How to get through to Conservatives?

[GillDouglas]

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?

I understand your point, and we'd have to agree on what is a sin. In my understanding sinning is putting anything, one's own desires, before God. In other words making something a god in place of Him, whether its booze, money, food, sex, stealing, lying, etc.

 

[Truthfrees]

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?

"Stop abuse" is valid pursuit.

Liberals and conservatives agree on this.

This is perhaps where we can start to fellowship together in Christ?

Sin vs relativity is where we're going to continue to disagree.

If we see scripture as inerrant and you don't, how are we to reconcile our opposite interpretations?

 

[Jack of Spades]

There is one element I'd like to ask about CF conservative views on sin. Is it common for conservatives to believe that having alot of sinners (whatever that means) in a group of people, like in a city or in a nation, means that this group is at some point going to be collectively punished by God, Sodoma and Gomorra style or by disasters or war?

In charismatic fundamentalism I lived in, it was very typical for hardliners to believe that things like making gay relationships legal would eventually end up bringing divine punishment upon the nation, usually it practically meant war, not brimstone literally raining from heaven. So, in the mindset of charismatic fundamentalist, people who were pro-gay were seen to be an open threat for the safety of everyone in the nation because they were provocing God to act.

Is this something CF conservatives generally believe?

 

[hedrick]

"Stop abuse" is valid pursuit.

Liberals and conservatives agree on this.

This is perhaps where we can start to fellowship together in Christ?

Sin vs relativity is where we're going to continue to disagree.

If we see scripture as inerrant and you don't, how are we to reconcile our opposite interpretations?

Inerrancy is seldom the actual issue, except with creationism. I don't think Paul made a mistake in Rom 1. I don't think he was thinking of gay Christian relationships. Indeed that's obvious from the passage itself. And I'd use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and use the much more extensive treatment of Rom 1 to illuminate what he was thinking of in 1 Cor 6:9. The argument that Paul simply wasn't thinking of the modern situation is the same thing that we use to explain his handling of slavery and hair covering. So this isn't a difference over inerrancy or the authority of Scripture, but rather the fact that people brought up to consider homosexuality the ultimate sin treat passages involving it differently than other passages.

 

[hedrick]

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!

I don't want to look like I"m attacking you personally, because your posting was in fact quite moderate and reasonable, and you may well not be asserting the position I'm going to attack here. However the distinction between individual sins and "living in sin" is often part of the warping of theology to condemn gays. People will often say "well, OK, everyone sins. But gays have an unrepentant sinful lifestyle, which certainly isn't acceptable."

The list in 1 Cor 6:9 includes drunks. Alcoholism is a very good analogy for what conservatives think homosexuality is. It’s a condition that causes people to do something on 1 Cor 6:9 list. They do it persistently, and quite commonly people with alcohol problems deny that they have a problem, so they don’t think they need to repent.

Are Christians prepared to say that an alcoholic who has accepted Christ as his savior will be damned? Few people would take that position. How about someone who is engaged in some sin that exploits other people, but denies it. E.g. all Southern slave-holders, or many modern landlords.

This simply isn’t a position that anyone would take if homosexuality hadn’t warped our judgement. One of the biggest problems with sin is that we often live in denial.

 

[Truthfrees]

There is one element I'd like to ask about CF conservative views on sin. Is it common for conservatives to believe that having alot of sinners (whatever that means) in a group of people, like in a city or in a nation, means that this group is at some point going to be collectively punished by God, Sodoma and Gomorra style or by disasters or war?

In charismatic fundamentalism I lived in, it was very typical for hardliners to believe that things like making gay relationships legal would eventually end up bringing divine punishment upon the nation, usually it practically meant war, not brimstone literally raining from heaven. So, in the mindset of charismatic fundamentalist, people who were pro-gay were seen to be an open threat for the safety of everyone in the nation because they were provoking God to act.

Is this something CF conservatives generally believe?

Some do and some don't.

The balance of grace vs judgement is an issue conservatives discuss.

The Bible (OT and NT) has examples of grace and judgement.

The grace only conservatives would be similar to liberals in the fact that they they believe the blood of Jesus deals with every sin and no judgement will fall.

They would differ from liberals in the fact that they call sin a sin, and the Bible is inerrant.

Can I safely presume liberals are totally grace, no judgment or consequences for any outright willful sin?

 

[Truthfrees]

I don't want to look like I"m attacking you personally, because your posting was in fact quite moderate and reasonable, and you may well not be asserting the position I'm going to attack here. However the distinction between individual sins and "living in sin" is often part of the warping of theology to condemn gays. People will often say "well, OK, everyone sins. But gays have an unrepentant sinful lifestyle, which certainly isn't acceptable."

The list in 1 Cor 6:9 includes drunks. Alcoholism is a very good analogy for what conservatives think homosexuality is. It’s a condition that causes people to do something on 1 Cor 6:9 list. They do it persistently, and quite commonly people with alcohol problems deny that they have a problem, so they don’t think they need to repent.

Are Christians prepared to say that an alcoholic who has accepted Christ as his savior will be damned? Few people would take that position. How about someone who is engaged in some sin that exploits other people, but denies it. E.g. all Southern slave-holders, or many modern landlords.

This simply isn’t a position that anyone would take if homosexuality hadn’t warped our judgement. One of the biggest problems with sin is that we often live in denial.

One thing all conservatives would agree on is the 1 Corinthians 6:9 list is a list of sins we should stop doing.

Damned to hell or not is up for discussion, depending on what "not inherit the kingdom of God" means.

 

[GillDouglas]

I don't want to look like I"m attacking you personally, because your posting was in fact quite moderate and reasonable, and you may well not be asserting the position I'm going to attack here. However the distinction between individual sins and "living in sin" is often part of the warping of theology to condemn gays. People will often say "well, OK, everyone sins. But gays have an unrepentant sinful lifestyle, which certainly isn't acceptable."

The list in 1 Cor 6:9 includes drunks. Alcoholism is a very good analogy for what conservatives think homosexuality is. It’s a condition that causes people to do something on 1 Cor 6:9 list. They do it persistently, and quite commonly people with alcohol problems deny that they have a problem, so they don’t think they need to repent.

Are Christians prepared to say that an alcoholic who has accepted Christ as his savior will be damned? Few people would take that position. How about someone who is engaged in some sin that exploits other people, but denies it. E.g. all Southern slave-holders, or many modern landlords.

This simply isn’t a position that anyone would take if homosexuality hadn’t warped our judgement. One of the biggest problems with sin is that we often live in denial.

You bring up some very valid points, and I don't feel that this is an attack on me personally. We are instructed not to judge, because we would bring more judgement upon ourselves because we have and do sin. Christians would not say that an alcoholic who has accepted Christ as his Savior will ultimately be damned because we cannot say for certain how or when God's grace may come into that person's life and lift them up. So what I'd like you to consider is at what point do we step in and help someone who is struggling with sin? At what point do we reach out in love to be God's instrument in a fellow Christians life? Or do we just turn away, ignore it, or try to justify their actions? If we could agree on what sin is, and what is a sin I think you would agree that we should be His hands and feet to get one another through the tempations of this world.

 

[Truthfrees]

Inerrancy is seldom the actual issue, except with creationism. I don't think Paul made a mistake in Rom 1. I don't think he was thinking of gay Christian relationships. Indeed that's obvious from the passage itself. And I'd use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and use the much more extensive treatment of Rom 1 to illuminate what he was thinking of in 1 Cor 6:9. The argument that Paul simply wasn't thinking of the modern situation is the same thing that we use to explain his handling of slavery and hair covering. So this isn't a difference over inerrancy or the authority of Scripture, but rather the fact that people brought up to consider homosexuality the ultimate sin treat passages involving it differently than other passages.

Inerrancy would have an underlying impact how scripture is interpreted.

If someone believes scripture is man's words, they wouldn't be nearly as meticulous about trying to understand the exact wording of a statement.

They would almost immediately assume relativity takes precedence. Literalism would be seen as unsophisticated. Changing the meaning to suit would be a priority.

IOW, as Gill said, changing ourselves to suit scripture, vs changing scripture to suit ourselves would be an issue.

Putting all the scriptures in line as below a conservative would see a clear message to not behave in certain sinful ways. A conservative would have a hard time seeing what you see.

"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

"Women ·stopped having natural sex and started having sex with other women[exchanged natural (heterosexual) relations for unnatural ones]. In the same way, men ·stopped having [abandoned] natural ·sex [relations with women] and ·began wanting [were inflamed in their lust for] each other." - Romans 1:26-27

"If a man ·has sexual relations [lies] with another man as a man does with a woman, these two men have ·done a hateful sin [committed an abomination]." - Leviticus 20:13

 

[hedrick]

Inerrancy would have an underlying impact how scripture is interpreted.

If someone believes scripture is man's words, they wouldn't be nearly as meticulous about trying to understand the exact wording of a statement.

I think you'll find that critical commentators are at least as careful to understand wording as conservative ones. The issue is context: is the passage addressed to the specifics of a situation or is it intended for us? Everyone agrees that there are plenty of passages in the Bible directed to specific situations. Inerrancy doesn't change that, nor can believing it inerrancy or references to "literal meaning" solve the problem of telling what is situation-specific and what is not. I've tried to produce a list of the kinds of thing one would look at. You even agreed with it. I don’t think we’re disagreeing about inerrancy or the authority of Scripture, but about whether specific passages were addressed to the context of Paul’s readers in a way that they don’t apply directly to us.

What I think is that there’s a kind of implicit ad hominem here. Ad hominem is saying “you only believe XXX because you YYY,” i.e. avoiding looking at the merits of an argument by attacking the motivations of the person making it. Conservatives look at Rom 1, and don’t see that it is directed specifically to the situation of pagans, who get sated by heterosexual sin, and turned to homosexual relationships. When liberals think this is a different situation that that of Christian gays, conservatives say “that’s because you don’t consider Scripture to be God’s word” where they should be saying “I don’t agree that this passage is directed to a specific situation.” This is ad hominem. I rarely see a discussion of homosexuality that isn’t full of ad hominem. Sometimes on both sides.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Can I safely presume liberals are totally grace, no judgment or consequences for any outright willful sin?

Because you quoted my post when you asked this, I have to mention just in case, altho my faith icon should say it, that please don't mistake me as a representative of liberal Christian opinions. I'm a social liberal and an ex-Christian.

 

[hedrick]

Can I safely presume liberals are totally grace, no judgment or consequences for any outright willful sin?

Absolutely not. An emphasis on justice is a hallmark of the liberal Church. However liberals tend to emphasize judgement as focusing on actions that harm others, rather than on "purity" type offenses. If you look at Jesus' parables and other teachings about judgement, I think you'll find that this was his practice as well.

I note that Jesus never used pure or holy, or derivatives of those terms, to apply to believers. His goal wasn't to be pure, but to be fruitful, i.e. to do things that actually help others, and to abstain from abuse. What made him the most upset was when leaders abused those who they were supposed to be supporting.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I understand your point, and we'd have to agree on what is a sin. In my understanding sinning is putting anything, one's own desires, before God. In other words making something a god in place of Him, whether its booze, money, food, sex, stealing, lying, etc.

"Stop abuse" is valid pursuit.

Liberals and conservatives agree on this.

This is perhaps where we can start to fellowship together in Christ?

Sin vs relativity is where we're going to continue to disagree.

If we see scripture as inerrant and you don't, how are we to reconcile our opposite interpretations?

This is good progress so far I think, as there is dialogue. My thoughts on "how to make it all work" is examine how heterosexual people who are affected lustfully and then examine how homosexual people who are affected lustfully are treated and discuss why favoritism is shown, and perhaps propose steps to not show favoritism, as James indicates that even in the perfect law of liberty this is a notable sin.

 

[Hetta]

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.

So you will tell those who are living together, remarried, after a divorce not excused by adultery to separate immediately? Because that is ongoing sin.

 

[GillDouglas]

So you will tell those who are living together, remarried, after a divorce not excused by adultery to separate immediately? Because that is ongoing sin.

This is a difficult question. I doubt I would be privy to the circumstances involving their divorce, so I couldn't say. I'm not sure how you would consider it an ongoing sin. If someone commited adultery to cause the marriage to end or the divorce and remarriage is considered an act of adultery, it's a done deal.

 

[Truthfrees]

So you will tell those who are living together, remarried, after a divorce not excused by adultery to separate immediately? Because that is ongoing sin.

Many churches won't allow divorced people to be in leadership, never mind be ordained.

They encourage the divorced couple to get counselling and work toward remarriage.

There's many testimonies of divorced couples getting remarried.

It's miraculous how when people take God's word as final authority, they pray for ways to make things right and undo the wrong they've done.

I knew of a thief who had a house full of stolen property.

He got saved and didn't know what to do.

His pastor didn't either, so they prayed together that God would make a way for the new Christian to do the right thing, whether it be turn himself into the police, or whatever.

Within a short time, the thief's house was broken into and EVERYTHING was stolen by another thief.

Really amazing things happen when we trust God and ask Him to work everything out in ways that are obedient to scripture.

Aren't there testimonies of ex-gays here on CF who genuinely changed their sexual orientation?

I thought I'd seen a few.

How do they do it?

What do they say worked for them?

 

[Truthfrees]

This is good progress so far I think, as there is dialogue. My thoughts on "how to make it all work" is examine how heterosexual people who are affected lustfully and then examine how homosexual people who are affected lustfully are treated and discuss why favoritism is shown, and perhaps propose steps to not show favoritism, as James indicates that even in the perfect law of liberty this is a notable sin.

In any situation where's there's favoritism shown, I agree with what you're saying.

Have you been a part of a conservative church that only speaks against homosexuality, but doesn't say or do anything about adultery, dishonesty, drunkards, abuse, etc? I haven't.

All the churches I've been a part of condemn all sin.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In any situation where's there's favoritism shown, I agree with what you're saying.

Have you been a part of a conservative church that only speaks against homosexuality, but doesn't say or do anything about adultery, dishonesty, drunkards, abuse, etc? I haven't.

All the churches I've been a part of condemn all sin.

In cases where people are actually being consistent, I trust the principles they're following to manifest the reality for them.

 

[Truthfrees]

In cases where people are actually being consistent, I trust the principles they're following to manifest the reality for them.

I agree.

Inconsistency and double standards is what frustrates us all.

 

[Hetta]

This is a difficult question. I doubt I would be privy to the circumstances involving their divorce, so I couldn't say. I'm not sure how you would consider it an ongoing sin. If someone commited adultery to cause the marriage to end or the divorce and remarriage is considered an act of adultery, it's a done deal.

Wait. Adultery is the only "exception" for divorce, as per the Bible. So if a person divorces their spouse for a reason not adultery, then remarries, that second marriage is an ongoing act of adultery. That is the conservative reading of scripture on divorce and remarriage. Except for lately, when they decided that they hate two gay single people marrying each other more than they hate remarriage without the "exception".