CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[T.Lex]

Read Matthew.

A celebration which makes a mockery of the marriage context which Jesus describes as what God gave us, is no place for us.

Including the part about not judging and treating others as we would like to be treated?

Again, I have a real difficulty calling it a "marriage." So, if it isn't a "marriage" does that remove the issue for you?

As an aside, the last wedding my wife and I attended consisted of a couple millenials (heteros) getting married. It was strange. The "readings" were excerpts of poetry and modern writing that resonated with the bride and groom. There was an officiant who quoted the Bible, but that was the only mention of God. It was a neat, but non-religious ceremony, filed by a lovely reception in a neat venue.

But it didn't feel like a wedding to me.

Change that scenario to a gay couple, and I'm not sure it really would've changed much.

 

[T.Lex]

I do not want to steer away from the current topic, but where does it say that in the bible?

The part about atoning for our sins? Or the hierarchy?

Granted, my Catholic tradition incorporates the mortal v. venial sins, so I may be paraphrasing too loosely. Sins are all bad; the punishment related to certain sins is different depending on the sin. I think it was mentioned upthread that there is only 1 unforgivable sin.

Jesus spoke (can't get to the passage right now) of one who's sin was "greater." That in itself suggests some are worse than others.

Where does the Pope fit into that hierarchy?

Somewhere south of Paul.

 

[Ziggidy]

Can you elaborate on that last sentence? I'm sorry, I was right with you until that last bit. Scripture does support (at least in the Catholic tradition) that there are different severities of sin.

Personally, I believe Jesus's teachings are the top of the hierarchy. Paul, and the writings of the other Apostles, inform His teachings, but do no supplant them. There are some... administrative (for lack of a better word)... topics in the New Testament that are absolutely important. But not more important than Jesus's words.

I think you did a fine job. But, I am bit unclear on that last paragraph. Is there a biblical reference for "living in sin" v. sinning. I'm thinking of the Samaritan woman at the well. Or healing of the centurion's servant.

1) I understand the thought of different severities of sin, but my point is that all sin - regardless of what it is, separates us from God. We may differ on that but I believe we can both agree that all sin is equal in that respect.

2) Believe that we all fall short but through the cross, our sins have been atoned - the price is paid. Just because I have chosen Christ as my Lord, does not mean I will sin no more. I sin daily but I also pray for forgiveness for all my sins. Knowing that, I do not "live in sin" or have un-repented sin. Since we are speaking of the gay lifestyle, I will use that example. "Living" in sin would mean that homosexual desires would not be considered sin. "I was born this way", "I have accepted Christ" so I can sin and be forgiven; knowing that is explicitly spoken out against in the bible. Another example would be to continue to lust (porn) in spite of knowing it is wrong. Both those examples are "living in sin". IMO, a person cannot be christian and have a gay marriage; again, "living in sin". A person who is struggling with sin really does not want to do it. One who sins and does not think it is sin, is "living" in sin - it's their lifestyle. Biblical verses, there a many. What speaks to me is Romans 7, Hebrews in a variety of places. I believe the bottom line is un-repented sin is "living in sin". "I'm going to do it anyway." In many ways, all sin is wrongful pride. When you allow that pride to continue, regardless what it is, you are "living" in sin.

Hope this helps.

 

[T.Lex]

1) I understand the thought of different severities of sin, but my point is that all sin - regardless of what it is, separates us from God. We may differ on that but I believe we can both agree that all sin is equal in that respect.

Ah, yes, indeed. IMHO, that is the definition of sin.

2) Believe that we all fall short but through the cross, our sins have been atoned - the price is paid. Just because I have chosen Christ as my Lord, does not mean I will sin no more. I sin daily but I also pray for forgiveness for all my sins. Knowing that, I do not "live in sin" or have un-repented sin. Since we are speaking of the gay lifestyle, I will use that example. "Living" in sin would mean that homosexual desires would not be considered sin. "I was born this way", "I have accepted Christ" so I can sin and be forgiven; knowing that is explicitly spoken out against in the bible. Another example would be to continue to lust (porn) in spite of knowing it is wrong. Both those examples are "living in sin". IMO, a person cannot be christian and have a gay marriage; again, "living in sin". A person who is struggling with sin really does not want to do it. One who sins and does not think it is sin, is "living" in sin - it's their lifestyle. Biblical verses, there a many. What speaks to me is Romans 7, Hebrews in a variety of places. I believe the bottom line is un-repented sin is "living in sin". "I'm going to do it anyway." In many ways, all sin is wrongful pride. When you allow that pride to continue, regardless what it is, you are "living" in sin.

Hope this helps.

Ah, now I understand. (The misunderstanding was on my side of the equation; your new fomulation uses words that I understand better.)

Yes, unrepented sin is problematic.

First, there is much I agree with in your assertions. But, because this is INGO and in the interest of discussion, I'll totally only focus on where I think we depart from each other.

I think this is where we get into the inner-most thoughts of people. That part where God only knows what a person thinks and feels. This gets back to the people v. policies kinda thing.

I've been wrestling for several minutes how to articulate what I want to say next, but I can't do it right.

Let me pray and reflect more on it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Relevant, I suppose.

There's an AskReddit thread today, quite large, titled "What is something most people don't know about the Bible?"

Few of the top comments:

This is my favourite battle strategy in the Bible. Schechem, a prince, raped Dinah, the daughter of Jacob & Leah. He fell in love with her and asked her father for her hand in marriage afterwards.

Schechem's father told Jacob a marriage between Dinah & Schechem would mean an alliance between their tribes. Jacob's sons replied to that offer by insisting that their sister can only marry a circumcised man. If their two tribes are to form an alliance, then all the men must be circumcised.

Being stupid & infatuated, Schechem agreed.

While all the men were still in pain because they just got their foreskin lopped off, Jacob's sons attacked and slaughtered everyone.

TL;DR: When the brothers of the woman you just raped tell you to maim your dick, don't do it.

The story of Ehud and Eglon.

So, there was a wild and woolly period before Israel had kings that is covered in the book of Judges. Most of these are just legends, but one in particular is hilarious and badass.

There was a judge named Ehud, and Israel was ruled over by a kingdom ruled by a guy named Eglon. So, Ehud goes to meet Eglon, and I'll let the Bible tell it:

16 Now Ehud had made a double-edged sword about a cubit[d] long, which he strapped to his right thigh under his clothing. 17 He presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab, who was a very fat man. 18 After Ehud had presented the tribute, he sent on their way those who had carried it. 19 But on reaching the stone images near Gilgal he himself went back to Eglon and said, “Your Majesty, I have a secret message for you.”

The king said to his attendants, “Leave us!” And they all left.

20 Ehud then approached him while he was sitting alone in the upper room of his palace[e] and said, “I have a message from God for you.” As the king rose from his seat, 21 Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh and plunged it into the king’s belly. 22 Even the handle sank in after the blade, and his bowels discharged. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it. 23 Then Ehud went out to the porch[f]; he shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them.

That's some Batman-level **** right there.

The term Bible comes from the Greek Βιβλίο which literally just means "book".

The ark had more than two of each animal. Genesis 7:2-3 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth

People just like the two by to story. Noah ate beef on the ark.

 

[T.Lex]

In the INGO downtime, I had a chance to re-read much of John. I am always struck, and saddened a bit, at how frustrated Jesus must have been. He tried all sorts of different ways to explain things, but it seems like the people didn't understand. For me, the words include a sense of exasperation, yet He continues to try different angles to explain things that seem so simple to Him.

 

[Ziggidy]

In the INGO downtime, I had a chance to re-read much of John. I am always struck, and saddened a bit, at how frustrated Jesus must have been. He tried all sorts of different ways to explain things, but it seems like the people didn't understand. For me, the words include a sense of exasperation, yet He continues to try different angles to explain things that seem so simple to Him.

I often feel that way. NO, I am not suggesting I am like Jesus; although I strive to be.

https://youtu.be/Z8ZF6FVcSdQ

 

[T.Lex]

I often feel that way. NO, I am not suggesting I am like Jesus; although I strive to be.

I think it is as important (perhaps even moreso) to cast ourselves in the role of the audience. He keeps telling us what we need to know, in many different ways, but don't quite seem to get it.

It takes a certain humility to admit we don't understand everything.

 

[historian]

I think it is as important (perhaps even moreso) to cast ourselves in the role of the audience. He keeps telling us what we need to know, in many different ways, but don't quite seem to get it.

It takes a certain humility to admit we don't understand everything.

Says the Catholic Rob Bell

I keeeeeed I keeeeeeed.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, I had to google the dude.

But, if I squint my eyes and unfocus a little bit, I can kinda see the resemblance.

 

[breakingcontact]

In the INGO downtime, I had a chance to re-read much of John. I am always struck, and saddened a bit, at how frustrated Jesus must have been. He tried all sorts of different ways to explain things, but it seems like the people didn't understand. For me, the words include a sense of exasperation, yet He continues to try different angles to explain things that seem so simple to Him.

It isn't that he was failing in his pleading.

God saves who he will.

We are to do our part and evangelize but it is God who softens or hardens hearts.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[rvb]

Is another man’s sin really any of our business, though?

Correct me if I’m wrong, by I have always viewed “sin” as trespasses against God, where trespasses against other men are more akin to “crimes”.

Of the 10 commandments, some are against God, some are against man. Violating any of them is a sin.
Theft, for example, is a sin and we also treat it as a crime since it impacts other people.
Not honoring your mother and father is sin against people, but it is not a crime.
I don't think you can make that distinction.

...isn’t it more important to bring sinners to Christ than it is to judge others for those sins? ...

yes!

It is inexact to say that Jesus only "rebuked" sinners. Rather, He was known at the time for not rebuking sinners enough.

I recall Jesus 'rebuking' or 'reproofing' in several instances... rebuking demons/spirits that possessed people, and rebuking the apostles.
There is lots of guidance in the Bible for rebuking sinners within the church, aka believers. not so much for those outside, IIRC correctly? Loving non-believers and bringing them to Christ is the direction we are given. If someone can think of examples of Jesus "rebuking" non-believers (or instructing the disciples or other believers to rebuke non-believers) I'd be open to hearing them... Closest thing that's coming to mind right now is the woman convicted of adultery whom Jesus tells to go and sin no more. Also the woman at the well... Jesus doesn't really rebuke her, just says "haven't you had like 5 husbands, and the dude you're with now aint even one of those?"

The great commission isn't to judge, it's to spread the good news about Jesus. Once people are on The Way, then we should rebuke as necessary so the church body reflects Christ as closely as possible.

I do believe one can be gay and not live out the lustful sin.

I believe this is where we fall short.... I think we the church needs to do a better job highlighting that being attracted to someone of the same sex is not the sin, it is the temptation. It's not different than the straight person who is propositioned by someone who is not their spouse. Adultery is the sin, the temptation is not sin. In modern society people think that if someone has same-sex temptations, it is "who they are" and the church often deems them a sinner and they are left with the only people accepting them are other gay people or supporters of gay marriage, etc. Where the church should take issue, IMO, is when a brother or sister puts acting on the temptation (the actual sin) in front of their belief in the Bible and Jesus.

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

Frank the Hippie Pope weighs in on this issue (and youth unemployment):
[video=youtube;WEchg1KhmTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEchg1KhmTY[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

I recall Jesus 'rebuking' or 'reproofing' in several instances... rebuking demons/spirits that possessed people, and rebuking the apostles.
There is lots of guidance in the Bible for rebuking sinners within the church, aka believers. not so much for those outside, IIRC correctly? Loving non-believers and bringing them to Christ is the direction we are given. If someone can think of examples of Jesus "rebuking" non-believers (or instructing the disciples or other believers to rebuke non-believers) I'd be open to hearing them... Closest thing that's coming to mind right now is the woman convicted of adultery whom Jesus tells to go and sin no more. Also the woman at the well... Jesus doesn't really rebuke her, just says "haven't you had like 5 husbands, and the dude you're with now aint even one of those?"

Yeah, if you read the Samaritan woman incident again, I think it counts as a rebuke. He was kinda sarcastic with her. "I don't have a husband." "Oh that's right, you've had 5. And the one you live with now isn't your husband either." Or something like that. She went back to the town and actually helped draw attention to Jesus, which was probably part of the plan.

Another example of using a non-believer for God's work, probably.

I am willing to get on board with the "insider" v. "outsider" categorization, but I think its not quite that easy. Again, in the re-reading of John, there is one of the parables of the shepherd and his flock. He talks about having a flock, for which He would lay down His life. Interestingly, a passage just jumped off the screen at me that I don't recall being important before. John 10:16. I have another flock that I will bring into this fold so as to have 1 flock. (Paraphrasing.)

This resonates with other passages, and the works of the apostles, to spread the Word beyond the Jews. Beyond those who lived by the Mosaic law. I dunno. Seemed fitting to our discussion, too.

 

[rvb]

Yea, I thought about that comment with the "you have Had 5 husbands" bit and wondered if I should include it or if it was a counter to my point.... but it’s more than a rebuke.... it’s how he revealed himself to her. She was a believer at that point, at least that he was a prophet...

-rvb

 

[BugI02]

OK, let's leave out all the crimes against others, and stuff that's clearly a case where religion doesn't need to have a say.

Are you [generic] a Christian? No, them you're dead in sin and until a conversion happens, I probably don't need to point things out...

[I do not seek to pick on you or make an accusation. This is a subject that troubles me. If a conversion is to happen before we will address that which is dragging another (for me, specifically; a family member/loved one) away from God, then who will initiate/instigate that conversion if not those of us who may have that persons ear. Is it someone elses problem? Brother's keeper and all that]

If you are a Christian, then it should be job of the Church to point out patterns of sin in your life. Church discipline is one of the responsibilities of an elder (sadly missing in many churches).

If I have fellowship with another Christian, and I see an area of their life that clearly marred by sin, then yes, I have a duty to speak up, and would hope they would do the same for me. In my life, I've been in small groups of 2-4 where that, along with support, is the purpose. If sin keeps us apart from a right relationship from God, then shouldn't we do whatever we can as a body to remove that sin?

Matthew 7:5, Romans 6:1, lots in Hebrews (dealing with the importance confronting sin).



Here's what's not a forgivable sin: Denying Christ, and the Holy Spirit's tug on your heart.

The problem right now is the message of love is not heard over the message of sin. I.e. gay people view Christians as hating them (who can blame them given all the signs and protest). I think the Church's past modus operandi was just to sweep it under the rug if you "came out". Now days, that's just not going to work (nor should it). And the Church really hasn't figured out how to deal with gay Christians. There's the liberal attitude of live and let live and the counter judgmental attitude of condemn and force out. We really haven't quite figured out how to wrap our arms around gay brothers and sisters and tell them, "We love you, and we're going to fight right along side you." (of course, this assumes the gay Christian accepts that acting out on those desires is sin). Like everyone today, we hard time just sitting still and listening to someone.

*.*

 

[BugI02]

I do not want to steer away from the current topic, but where does it say that in the bible?

2 Corinthians 5:10 King James Version (KJV)


10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

 

[BugI02]

Where does the Pope fit into that hierarchy?

As a fallible, fragile human being standing uncomfortably in the shoes of greatness (Peter)? Or did you have in mind a specific (current) Pope?

 

[Ziggidy]

2 Corinthians 5:10 King James Version (KJV)


10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

My question about where the statement was mentioned in the bible was referencing this (which I disagree with);
"I do believe, though, that we will be called to account for our sins. All of them. The open ones and the private ones."

I do not agree with the interpretation, please let me explain why.

2 Corinthians 5:10 is referencing works, not sin.

All christians are saved by grace, meaning Christ died on the cross for our sins. If we are truly christian, the judgement is not referencing our sin because that has already been forgiven, Christ has paid the price for all my sins. If I was to be judged for my sins, then He died in vain, what would be the value?

I believe that passage is telling us that our actions will be judged and our reward in heaven based on what we have done with our lives; not our sins. The bible talks of rewards; Jesus Himself spoke of rewarding based not on our sins but rather what we have done with what we were given. Basically our works as a christian will determine our rewards in heaven.

Matthew 20:1-15 along with Matthew 19:28-29 strongly support these rewards; not based on our sins but based on our works. But remember, we are saved not by works but by grace. So the works spoken here are referencing our works after we are saved.

I think it is important that people understand that our works may be good (very fruitful) or bad (not so fruitful); but neither will get us into or keep us out of heaven. For it is by grace that we are saved - and not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[T.Lex]

I am fully prepared for the works discussion.

By 'prepared' I mean, will totally sit back and watch, having gone through this exercise previously.