Miss California opposes gay marriage

[herev]

That looks more like a thread derail

 

[BelindaP]

Belinda, you asked, "Why does homosexual sex need to be addressed any more than any other sin?" I don't see how your response above had anything to do with my answer to you. I simply said that a reason why homosexual sex needs to be addressed more is because it is an unnatural sin as opposed to a natural sin (for lack of a better way to describe it). I said nothing about accusing anybody of anything.

Homosexual sex isn't any more unnatural than any other sin. Just because YOU haven't been tempted, it doesn't mean that millions of others aren't tempted. ALL sins are crimes against God's plan. Period.

God doesn't let us redefine Love - HE IS LOVE,
therefore, He is the authority on what Love is.

Homosexuality carried a death penalty for abomination in the OT.

I'd like to see them show us where the NT calls it Love while it
doesn't reverse the other sexual laws of inappropriate behavior with animals or incest in
the very same chapter; sins which didn't even carry a death
penalty.

You would think that the other 2 sins would be "worse" and carry
a death penalty, but it was for homosexuality.

Somehow that gets lost.

I don't know which Leviticus you read, but my Leviticus puts a death penalty on incest and inappropriate behavior with animals. It also puts a death penalty on breaking the sabbath, dressing inappropriately for worship and sundry other items.

 

[BelindaP]

Taking a step back, I think we are talking past each other for reasons more basic than the issue of homosexuality. I think a lot of it has to do with our views of salvation. There are two elements to that salvation. 1) The permanence of salvation and 2) salvific beliefs.

1. My guess is that Nadiine, et al, like most fundamentalists believe in conditional salvation. That would be the premise that people are able to walk away from God and lose their salvation. Or, if they don't, they believe a person wasn't actually really saved if they lapse back into sin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Herev agrees with me that once you are sealed by God, you can't walk away from Him. You are saved. Period. And, once you are saved, God begins the process of perfecting you, revealing your own imperfections and sins as you are ready.
   
2. The second question is whether there is salvific belief. In other words, are there specific beliefs required before one can be saved? And, is the holding of specific beliefs a sign that you aren't saved? I believe that Herev and I fall into the category where belief is a gift of God given to you when you are saved. So, belief in Jesus as your savior happens as a sign you are saved. You don't have to hold the belief before you can be saved. I think that most fundamentalists believe that one cannot be saved unless they believe. Also, anyone who believes the incorrect things show evidence that they cannot possibly be saved, because there is no way they could have those beliefs and be saved.

Given that to be the case, we will never resolve this dispute. They view believing that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex as incompatible with salvation. That is why it is their duty to make sure that nobody who is a Christian would ever espouse this view. It is clear in their eyes that those who do are clearly not Christians.

We, on the other hand, believe it is quite possible to have that view and still be Christian. For us, it is one of those things that God will make clear to each individual when the time is right. Until convicted by God, a person isn't held as responsible for that particular sin as they would be for purposeful sin.

 

[bdolack]

Homosexual sex isn't any more unnatural than any other sin. Just because YOU haven't been tempted, it doesn't mean that millions of others aren't tempted. ALL sins are crimes against God's plan. Period.

True, all sins ARE crimes against God's plan. But that doesn't mean that some sins are different (i.e., natural vs. unnatural) from others:

"Because of this, God gave them over

to shameful lusts.

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

 

[bdolack]

We, on the other hand, believe it is quite possible to have that view and still be Christian. For us, it is one of those things that God will make clear to each individual when the time is right. Until convicted by God, a person isn't held as responsible for that particular sin as they would be for purposeful sin.

I totally understand what you're saying... but what if the sin was murder or drug dealing or pedophilia. Does the Church wait foe each individual to be convicted of their sin, or does the Church teach that it is sin?

What about premarital sex, living together, etc?

 

[BernieEOD]

I totally understand what you're saying... but what if the sin was murder or drug dealing or pedophilia. Does the Church wait foe each individual to be convicted of their sin, or does the Church teach that it is sin?

What about premarital sex, living together, etc?

Before I was married, I had a roomate who was a divorced mother of three. The Church called us on the carpet accusing us of living in sin.
My response was that we were strictly roomates and that we had acutally physically divided the house allowing each of us our own privacy. A connecting door to a bathroom was nailed shut, I had my own small refrigerator, we only shared the Kitchen and laundry. I then invited the Church elders to come over and view the arrangement and feel welcome to make recommendations. Instead of shouting "Do not Judge!" or "Thius is between God and us!" or some other Liberal outburst, I commended the Church for their concern.

 

[BelindaP]

I totally understand what you're saying... but what if the sin was murder or drug dealing or pedophilia. Does the Church wait foe each individual to be convicted of their sin, or does the Church teach that it is sin?

What about premarital sex, living together, etc?

The Church is a separate thing from how I conduct myself outside of church. In terms of doctrine that is preached, one goes with what the Bible says. That is often the tool God uses to convict a person, and it ought not be watered down. I would not support the teaching of anything contrary to what the Bible says in the church.

With regard to things which are civil crimes in our society, I deal with those depending on the potential harm. I will almost certainly turn in a pedophile, because that is both illegal and harmful to any children that might be involved.

WRT, other sins such as premarital sex, and (believe it or not) homosexuality, I let my life be the light. I will take opportunities to plant the seeds and reason with a person. But it is not my job to convict a person of their sins. It is God's job to do so.

 

[BelindaP]

Before I was married, I had a roomate who was a divorced mother of three. The Church called us on the carpet accusing us of living in sin.
My response was that we were strictly roomates and that we had acutally physically divided the house allowing each of us our own privacy. A connecting door to a bathroom was nailed shut, I had my own small refrigerator, we only shared the Kitchen and laundry. I then invited the Church elders to come over and view the arrangement and feel welcome to make recommendations. Instead of shouting "Do not Judge!" or "Thius is between God and us!" or some other Liberal outburst, I commended the Church for their concern.

In your situation I would have done the same. But, if they had not followed the discipline model outlined in the Bible, I would have called them on it. I would have also called them on it if they had approached me in any way other than the loving way that is called for. It's fine for them to call me on any sin I might have committed, as long as they are willing to accept my reproof of them.

 

[bdolack]

The Church is a separate thing from how I conduct myself outside of church. In terms of doctrine that is preached, one goes with what the Bible says. That is often the tool God uses to convict a person, and it ought not be watered down. I would not support the teaching of anything contrary to what the Bible says in the church.

With regard to things which are civil crimes in our society, I deal with those depending on the potential harm. I will almost certainly turn in a pedophile, because that is both illegal and harmful to any children that might be involved.

WRT, other sins such as premarital sex, and (believe it or not) homosexuality, I let my life be the light. I will take opportunities to plant the seeds and reason with a person. But it is not my job to convict a person of their sins. It is God's job to do so.

But does the Church not have the right and the responsibility to judge within the Church?

 

[DD2008]

and I compliment you for at least saying she is a Christian. For those who REALLY follow my posts, this is my number one issue. Saying that those who disagree with you are not Christian.
Your daughter disagrees with Nadiine and DD and others. I hope that if they start to question your daughter's being a "real" Christian or not, you would defend her and do so vehemently. That is all I've tried to do in that particular topic. There are a couple other topics, but that one is crucial. There are too many who allow folks' faith to be questioned with no one coming to their aid.
but on the whole agenda thing:

I did not say you weren't christians in the visible church, you obviously are. I can't judge if you are christians in the invisible church of the elect, I hope you are.

Those in your camp are people who profess to be christians yet are in open rebellion against the direction set forth in scripture, and you prove it by approving of the actions of those who refuse to repent of sin yet claim christianity. You encourage their activity and try to pawn it off as normal behavior by posting the sarcastic "agenda" you just posted. If you really loved them you would not encourage them to sin, but would encourage them to trust Christ and repent. That doesn't mean you bar them from coming to Church or that you treat them with disrespect. It simply means that you are upfront with them that you do not have scriptural authority to condone their sin. Unrepentant sin is a sign of being lost and unregenerate. It is not a sign of liberty or anything to be proud of. It is a sign that one is still a slave to sin. You as a leader should do what you can to lead people out of sin, not encourage that they continue in it.

So, I'm sorry sir but my apology to you is withdrawn. I wouldn't submit to your authority as a member of your congregation, because I don't believe you are biblically sound as a leader.

 

[drstevej]

For us, it is one of those things that God will make clear to each individual when the time is right. Until convicted by God, a person isn't held as responsible for that particular sin as they would be for purposeful sin.

denial is not an excuse

 

[CaDan]

I totally understand what you're saying... but what if the sin was murder or drug dealing or pedophilia. Does the Church wait foe each individual to be convicted of their sin, or does the Church teach that it is sin?

What about premarital sex, living together, etc?

What about usury?

I'm waiting to here a good sermon 'bout that.

I see we have a couple of preachers in the house. How 'bout it, guys?

 

[CaDan]

I did not say you weren't christians in the visible church, you obviously are. I can't judge if you are christians in the invisible church of the elect, I hope you are.

Those in your camp are people who profess to be christians yet are in open rebellion against the direction set forth in scripture, and you prove it by approving of the actions of those who refuse to repent of sin yet claim christianity. You encourage their activity and try to pawn it off as normal behavior by posting the sarcastic "agenda" you just posted. If you really loved them you would not encourage them to sin, but would encourage them to trust Christ and repent. That doesn't mean you bar them from coming to Church or that you treat them with disrespect. It simply means that you are upfront with them that you do not have scriptural authority to condone their sin. Unrepentant sin is a sign of being lost and unregenerate. It is not a sign of liberty or anything to be proud of. It is a sign that one is still a slave to sin. You as a leader should do what you can to lead people out of sin, not encourage that they continue in it.

So, I'm sorry sir but my apology to you is withdrawn. I wouldn't submit to your authority as a member of your congregation, because I don't believe you are biblically sound as a leader.

That's why you're not a Methodist.

 

[drstevej]

That's why you're not a Methodist.

I know that's true in my case... and I grew up Methodist.

 

[bdolack]

What about usury?

I'm waiting to here a good sermon 'bout that.

I see we have a couple of preachers in the house. How 'bout it, guys?

While there is no comparison between homosexual sex and usury, I would like to have teaching on various issues: modesty, health, and so on.

 

[CaDan]

While there is no comparison between homosexual sex and usury, I would like to have teaching on various issues: modesty, health, and so on.

No comparison? Really?

Well, considering usury is specifically condemned

1. In the Torah;
2. In the Tanakh;
3. In the Gospels;
4. In the Epistles;
5. In the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils;
6. In the writings of the early Fathers;

there really isn't any comparison.

 

[bdolack]

No comparison? Really?

Well, considering usury is specifically condemned

1. In the Torah;
2. In the Tanakh;
3. In the Gospels;
4. In the Epistles;
5. In the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils;
6. In the writings of the early Fathers;

there really isn't any comparison.

And once again, homosexual sex is unnatural.

 

[dies-l]

And once again, homosexual sex is unnatural.

Frankly, the fact that that is your opinion adds nothing meaningful to the discussion, and nothing in Scripture makes a distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" sins. In fact, the passages that some like to use to suggest that homosexuals cannot be born again Christians include homosexuality in list among other very "ordinary" sins like greed, drunkenness, and slander. In context, usury seems to be a form of greed of the type that Paul was talking about.

 

[bdolack]

Frankly, the fact that that is your opinion adds nothing meaningful to the discussion, and nothing in Scripture makes a distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" sins. In fact, the passages that some like to use to suggest that homosexuals cannot be born again Christians include homosexuality in list among other very "ordinary" sins like greed, drunkenness, and slander. In context, usury seems to be a form of greed of the type that Paul was talking about.

From a couple pages back"

True, all sins ARE crimes against God's plan. But that doesn't mean that some sins are different (i.e., natural vs. unnatural) from others:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

 

[dies-l]

From a couple pages back"

I am familiar with Romans 1, and it does not make the distinction that you are attributing to it. Nowhere in that passage does it say or imply that homosexuality is a worse or unique type of sin, because it is "unnatural". It is perhaps implying that because it is a perversion of nature that, unlike heterosexual sex, it cannot be made right through marriage. I could accept that interpretation as being supported by the text.

However, the conclusion that it is somehow morally different from other sins, because it is an "unnatural" form of sexuality, is not a reasonable inference to draw from the passage.