CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[JettaKnight]

Why would we keep it from them? Why do we congratulate homosexuals when they announce they're getting "married"? Why do we keep the Gospel from them while making them (or the person filing for divorce or the kid moving in and shacking up with his girlfriend) comfortable in their sin? If we do one and sluff off the other, aren't we doing what Jesus warned us about being better to have a millstone tied around your neck and thrown in the sea? Shouting "God hates f**s" does not show love and does not follow the advice for sharing the Gospel we were given. But we're negligent in our duties if we don't make the attempt to show them the light.

I think you've show the extremes. Hiding the truth is far from bashing someone with the truth. There's plenty of in betweens.


Sorry, gotta run to lunch now.

 

[T.Lex]

Clarifying here, but If Kim Davis wants to follow her conscience, my judgement is mild... I really should be careful in saying she's wrong. However, I do not believe I have the duty to support her. That's probably key. I believe the author says it's our duty to support these God following lesser magistrates, not just that it's acceptable for them to resist through non-obedience in their duties.

That's where I'm pushed farther away from this concept. Once I start thinking it's my duty to support them, I'll start going out of my way to look for lesser magistrates to support.

Yeah, on the Kim Davis thing - having worked for elected officials - I see different things she could (and IMHO should) have done. Good for her for standing on her principles and suffering some slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

But... there was a fair amount of putting the focus on her rather than on where it should have been. Granted, I didn't follow it that closely. My judgment of her is also pretty mild.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Man, I'm sorry to find a small disagreement amidst so much that we agree on (Pascal's Wager and all), but I don't think its a strict liar/hyperbolizer construct. Jesus was a teacher. He used many different approaches to teach many different things. The "I am the way" is one. It is - no doubt - an important one. But it is not the only important thing He said.

I believe that we are poorly enabled to fully understand all the teachings. When taken together, though, there is room for us to mis-understand the lessons if we focus too intently on one or a few of the approaches.

Importantly, and this is with a nod to foszoe and the Orthodox, Luke 24:45 says that when Jesus ascended, he opened the minds of the apostles to understand the scriptures. To me, that says they came as close as humanly possible to understanding the entirety. That's what places the Acts and epistles in a place of prominence. Those writings - while not as perfect as the words of Jesus - are based on a better understanding than what we have.

Again, I will absolutely apologize for sounding like I'm looking for an argument. I'm not. There is much I agree with. But the parts where we disagree are more interesting.

I'm curious....Do you have specific scripture passages in mind that would lead folks (that came after Jesus) to believe they could hang their hats on for getting to heaven by rejecting God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit?

As an example, could an unrepentant, multiple murderer and rapist get into heaven because he fathered a child as a result of one of those rapes...and that child someday did something that we might deem glorious in the advancement of God's kingdon on earth?

 

[T.Lex]

I'm curious....Do you have specific scripture passages in mind that would lead folks (that came after Jesus) to believe they could hang their hats on for getting to heaven by rejecting God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit?

Well, like I said - "rejection" is different. That's tough to overcome, I suspect.

I'll need to go back to a tally sheet of verses that I find comforting, but I'll come back to this if you want some that at least suggest it isn't an all or nothing proposition.

As an example, could an unrepentant, multiple murderer and rapist get into heaven because he fathered a child as a result of one of those rapes...and that child someday did something that we might deem glorious in the advancement of God's kingdon on earth?

Oof. Couple things to unwrap. Initially, I can't necessarily "do" something to change the fate of my forebear.* So, I don't think the child of the rapist/murder adds anything to the construct of whether he makes it to heaven.

Secondarily, I believe that every soul is judged. In that moment of judgment, I don't know what happens. If the unrepentance continues in that moment, then I don't see any hope for that soul. If there is repentance, then... maybe.*

* As a Catholic, part of this gets into purgatory and I *can* pray for the respite of those souls in purgatory.

 

[breakingcontact]

Why do we congratulate homosexuals when they announce they're getting "married"?

I don't do this.

My fellow church members would not do this.

What "we"?

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't do this.

My fellow church members would not do this.

What "we"?

I think GFGT was speaking a hyperbolic, "we".

Now that I'm back from lunch...

No I don't congratulate a gay marriage. Nor do I support it (e.g. I wouldn't be their "sound guy" for the wedding). But, I wouldn't return the invitation with, "Gay marriage is sin!" If we were having a conversation, I wouldn't hide the truth (i.e. if they ask a direct question, I'll give a direct answer), but, I also wouldn't lead out with it. I want my message to be one of love, primarily, but secondly to be one of truth (though, ultimately the two are coupled). Let's get the important stuff up front, "God loves you first no matter what you've done. Do you love him?" THEN after that's settled, let's talk about what it means to love God, i.e. follow his commandments in faith.

Surprisingly, there are plenty of Christians who think yelling, "My religion hates your lifestyle! .... wanna join?" is going to work.

And surprisingly, there are plenty of Christians who think softly saying, "My religion accepts whatever you want to do is OK for you", is a Christian message.

 

[breakingcontact]

I think GFGT was speaking a hyperbolic, "we".

Now that I'm back from lunch...

No I don't congratulate a gay marriage. Nor do I support it (e.g. I wouldn't be their "sound guy" for the wedding). But, I wouldn't return the invitation with, "Gay marriage is sin!" If we were having a conversation, I wouldn't hide the truth (i.e. if they ask a direct question, I'll give a direct answer), but, I also wouldn't lead out with it. I want my message to be one of love, primarily, but secondly to be one of truth (though, ultimately the two are coupled). Let's get the important stuff up front, "God loves you first no matter what you've done. Do you love him?" THEN after that's settled, let's talk about what it means to love God, i.e. follow his commandments in faith.

Surprisingly, there are plenty of Christians who think yelling, "My religion hates your lifestyle! .... wanna join?" is going to work.

And surprisingly, there are plenty of Christians who think softly saying, "My religion accepts whatever you want to do is OK for you", is a Christian message.

Yeah it is a spectrum.

The "God hates fags" folks are wrong.

The "God accepts you just as you are" folks are wrong.

We are all sinners in need of repentance and salvation is the only complete and correct answer.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think GFGT was speaking a hyperbolic, "we".

Now that I'm back from lunch...

No I don't congratulate a gay marriage. Nor do I support it (e.g. I wouldn't be their "sound guy" for the wedding). But, I wouldn't return the invitation with, "Gay marriage is sin!" If we were having a conversation, I wouldn't hide the truth (i.e. if they ask a direct question, I'll give a direct answer), but, I also wouldn't lead out with it. I want my message to be one of love, primarily, but secondly to be one of truth (though, ultimately the two are coupled). Let's get the important stuff up front, "God loves you first no matter what you've done. Do you love him?" THEN after that's settled, let's talk about what it means to love God, i.e. follow his commandments in faith.

I'm not saying I'd do anything different. But shouldn't we be bolder? Let's say you are asked to do the sound for their ceremony. Are we doing them any favors by not explaining why you won't? I agree that being accusatory and haughty as you describe below, will surely repel them but is silence better? (I know you said if asked, you'd have the conversation and I'm assuming if not, you'd not witness -- maybe I'm assuming too much).

Surprisingly, there are plenty of Christians who think yelling, "My religion hates your lifestyle! .... wanna join?" is going to work.

And surprisingly, there are plenty of Christians who think softly saying, "My religion accepts whatever you want to do is OK for you", is a Christian message.

Agreed. Acceptance or even affirmation is tantamount to leading them into sin. I'll be the first to admit, I'm an introvert. Talking to people about casual stuff at a party, etc. is difficult for me. So, the likelihood of me doing the things I'm asking about are slim to none. I'm trying to gain some insight here.

 

[epeery]

Yeah, on the Kim Davis thing - having worked for elected officials - I see different things she could (and IMHO should) have done. Good for her for standing on her principles and suffering some slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

But... there was a fair amount of putting the focus on her rather than on where it should have been. Granted, I didn't follow it that closely. My judgment of her is also pretty mild.

Elected clerks are sworn to uphold the laws of their jurisdictions that govern their offices, not interpret them. If she felt that she couldn't do that after the court decision that required her to issue licenses to gay couples, the appropriate response would be to RESIGN, not violate her oath and start breaking the law.

Also, a quick Google search showed that she had been married 4 times to 3 men. Perhaps she should have considered that she isn't the best spokesperson for the government taking a biblical stance on marriage.

 

[T.Lex]

I think we are all called differently when it comes to evangelizing/proselytizing. Some are gifted and fearless in that area. That's great for them and I hope they use their gifts to do His will.

Others are not thusly gifted. That's ok, too. Their role may be more in leading by example.

Of course, these are not mutually exclusive. We can all do "more" in both - by example and vocalizing - but it is ok to do that according to how God speaks to each of us individually.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm not saying I'd do anything different. But shouldn't we be bolder? Let's say you are asked to do the sound for their ceremony. Are we doing them any favors by not explaining why you won't? I agree that being accusatory and haughty as you describe below, will surely repel them but is silence better? (I know you said if asked, you'd have the conversation and I'm assuming if not, you'd not witness -- maybe I'm assuming too much).

Totally on the same page. Because yes, I would totally tell them that I can't in good conscience participate and here's why... of course in the politest way I could muster.


I wrote about this before in the other thread, but I'm less against gay marriage and more in favor of "the traditional Biblical view of marriage". It's far easier to make a case for a proper marriage, and it's less condemning.

Plus, no gay marriage advocate is ready to counter. All their arguments are defenses against condemnation. (e.g. a common line you hear is, "Paul's not condemning monogamous gays.")

 

[T.Lex]

While we're on the topic - would you guys go to a kind of "civil commitment ceremony" for gay friends/family? Or congratulate them on something like that?

 

[JettaKnight]

While we're on the topic - would you guys go to a kind of "civil commitment ceremony" for gay friends/family? Or congratulate them on something like that?

Fortunately, I haven't had to face that dilemma.

Be a part (either paid or standing) of a gay wedding = no.
Attend a "civil commitment ceremony" = ? Maybe just to see the fabulous outfits.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While we're on the topic - would you guys go to a kind of "civil commitment ceremony" for gay friends/family? Or congratulate them on something like that?

Where do you draw the line in the affirmation of sin? I'll be honest...I've been a hypocrite on this. A few years ago, my brother decided to divorce his second wife. (His first wife left him). I didn't try to talk him out of it. Among other things, I supported him and made light of his bi-polar ex-wife. Was I complicite in him in divorce? I think I was. I probably should have counseled him to make amends. I'd like to think I've learned and grown and wouldn't do that again.

In my opinion, we Christians should be bucking each other up. Iron sharpens iron. It's one thing to treat each other, our homosexual friends (and those with other "orientations") with brotherly love and kindness. It's another to condone actions that puts them in rebellion with God. That includes helping a buddy move in with his girlfriend, looking the other way when a friend takes advantage of another, giving money to politicians who support Planned Parenthood, etc. where we Christians have abandoned the field when it comes to the culture--and that includes the ceremonies you mentioned above.

 

[historian]

While we're on the topic - would you guys go to a kind of "civil commitment ceremony" for gay friends/family? Or congratulate them on something like that?

I have a divorced friends who, if they remarry, I will not attend the wedding. I do not congratulate or "like" second marriages on FB.

 

[historian]

He did not submit to the authorities.

To pretend that we can claim no moral law means we are left with the laws of man.

Everything the Nazis did was legal.

He did! He did not tell about My Rights! As they took him to be stoned and flogged! He was taken out and stoned. Twice! He submitted when asked and avoided if at all possible.

The laws of man are all we have. We can hope to shape them.

 

[breakingcontact]

While we're on the topic - would you guys go to a kind of "civil commitment ceremony" for gay friends/family? Or congratulate them on something like that?

No and no.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[breakingcontact]

I have a divorced friends who, if they remarry, I will not attend the wedding. I do not congratulate or "like" second marriages on FB.

This was one of the first things the church at large caved in on during the continuing sexual revolution.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[breakingcontact]

He did! He did not tell about My Rights! As they took him to be stoned and flogged! He was taken out and stoned. Twice! He submitted when asked and avoided if at all possible.

The laws of man are all we have. We can hope to shape them.

You don't believe our laws have a foundation in the laws given by God?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[PaulF]

While we're on the topic - would you guys go to a kind of "civil commitment ceremony" for gay friends/family? Or congratulate them on something like that?

Absolutely. I love a good party, and I think it's important to show support for things that are important to my family and friends.

My question is: where do you draw the line?

Idolatry is a major sin...the first, second (and arguably third) commandments speak to this directly. Are you not "affirming sin" (to use GFGT's phrase) if you attend a traditional Hindu, Muslim, or secular (heterosexual) wedding, or congratulate the betrothed?

What about Jewish couples? They reject the divinity of Jesus, which is central to Christianity. Is it a sin to congratulate a couple of Jewish kids just starting out?

Look. I think it's pretty clear: Jesus would go to that wedding...and Jesus would forgive you for going, too. Isn't that what Christianity is supposed to be about, love and forgiveness? At least on this side of death, in our Earthly lives? When you use Christianity as a tool to separate yourself from others you go against the very core of Jesus' message:

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love God. Love your Neighbor. Even the gay one, right?