I'm a Christian

[Hetta]

Bump

Some other time, some other thread.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Some other time, some other thread.

Fair enough.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Your wife got involved in a debate that got heated so you posted about how some Christians (aka the ones involved in the debate that werent your wife) on this board aren't as Christian as your 20 page manifesto says we should be, and the very people you are criticizing on a deeply spiritual level are supposed to counsel you through this? Without being offended?

That makes no sense to me.

Thanks for your input but read the OP and follow-up posts by me. All of this has to do with something that has been a long time coming for me. And, yes, posts in this sub-form have had something to do with it. How can they not? Denying that back-biting attitudes that Paul warned us about don't happen here is just wrong.

But this is not a thread completely about defending what happened in another thread. VG is capable of defending herself and putting a stop to interactions she no longer wants to be a part of, and she did.

What the thread is about is seeking a more authentic faith that is closer in practice to what the Apostles taught in the beginning, and weighing that against modern Christian witness, including my own. This thread, ultimately, is about that conversation.

 

[Niffer]

this is the paradox i struggle with ,you either preach forgiveness or you dont...im either forgiving my enemies or im not ...i really would like clarification on what should be forgiven ( sin or otherwise ) and what shouldn't ...it seems all sins are equal just that some appear more equal than others...im not trying to come over funny but im trying to become a good Christian.....

That was asked of Christ too - How many times should I forgive? And he responded 70x7 - which we take to mean infinitely.
We are called to always forgive, because we have been forgiven of SO much. (amen)
That being said, because we can love someone and forgive them for a wrong against us, does not mean we need to tolerate or accept sin.

The best example I can think of is a dear, dear friend of mine (really more like a sister) she's not a Christian, and she is constantly in and out of sexual relationships all the time.
I love her so much, and I hate seeing her get hurt time and time again. When she talks to me, do I throw it in her face and call her a "horrible sinner, who deserves her pain"? Of course not! You cry with them and help them.
But I have not, and will not encourage her in these relationships - I don't agree with them and I talk to her kindly and lovingly about other options, or just be there for her when she's hurting.

You can love, without accepting.

As for equality of sin, I believe all sin to be equal - but if you are Catholic then I'm sure you've heard of Mortal and Venial Sins.
The Catholic church separates sin. Mortal sin imperils your soul, while Venial are lesser sins. (Eg, Murder = Mortal, Lying = Venial )
But not to terrify you, to commit a Mortal sin one must have already done 3 things:
Grave Matter: Again, like Murder, Rape, Incest, Adultery etc.
Full-Knowledge: That you did it in full knowledge that this was evil and Immoral
Deliberate Consent: That you did it of your own free will.

Now this is all pretty heavy Catholic theology, and if you want to talk more "weight of Sin" I'd check out the Catholic sub-board.
They'll be able to help you much more than I can.

Peace
~ Niffer

 

[hijklmnop]

Just ftr, I read the entire thread before I posted. Annnnd that's all I have to say. Carry on!

 

[ValleyGal]

IDC if anyone here wants to grudge and complain about me in the other thread. Don't take it out on my husband. He is a man who is struggling with his faith simply because of things like the bickering that went on in the other thread. Have you people no compassion for his struggles?? It was bad enough that you all ganged up on me when I expressed a vulnerability. Don't do it my husband as well. What happened there had nothing to do with him, so please don't hijack his thread further about it. If you can't contribute to his thread as per his request that it be discussed within the RoC, then you don't need to post here. Your problem is with me. Don't take it out on him.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

So let me answer you more directly.

Your wife got involved in a debate that got heated so you posted about how some Christians (aka the ones involved in the debate that weren't your wife) on this board aren't as Christian as your 20 page manifesto says we should be,

This thread isn't about the other thread. If you'd like to rehash grievances about it, report those grievances to staff. This thread is about the Evangelical movement in general and my particular struggles with those who call themselves Christian within that context, but don't live it out. So "my" manifesto isn't mine at all. It's a call back to the foundations that evangelicalism was built on. If you don't have time to/don't care to look at it, you have as much permission to ignore what I'm saying as you gave me to "carry on" with this thread. As if either of us need to permit the other to do anything. Also, there's an old slogan from A.A. that says "Take what you like and leave the rest". If this doesn't apply to you, and you are secure in your faith and how you live it out, then there should be no occasion for you to take offense to what I'm saying.

and the very people you are criticizing on a deeply spiritual level are supposed to counsel you through this? Without being offended?

I never asked for counsel, only discussion. Many times here, intentions get twisted and misunderstandings happen for just that reason. If you had read the whole thread, then you would see, from the OP on, that I wanted to open things up for discussion, within the context of forum rules. The reason I asked for that is so the sniping back and forth didn't happen and maybe some productive discussion could happen.

As far as being offended and criticising on a deeply spiritual level, well, then I would refer to the closed thread in this instance as an example of that overall point.

Just ftr, I read the entire thread before I posted. Annnnd that's all I have to say. Carry on!

I shall!

 

[andy b]

That was asked of Christ too - How many times should I forgive? And he responded 70x7 - which we take to mean infinitely.
We are called to always forgive, because we have been forgiven of SO much. (amen)
That being said, because we can love someone and forgive them for a wrong against us, does not mean we need to tolerate or accept sin.

The best example I can think of is a dear, dear friend of mine (really more like a sister) she's not a Christian, and she is constantly in and out of sexual relationships all the time.
I love her so much, and I hate seeing her get hurt time and time again. When she talks to me, do I throw it in her face and call her a "horrible sinner, who deserves her pain"? Of course not! You cry with them and help them.
But I have not, and will not encourage her in these relationships - I don't agree with them and I talk to her kindly and lovingly about other options, or just be there for her when she's hurting.

You can love, without accepting.

As for equality of sin, I believe all sin to be equal - but if you are Catholic then I'm sure you've heard of Mortal and Venial Sins.
The Catholic church separates sin. Mortal sin imperils your soul, while Venial are lesser sins. (Eg, Murder = Mortal, Lying = Venial )
But not to terrify you, to commit a Mortal sin one must have already done 3 things:
Grave Matter: Again, like Murder, Rape, Incest, Adultery etc.
Full-Knowledge: That you did it in full knowledge that this was evil and Immoral
Deliberate Consent: That you did it of your own free will.

Now this is all pretty heavy Catholic theology, and if you want to talk more "weight of Sin" I'd check out the Catholic sub-board.
They'll be able to help you much more than I can.

Peace
~ Niffer

thanks for replying i just struggle with the semantics ( if there are any ) of the arguments at times..if i forgive my enemies surely god should forgive

 

[akmom]

I think it's important to be a member of a church body, because it encompasses believers of all ages, all walks of life, and all needs. Meeting at home with Christian friends has its value. But what about the elderly, with their life experiences and wisdom to contribute, their unique needs? What about young children who need to see adult relationships, adults working together, adults from a spectrum of lifestyles? It's tempting to pick and choose people with the same interests, abilities and viewpoints. But it's not the same as a church body with all kinds of differences, contributing different things.

Difficulties arise when you try to function with all sorts of different people, but that is kind of the point. Christians should be able to work through those challenges with their one common ground, the Bible, and if they can't, what is the point?

I just see so many social needs met by the traditional church. For example, it is a huge support group for the disabled - both mentally and physically. It is a place where anyone can walk in and join in Christian fellowship (instead of having to network for it). It is a place where ministries are organized and supported. I just don't see the Christian faith surviving our culture without active churches, and Christians willing to be involved in them and MAKE them work.

 

[hijklmnop]

I am not hijacking the thread. I am responding to this statement made by the OP:

"I suppose what I'm trying to get at with the whole thread, and posting the Evangelical Manifesto, comes back to the reasons that the 'more than bothered' thread was asked to be closed. I read through the whole thing and it seems that as much as people try to bow out, it's not possible. Paul warns us in scripture about these types of back-biting behaviors in Galatians, even going so far as to say that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God."

...even though you are now claiming that "this thread isn't about the other thread." To me, those two claims are contradictory.

VG, you don't have to defend your husband from me. I'm not attacking, I'm pointing out why I'm taken aback by the subject of this thread.

I don't identify as "evangelical" so no, I didn't read the manifesto. I don't care to read something that was posted with the intention of showing me (and the others who debated in the other thread) how I'm not a good enough Christian because I debated in another thread that you two chose to take personally. It was a debate, not an attack.

And again, I did read this whole thread before I posted. It's be nice if you stop saying I didn't.

 

[hijklmnop]

And as far as criticizing on a deeply spiritual level? I'd love for you to show me where any criticisms were made on the other thread that equate to your insinuation that "some" of us (those who ought to read and learn from the manifesto you directed at us) are perhaps not going to inherit the kingdom of God. Lines are being crossed in THIS thread that no one came close to on the other one. You know, the one that is, according to you, the whole reason you started this thread in the first place.

 

[ValleyGal]

I am not hijacking the thread. I am responding to this statement made by the OP:

"I suppose what I'm trying to get at with the whole thread, and posting the Evangelical Manifesto, comes back to the reasons that the 'more than bothered' thread was asked to be closed. I read through the whole thing and it seems that as much as people try to bow out, it's not possible. Paul warns us in scripture about these types of back-biting behaviors in Galatians, even going so far as to say that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God."

...even though you are now claiming that "this thread isn't about the other thread." To me, those two claims are contradictory.

The issues of this thread has been going on for a long time. The other thread was just enough to demonstrate to him that he has every reason in the world to feel the way he does.

VG, you don't have to defend your husband from me. I'm not attacking, I'm pointing out why I'm taken aback by the subject of this thread.

There were two threads made on the heels of the "bothered" thread that I perceived as being directly related to the subject and I took as a prod to continue the argument. I did not go on a public forum to carry on insults, further humiliation, or argument; rather, I sent a PM to the author of those posts to ask for clarification if what I perceived was correct. She said it was not related so I dropped the issue. The point is, I was "taken aback" by the content and timing of those threads - both of them. But I did not seek public shame and dealt with the manner quietly as instructed in the Bible. I would ask people here do the same courtesy.

I don't identify as "evangelical" so no, I didn't read the manifesto. I don't care to read something that was posted with the intention of showing me (and the others who debated in the other thread) how I'm not a good enough Christian because I debated in another thread that you two chose to take personally. It was a debate, not an attack.

The manifesto is not there to show anyone that they are not a good enough Christian. It is there to show what an Evangelical Christian is, in an age where the term is often misused. Assumptions about what it is don't suit anyone until they have checked it out to make sure their assumptions are correct - one of the issues in the other thread.

And again, I did read this whole thread before I posted. It's be nice if you stop saying I didn't.

I never said you didn't, and it'd be nice if you stop saying I did. That was the whole trigger in the other thread. I did not say it, so don't say I did.

 

[Hetta]

The other thread was just enough to demonstrate to him that he has every reason in the world to feel the way he does.

So this thread is a slam on the people who participated in that thread. I'm getting whiplash trying to weed through the statements that it is about it/isn't about it.

It seems to me from this statement that you are saying it's the fault of anyone who disagreed with you on that thread that your husband is doubting his faith. That's a heavy weight to lay on the shoulders of others - a lot of responsibility to hand out.

 

[hijklmnop]

The issues of this thread has been going on for a long time. The other thread was just enough to demonstrate to him that he has every reason in the world to feel the way he does.



There were two threads made on the heels of the "bothered" thread that I perceived as being directly related to the subject and I took as a prod to continue the argument. I did not go on a public forum to carry on insults, further humiliation, or argument; rather, I sent a PM to the author of those posts to ask for clarification if what I perceived was correct. She said it was not related so I dropped the issue. The point is, I was "taken aback" by the content and timing of those threads - both of them. But I did not seek public shame and dealt with the manner quietly as instructed in the Bible. I would ask people here do the same courtesy.



The manifesto is not there to show anyone that they are not a good enough Christian. It is there to show what an Evangelical Christian is, in an age where the term is often misused. Assumptions about what it is don't suit anyone until they have checked it out to make sure their assumptions are correct - one of the issues in the other thread.



I never said you didn't, and it'd be nice if you stop saying I did. That was the whole trigger in the other thread. I did not say it, so don't say I did.

1. I didn't pm apostolic about my "suspicions" about why this thread was made because he said so publicly. He's the one who made it public, not me.

2. Apostolic is the one who has said twice that I didn't read the whole thread/all of his posts. You assumed I was accusing you when I wasn't.

 

[ValleyGal]

That's what you got from my comments??? No. And if you'll notice, I AM part of the other thread. It is not a slam, as has been previously stated. The fact is, none of us - not a one - over there, lived up to our Christian faith. That is fact. If you think it's a "slam" that's your business, but it is the truth. And he was not slamming anyone here; instead, he was making all of that personal, and simply stated what it did to him in his Christian faith....and then HE gets "slammed" here for it. Are you accusing him of slamming in the face of your own slam?

The other thread had nothing to do with anyone disagreeing with me. I think over the past year I have shown my character in how I respond when people do not agree. It's their prerogative, I respect their opinion, etc...as long as they are respectful about it. But there was no respect there, assumptions were made, accusations were made, legalism over the letter of the English language law was more important than the spirit of communication, and even when I made serious attempts to lighten things up, to repair the relationship, to politely bow out of the conversation, and own up to and take responsibility for my own actions and words, even more people ganged up and would not let it go. What did they think was going to happen? What more did they want from me? Why the continued onslaught, when it was not necessary? That is the sort of thing that A34 is disillusioned about...that there are so many unnecessary divisions and quarrels and simply not living up to our own faith and what we preach. We are all hypocrites.

And now heaping insult to injury, A34 posted this thread and you are all continuing to gang up on him - even when he had nothing to do with the other thread. You know, the last few days have really quite nicely demonstrated exactly what I had posted in the other thread about middle-school playgrounds.

Anyway, here is a man who is struggling with his faith, WE have ALL been stumbling blocks to him in that struggle, and not one here has shown ANY compassion to a man struggling. Would you all prefer that he leave his faith because of you (plural, in case any English majors are reading)?

As for me, I ask A34 to forgive me. I know that I have messed up recently, and I am not proud of myself. I apologize to him and to any others reading on these forums if I have caused anyone to stumble because of my own lack of self-control in my reactions to my triggers. I should have bowed out of the conversation when my conscience said it was getting hot, but I did not listen. I know that my actions have damaged my credibility as a Christian, and I pray that God would have mercy on me and restore those who have been adversely affected by my actions. The Word says to confess your sins one to another so that you may be healed....and being the broken person that I am, I confess as a prerequisite to his healing.

 

[ValleyGal]

1. I didn't pm apostolic about my "suspicions" about why this thread was made because he said so publicly. He's the one who made it public, not me.

2. Apostolic is the one who has said twice that I didn't read the whole thread/all of his posts. You assumed I was accusing you when I wasn't.

Then it would be helpful if you could make it clear who you are addressing.

 

[Hetta]

Wow. Speechless once more. Moving on ....

 

[mkgal1]

thanks for replying i just struggle with the semantics ( if there are any ) of the arguments at times..if i forgive my enemies surely god should forgive

I think I understand your question (and struggle). The Bible says we are to *love* our enemies (as God loves the whole world and gave His only son for all). Love (as I understand it) means that we want reconciliation for all (just as God does). God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked. He doesn't wish any to perish.

However, we are to forgive "just as He has forgiven". To me....that's where many get hung up. We have to ask....*how* is it that He forgives? Like you're suggesting.....it's not a universal forgiveness. There are certain requirements.

 

[mkgal1]

There are a lot of heavy accusations in this thread. It reminds me of Stephens speech in Acts 7. Our enemy is the Father of Lies---that's something I try to keep in the forefront of my mind. The "doctrine" I hold to (mainly) is trying to seek Truth in all situations (especially when things become confusing and divisive).

God's Plan for Unity Is: Everyone Should Love God and Other People Enough to Learn, Preach, and Practice the Truth and to Oppose Error.~Unity & Division: Bible Teaching about Ecumenical Diversity

We have a promise that, if we seek Truth in sincerity, it will be given to us:

If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and He will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking.~James 1:5

Back to Stephen's speech. I found a cute little video that describes what happened in Acts 7:

The Story of Stephen's Speech - Part 3 - YouTube

Truth has been rejected a lot in favor of what people would rather believe all through out time.

 

[hijklmnop]

Then it would be helpful if you could make it clear who you are addressing.

Okay. you guys are both speaking for each other at times so I was more or less addressing you each in the same post, but I can be more specific in the future.