentent sin, however, is different than sinning. I would expect any Christian to approach a brother or sister caught in this trap regardless of the sin to offer aid in turning away from it. I would not expect a Christian to accept it and/or encourage it.

 

[Truthfrees]

What this practically says is that, living in a balanced, healthy relationship with another gay person while engaging in sex responsibly is far worse sin than occasionally banging some stranger on a dark alley. The whole concept of "living in sin" vs "falling in sin" can sometimes lead to a twisted moral standards.

I personally think it's much better for both, for the gays and for the environment, to have environment which encourages gays to form stable relationships. The other option is that they're supposed to create facade of normality, while occasionally "falling" into gay behavior in irresponsible and short-sighted manner. That kind of life is much more destructive for everyone involved than the stable relationship - model.

In a relative lifestyle, what you're saying is absolutely correct.

In a try-to-stop-sinning lifestyle it's irrelevant because eliminating sin eliminates the relativity.