The Anglican Counter Reformation Began This Week

[FreeinChrist]

So,

Was it easy to ignore the posts which indicated that according to both Scripture and the Talmud the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was economic?

Economic? Not hardly.
In Genesis 18, we learn that Sodom is filled with the "wicked", so much that not even 10 righteous men are found. The nature of this wickedness is not economic but sexual:
Genesis 19:4 "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."

And that this is a sexual sin is verified in the New Testament:
Jude 7 - "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Of course, that would mean that we couldn't feel that +Gene Robinson was a terrible sinner and thus feel smug in our own, "you-don't know what I've done ", righteousness!

There sure is a problem of flaming of posters in this thread. Making a false accusation of self-righteousness or smugness doesn't give your position any support. Believing in a Biblical concept of righteousness is not being self-righteous, but is being a follower of Christ. You cannot show me in scripture that Sodom's sin was economic, or that God approves of homosexuality, unless you change the scripture to fit your wants. And a person can believe that Robinson is an unrepentant sinner, and feel sorrow for him, without self-righteousness. That Robinson is in a leadership position within a Christian church, as if his life style is alright with God is sad for his sake.

 

[FreeinChrist]

What I meant was, he is not going to just overlook the rules you break in Leviticus everyday (which EVERYONE does) and says he knows you, and then deny someone else. I wish people like you would get off your high horse. Jesus loves us all the same. I would think this refers a lot more to people who knowingly do bad things (Such as those who who use Jesus to preach hatred and prejudice) and hide behind the name of Jesus to defend it.

Yep - more flaming. Seems those who are angry at me are making false accusations of a number of things.

What your post is ignoring is repentence. Turning from sin. Yes, Jesus loves the world. But that doesn't mean that all will come to repentance and salvation.
I John offers what, in English, appears to be conflicting statements.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Studying the Greek words in these two verses, the first verses deals with the fact that we all commit sins, though we are in Christ. But the second verse is about a lifestyle of sin and those who practice a lifestyle of sin is not saved, regardless of a claim of being Christian. To put it bluntly, Christians committ sins, but are brought to repentence and turn from the sin, even if they fall to the same sin later. But the one who lives in sin without repentance, and who defends that sinful lifestyle as okay, is not "born of God."

 

[FreeinChrist]

Of course, nothing is ever "purely" anything. But the sin for which Israel and Judah suffered the Babylonian Exile was primarily oppression of the poor. The Book of Amos has much to say on this.

Also see Deuteronomy 15:8.

Your mind might not be so feeble if you choose to open it up a little bit. As the slogan goes "minds only function when open". Try it!

That is not exactly right.
Judah went into captivity for not obeying God's Law of giving the land it's Sabbath rest (every 7th year). See II Chronicles 36:21 "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete. "
The northern kingdom went into captivity sooner for idol worship.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

Yep - more flaming. Seems those who are angry at me are making false accusations of a number of things.

What your post is ignoring is repentence. Turning from sin. Yes, Jesus loves the world. But that doesn't mean that all will come to repentance and salvation.
I John offers what, in English, appears to be conflicting statements.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Studying the Greek words in these two verses, the first verses deals with the fact that we all commit sins, though we are in Christ. But the second verse is about a lifestyle of sin and those who practice a lifestyle of sin is not saved, regardless of a claim of being Christian. To put it bluntly, Christians committ sins, but are brought to repentence and turn from the sin, even if they fall to the same sin later. But the one who lives in sin without repentance, and who defends that sinful lifestyle as okay, is not "born of God."

For the life of me, I can't see how you figure what I said was a flame. I made no comment and no reference to anyone on this sight. I definitely was not referring to you when I said the prejudice and hate thing. I would NEVER make such a comment like that on this forum, because it is not nice and everyone has a valid point of view whether you believe it or not. And you are missing the point that I made, so please don't attack everyone else for missing your points. And trust me, I am not angry at you for any reason. I have no reason to be. I simply disagree with the point of view of anyone who thinks they can tell people whether Jesus will accept them or not. You're not Jesus. No one is and if Jesus tells me I am wrong after I die, I will accept that. But you don't have any right to tell anyone what Jesus will or will not say regardless of what the Bible says. The lord will speak for himself.

 

[eldermike]

Posters: If someone dosn't agree with you that's ok. If they flame you, that's not ok. If you have a problem relating to someone then ignor them. If we would do that one simple thing how much better would this forum be?

 

[VigoMedic]

For the life of me, I can't see how you figure what I said was a flame. I made no comment and no reference to anyone on this sight. I definitely was not referring to you when I said the prejudice and hate thing. I would NEVER make such a comment like that on this forum, because it is not nice and everyone has a valid point of view whether you believe it or not. And you are missing the point that I made, so please don't attack everyone else for missing your points. And trust me, I am not angry at you for any reason. I have no reason to be. I simply disagree with the point of view of anyone who thinks they can tell people whether Jesus will accept them or not. You're not Jesus. No one is and if Jesus tells me I am wrong after I die, I will accept that. But you don't have any right to tell anyone what Jesus will or will not say regardless of what the Bible says. The lord will speak for himself.

I can't see how anything in Jacob's post was a flame...

 

[FreeinChrist]

For the life of me, I can't see how you figure what I said was a flame. I made no comment and no reference to anyone on this sight.

This comment - I wish people like you would get off your high horse. - seemed like a direct comment to me.

I definitely was not referring to you when I said the prejudice and hate thing. I would NEVER make such a comment like that on this forum, because it is not nice and everyone has a valid point of view whether you believe it or not.

I appreciate your clarification.

And you are missing the point that I made, so please don't attack everyone else for missing your points.

I don't believe I am. It apeared to me that, between several posters, I was being accused of "fomenting hatred", being smug and self-righteous, and being on a high horse - all for holding a Biblical view.

If people would bring up a scriptural reason for disagreeing with me, addressing the points and why they disagree without that 'you' word, -well, that would not have bothered me.

And trust me, I am not angry at you for any reason. I have no reason to be. I simply disagree with the point of view of anyone who thinks they can tell people whether Jesus will accept them or not. You're not Jesus. No one is and if Jesus tells me I am wrong after I die, I will accept that. But you don't have any right to tell anyone what Jesus will or will not say regardless of what the Bible says. The lord will speak for himself.

Jesus is the Judge. But what I have posted is scriptural, from the word of God. And I haven't seen a scriptural response to my post. Just opinion.

 

[kimber1]

Posters: If someone dosn't agree with you that's ok. If they flame you, that's not ok. If you have a problem relating to someone then ignor them. If we would do that one simple thing how much better would this forum be?

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

That is not exactly right.
Judah went into captivity for not obeying God's Law of giving the land it's Sabbath rest (every 7th year). See II Chronicles 36:21 "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete. "
The northern kingdom went into captivity sooner for idol worship.

Well, then: you proved your own point regarding Judah, because that is indeed a purely economic sin (in the sense misuse of the environment is an economic activity). As for the second point, like every historical analysis (and in this case one in which it's assumed God worked directly) there are multiple causes for events and some analysts feel one dominated, others favor another. Amos is of another opinion, but no big deal.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Well, then: you proved your own point regarding Judah, because that is indeed a purely economic sin (in the sense misuse of the environment is an economic activity). As for the second point, like every historical analysis (and in this case one in which it's assumed God worked directly) there are multiple causes for events and some analysts feel one dominated, others favor another. Amos is of another opinion, but no big deal.

Actually, I was disagreeing that it was for the oppresion of the poor, but it was not economic, either. That they didn't observe the Sabbath rest every 7th year was a violation of the Law, and Israel was to keep the commandments of God. And they didn't keep it, because they had turned to idol worship.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

they didn't observe the Sabbath rest every 7th year

An economic occurance referring to land use policy!