The debate on sin.

[HuntingMan]

They offend him because such behavior is harmful.

Firstly this is complete conjecture. YOU dont know what is running thru the mind of God when HE gives commandment.
Secondly, 'harmful' is defined by HIM, not you or I. WE dont need to understand OR agree, only to obey.

The only problem I have with some is they excuse certain behavior..claiming they do no harm, when they really haven't prayfully considered all things.

Like gay sex, perhaps ?

The reason I refrain is because Christ said in doing no harm fulfills the WHOLE law...so I need not worry about any legalistic aspects other may have.

And the reason *I* obey is because *I* want to please Him even if *I* dont fully comprehend why Im supposed to abstain from things like men having sex with men.

 

[HuntingMan]

A ?

 

[HuntingMan]

I agree we are to obstain from fornication on any level and have never said different,

And how is 'fornication' defined...what does it include?
Youve admitted in one of your posts that Acts 15 'fornication' IS DEFINED by Levitical law;

Armistead:"To abstain from . . . sexual immorality: When James declares that they forbid the Gentile Christians to abstain from . . . sexual immorality, James is directing these Gentiles living in such close fellowship with the Jewish believers to observe the specific marriage regulations required by Leviticus 18, which prohibited marriages between most family relations. This was something that Jews would abhor, but most Gentiles would think little of."​

...which you only included incest for whatever reason. The very same chapter used from Leviticus ALSO includes men not having sex with men:

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

...so do you reject that THAT is also part of the meaning of fornication or do you dismiss that one because you dont like it ?
You CLEARLY are allowing for fornication in Acts 15 to BE DEFINED by Levitical law....so do you stop at incest as being the intent...and if so what is your reasoning/justification/logic for doing so since the scripture doesnt do so ?

 

[HuntingMan]

....

 

[Armistead]

And how is 'fornication' defined...what does it include?
Youve admitted in one of your posts that Acts 15 'fornication' IS DEFINED by Levitical law;

Armistead:"To abstain from . . . sexual immorality: When James declares that they forbid the Gentile Christians to abstain from . . . sexual immorality, James is directing these Gentiles living in such close fellowship with the Jewish believers to observe the specific marriage regulations required by Leviticus 18, which prohibited marriages between most family relations. This was something that Jews would abhor, but most Gentiles would think little of."
​

...which you only included incest for whatever reason. The very same chapter used from Leviticus ALSO includes men not having sex with men:
...so do you reject that THAT is also part of the meaning of fornication or do you dismiss that one because you dont like it ?
You CLEARLY are allowing for fornication in Acts 15 to BE DEFINED by Levitical law....so do you stop at incest as being the intent...and if so what is your reasoning/justification/logic for doing so since the scripture doesnt do so ?

No, I wasn't saying fornication was defined by lev. law. James trying to help gentiles and jewish christians still following the law, used this as an example. Notice the verse.."James is specific..."directing "these gentiles" living in close fellowship to abide in this...out of love, not to honor the Lev. law standard. Why just these living in close fellowship. You take it to mean all. However, as I said, I agree we abide some of these commands, not out of serving the law...it is dead..gone, Christ destroyed it..we serve a new law, love and stay away from such things because they are against love. As for strangled things, blood, ect...It is clear one may not know and if I'm hungry and have to strangle a chickens next to pluck it's head off like in days of old...I will do so,,,but I will drain the blood for reasons of health. However, I once did drink cows blood while in Africa....not sure what they mixed with it, but it tasted pretty good.

It's much the same on this forum...when Christians can't agree on all things, they find common middle ground and love one another. Sometimes someone must bend as not to be a stumbling block.

 

[HuntingMan]

No, I wasn't saying fornication was defined by lev. law.

You absolutely said 'marriage regulations required BY Leviticus 18'....but of course you arent going to use the phrase 'is defined by' if its going to make you somehow agree with little ol' me
Semantics arent going to change what YOU stated in your post...
You used the incest laws there to support the absurd claims you made....yet for some reason your overall view seems to want to omit the law prohibiting men having sex with men.

And as Ive already pointed out, the assertion is RIDICULOUS that says that gentiles in the church were only refraining from marrying their sisters just to get along with the Jews as you clearly claim.
Paul and the other apostles, based on passages such as 1 cor 5, VERY plainly would have prohibited ALL incestuous marriages whether it was gentiles hanging out with Jews or not.
Its just as inconsistent/illogical to try to say that its because they hang out with Jews that they were to abstain from blood. That prohibition has existed from the first day when God told Noah we could eat animals....gentiles abstaining from blood has NOTHING to do with placating Jews, Im afraid....and any instance to that effect, in my opinion, is based on ignorance of the scriptures.

I really cant figure a person out who cant just admit they made an error in judgment or made what were obviously fallacious statements...kwim ?

 

[Armistead]

You absolutely said 'marriage regulations required BY Leviticus 18'....but of course you arent going to use the phrase 'is defined by' if its going to make you somehow agree with little ol' me
Semantics arent going to change what YOU stated in your post...
You used the incest laws there to support the absurd claims you made....yet for some reason your overall view seems to want to omit the law prohibiting men having sex with men.

And as Ive already pointed out, the assertion is RIDICULOUS that says that gentiles in the church were only refraining from marrying their sisters just to get along with the Jews as you clearly claim.
Paul and the other apostles, based on passages such as 1 cor 5, VERY plainly would have prohibited ALL incestuous marriages whether it was gentiles hanging out with Jews or not.
Its just as inconsistent/illogical to try to say that its because they hang out with Jews that they were to abstain from blood. That prohibition has existed from the first day when God told Noah we could eat animals....gentiles abstaining from blood has NOTHING to do with placating Jews, Im afraid....and any instance to that effect, in my opinion, is based on ignorance of the scriptures.

I really cant figure a person out who cant just admit they made an error in judgment or made what were obviously fallacious statements...kwim ?

Try studying the whole book in context....other than that I can't help you.
Even most fundies accept this as I do, very few don't, except the JW's agree with you.

 

[HuntingMan]

Try studying the whole book in context....other than that I can't help you.
Even most fundies accept this as I do, very few don't, except the JW's agree with you.

Huh....yeah, the JW's do actually believe a few things that ARE truth....imagine that .
Guess if they didnt then it might be hard for them to claim to even remotely be a 'christian' or be supposedly based on Christs teachings or His apostles ....nice distraction, tho
Guess if I can show that the ECFs agree with you on any given point then that point simply MUST be in error....is that how we're playing the game now?

I think we BOTH know here, poster, that *I* have studied the whole book and in context and that is why you are having a hard time getting away with the fallacy you present

 

[HuntingMan]

Even most fundies accept this as I do,

you really have a habit of making unsubstanciated claims like this.
Not that I care or that it actually matters, but can you SHOW evidence that 'MOST fundies' believe that the gentiles were to abstain from INCEST/marrying their sisters or mothers merely to 'get along' with the Jews...or are we just going to have to take your word for it again ?

 

[Nadiine]

you really have a habit of making unsubstanciated claims like this.
Not that I care or that it actually matters, but can you SHOW evidence that 'MOST fundies' believe that the gentiles were to abstain from INCEST/marrying their sisters or mothers merely to 'get along' with the Jews...or are we just going to have to take your word for it again ?

I see this happen alot, where people are ignoring the moral law (code)
that God has placed in each person - the Christian Gentiles had this already &
knew incest/fornication were wrong.
It's in our conscience.
Rom. 2:14-16
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Plus, after Jesus ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit TO CONVICT THE WORLD OF SIN - people aren't ignorant anymore on what sin is.
We do know what it is becuz the Spirit is laying conviction onto
everyone in their spirit.
John 16
7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;

The Spirit relays what is right and what is wrong.
James 4:17
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do
and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Continuing in sin/rebellion dulls the conscience - grieving and quenching the Spirit's working. Searing the conscience.
1 Tim 4
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
Over time, people will even claim that evil is good and right.

Rom 1:32
and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death,
they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

*short commentary on searing the conscience/apostacy __ 1 Tim 4
& leading others into sin afterward:
-----------
the hypocrisy of lying speakers"; this expresses the means through which "some shall (be led to) depart from the faith," namely, the reigned sanctity of the seducers (compare "deceivers," Tit 1:10).

having their conscience seared-Greek, "having their own conscience," &c., that is, not only "speaking lies" to others, but also having their own conscience seared.
Professing to lead others to holiness, their own conscience is all the while defiled. Bad consciences always have recourse to hypocrisy.
As faith and a good conscience are joined (1Ti 1:5); so hypocrisy (that is, unbelief, Mt 24:5, 51; compare Lu 12:46) and a bad conscience here.

Theodoret explains like English Version, "seared," as implying their extreme insensibility; the effect of cauterizing being to deaden sensation. The

Greek, however, primarily means "branded" with the consciousness of crimes committed against their better knowledge and conscience, like so many scars burnt in by a branding iron: Compare Tit 1:15; 3:11, "condemned of himself."
They are conscious of the brand within, and yet with a hypocritical show of sanctity, they strive to seduce others.
As "a seal" is used in a good sense (2Ti 2:19), so "a brand" in a bad sense. The image is taken from the branding of criminals.

 

[HuntingMan]

What blows me away about Armisteads argument is that he clearly would be claiming that we gentiles ONLY abstain from marrying our sisters/brothers to get along with the Jews.
That is just completely absurd

 

[Nadiine]

What blows me away about Armisteads argument is that he clearly would be claiming that we gentiles ONLY abstain from marrying our sisters/brothers to get along with the Jews.
That is just completely absurd

alot of things blow me away in this forum

 

[Armistead]

alot of things blow me away in this forum

Do you also keep these four laws as in keeping with the law or do you stay away from these four things out of love for others?

Most of you obvious haven't lived much farm life. I watch my memaw strangle heads right off chickens....then watched them run around headless.

You strangle a chickens head off...or you cut it off. What makes one sin and the other not?

 

[HuntingMan]

Do you also keep these four laws as in keeping with the law or do you stay away from these four things out of love for others?

Please tell us, A, that you ONLY abstain from marrying your sister to appease Jews. An absurdity like that would really give me a chuckle....

Most of you obvious haven't lived much farm life. I watch my memaw strangle heads right off chickens....then watched them run around headless.

You strangle a chickens head off...or you cut it off. What makes one sin and the other not?

Do you see my screenname chap ?
Can you guess what my favorite hobby is ?
You seem to be grasping at any ridiculous straw you can simply to keep from admitting you were wrong.
I find that much more telling than your BEING wrong...

 

[Armistead]

Please tell us, A, that you ONLY abstain from marrying your sister to appease Jews. An absurdity like that would really give me a chuckle....

Do you see my screenname chap ?
Know what my favorite hobby is ?
You seem to be grasping at any ridiculous straw you can simply to keep from admitting you were wrong.
I find that much more telling than your BEING wrong...

So you would strangle a chickens head off?

I'm a big hunter myself , we have something else in common.

 

[HuntingMan]

So you would strangle a chickens head off?

I'm a big hunter myself , we have something else in common.

I would drain the blood before I ate it...just as man has ALWAYS been commanded to do since God first allowed us to eat animals.

 

[Armistead]

I would drain the blood before I ate it...just as man has ALWAYS been commanded to do since God first allowed us to eat animals.

But what the command not to eat things strangled?

 

[HuntingMan]

But what the command not to eat things strangled?

Nothing but games trying our best to keep the rules from being anything but clear...

I wouldnt eat anything I knew hadnt been taken and drained in the manner necessary according to Gods word.
Now...lets see how you twist yet another comment...

 

[chingchang]

Nothing but games trying our best to keep the rules from being anything but clear...

I wouldnt eat anything I knew hadnt been taken and drained in the manner necessary according to Gods word.
Now...lets see how you twist yet another comment...

I dunno...I get the feeling that the Most High God isn't into setting-up flamming hoops for us to jump through. Galatians 5:1 comes to mind after reading this thread...

(KJV) 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

What is this 'liberty'? And...what is this 'yoke of bondage'? What is this freedom about anyway? Sometimes I wonder if Christians would be more Christ-like if we didn't have the Bible (as we know it) and instead only had selected things that Jesus said and commanded us to do. It really isn't that complicated...

John 15:12 (KJV)... This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Oh...and in case you didn't hear me (Jesus) the first time...

John 15:17 (KJV)... These things I command you, that ye love one another.

So...as we know Jesus commanded us to love God and love each other. He did not say to follow a bunch of rules. He wasn't into rules. Think of all the examples. A good one is the adultress that was to be stoned to death. They "test" Jesus...

John 8:3-11 (KJV)...
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

"As though he heard them not"...and note they were basically pestering him. He was not at all concerned about taking her to the edge of town and stoning her per OT law. Can you see this playing-out? This is just one example...but there are many where Jesus turns the law around on the Pharisees.

2 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV)...
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

What is this letter Paul speaks of? Seems to me that there is something to be understood here.

Here is what I see...having been a member of a Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Church for over 5 years (up through last April...I departed)...and that is; there is a tendancy...an inclination toward legalism and an emphasis on the law in those "Fundie" churches and a lack of emphasis on Jesus' greatest commands. It is what I've heard some call "modern-day Phariseeism". There is plenty of condemnation to go around in those churches...but I recall what Jesus taught about that. Jesus hung out with "sinners" and ate and drank wine with them. He wasn't hanging-out with the "rule-followers". I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I don't believe we'll be judged by whether or not we followed all of the rules perfectly...or whether our theology was perfect, but rather on whether or not we loved God and our fellow man.

If this view of God makes me a "liberal Christian" then so beit...because Jesus was liberal in every sense. The Pharisees were conservative. All relative terms btw.

So...Brothers and Sisters...hang on to the liberty (that sounds liberal) that Christ bought for us with his blood!!!!

Hugs All,
chingchang

 

[HuntingMan]

I dont know...I guess I just dont see not having sex with anyone other than my spouse of the opposite gender as being forced thru 'flamming hoops'....
Id also guess that if you were a Jew under law and suddenly came under grace that youd probably understand what 'freedom' is in this new covenant....it surely isnt freedom to ignore Christs instruction....

Seems to me that youre trying to omit these ...

Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

We KEEP HIS commandments given in the Gospels and from His chosen apostles because we love Him.
IF we love Him we wont try to get out of doing so....