Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Can You Remove Offensive Thread?

Forum Quick Jump

55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 11/29/2001 5:06 PM (GMT -6)

Brandon said:

quote:

I mean, think about it. If the anchor is fired up just by the so-called negative title, how much more would it be fired up by the negative connotations associated with homosexuality in the Bible which are more extensive? Take the association of the Bible with so many fundamentalists with their holier-than-thou attitude and interpretation that speaks in opposition to your view (a.k.a Fred Phelps) and BAM! You've got major internal and external "masked" behavior justa fly'n. Then, any legit argumentation gets associated in with the bad stuff and BOOM! Those who **ARE** legit are soon repulsed by those who hold such sensitivities as yourself. See what I'm saying?

Excellent point. I agree – this sort of thing happens all the time. In fact, right in front of our eyes I think we saw Semeia associate deeply into the anchored experience and come on very strong apparently against Mephi. Mephi, who is very clearly NOT opposing Semeia on the core issue. Semeia came on so strong out of the anchored experience (which feels like an attack) that Mephi felt somewhat attacked. He then of course defends (out of frustration) and Semeia feels somewhat attacked – and then defends (out of frustration)… “Hmmm…Bummer, Man, Bummer.” (Woodstock announcer)

quote:

Those who **ARE** legit are soon repulsed by those who hold such sensitivities as yourself. See what I'm saying?

This sentence is amazing because it contains the perspective of both sides. “Repulsed” here means both:

Feel Disgusted: Those who are legit feel disgusted by the emotional outburst and attacks and either drop the issue or take up the other side. And –
Are Pushed Away: Those who hold such sensitivities push away those are legit because they feel attacked even when they really aren’t being attacked.

The past negative anchor leads directly into a powerful reinforcement of the anchor and massive polarization and separation is the ultimate result. Sin leads to death. “The fall is accelerated and becomes infinite…” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer).

Given this reality of the situation – how in the world are we going to reach Gay people with the unadulterated message of God’s total and complete love for them before they allow themselves to become so well-defended that the life that comes from God gets choked out of them?

The very essence of our fallen being is that we are judgers, accusers, attackers. We are ha-satan. We are Pharisees. Yes, as we allow Jesus to transform us – to change our thinking – we do this less and less and begin to actually love one another from time to time. But make no mistake – our judgement is deep seated. It is buried in our unconscious thought. It is so buried that most of us actually believe it is good to judge others – as long as we are using “right” judgement.

Now us Christians know that we are not supposed to judge but at the same time we “know” that we “must” judge. So we say things like “hate the sin but love the sinner.” Now don’t get me wrong I think this is an excellent first step on the journey of actually learning to love another person. We first must separate the person from “their” sin. The person is good the sin is bad. This is the first “re-framing” that is required.

The second “re-framing” is a bit more of a leap. It is like going from algebra to calculus. Newtonian physics to relativity. It is to come to the realization that it isn’t about how good we are. Being more good does not make us more OK. Now this is a big bummer at first. What?!?! Not about how good or bad I am being?!?! Do you have any idea how hard I have worked to be at least this good – the sacrifices I have made – the wonderful vices I struggled so hard to give up? If it is not about being good then why did I have to suffer so much to achieve this? What was the point? Where is my reward? I want my denarius in direct proportion to how good I am being in comparison to my brother. After a while however one starts to realize that the rewards of hard work and achievement and giving and loving are that ones life is enriched. One starts to realize that “even the merit I reckon part of the receiving.” (Emerson). One starts to realize that God’s law is a gift that to the extent we can follow we are most deeply blessed.

The third “re-framing” follows more naturally. Once one realizes that it isn’t about being good one starts to realize that it is really, really simply about a loving and free and wild relationship with our maker. That we are already really, really OK. We can let go of the fear, we can let go of the judgement. Then one starts to see this issue of sin in another person quite differently. One starts to see that it isn’t “their” sin that we need to hate. It is the sin that is happening to them that we need to help them with. What response did Jesus have to the sin that was happening to people? To the person born blind? He healed him. To the person who was paralyzed and let down through the roof? He forgave his sins and then healed him. By the way – isn’t that interesting that Jesus first forgave his sin. Maybe Jesus was showing us that in this case the deeper wound was this man’s judgement of his own sin.

So…what is the sin that is happening to a Gay person that is preventing them from comprehending the fact that Jesus loves them – unconditionally - no strings attached – completely and totally loves them? The “sin” is that they were born Gay. They are different and reviled by the majority of humans due to complex biological reasons and good old self-righteous judgement.

thanks,
Iconoclast

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 11/30/2001 12:45 AM (GMT -6)

Icon: Given this reality of the situation – how in the world are we going to reach Gay people with the unadulterated message of God’s total and complete love for them before they allow themselves to become so well-defended that the life that comes from God gets choked out of them?

selah:
How about loving 'them' with the love that overflows from your fullness of Christ's love just as you would love anyone else? Pour out to 'them' and lavish 'them' in whatever is true, pure, lovely.
(I don't think you can make a blaket statement that 'they' all have this problem
with the "reality of the situation")

Icon: The second “re-framing” is a bit more of a leap. It is like going from algebra to calculus. Newtonian physics to relativity. It is to come to the realization that it isn’t about how good we are. Being more good does not make us more OK. Now this is a big bummer at first. What?!?! Not about how good or bad I am being?!?! Do you have any idea how hard I have worked to be at least this good – the sacrifices I have made – the wonderful vices I struggled so hard to give up? If it is not about being good then why did I have to suffer so much to achieve this? What was the point? Where is my reward? I want my denarius in direct proportion to how good I am being in comparison to my brother.

selah:
Who asserts this? I certainly don't. But I do not think that if I sin I will BENEFIT by ANYONE telling me I was just born that way.
I think that telling me it IS SIN and loving me through it is going to BENEFIT me most.
Walk WITH me, show me the way, speak the truth in love to me...

Icon: So…what is the sin that is happening to a Gay person that is preventing them from comprehending the fact that Jesus loves them – unconditionally - no strings attached – completely and totally loves them?

selah:
Could it be that "they" (again I don't think all of them, or most of them) buy into the lie that they are just born that way and that God's plan for sex is just A PLAN and not THE Ultimate plan? Or could it be that their friends aren't speaking the truth IN LOVE to them, even if they are deceived, for fear that the perfect message of GRACE can't be communicated without their stamp of approval on the sin?

Icon: The “sin” is that they were born Gay. They are different and reviled by the majority of humans due to complex biological reasons and good old self-righteous judgement.

selah:
All I can think of here is: What a RIP OFF for God to mention homosexuality as a sin, then preprogram people to be that way with no way out. I wonder about the character of God...is your God just? Maybe we, with finite minds, could just blot fornication and homosexuality out of the Bible?

Sorry Icon and Semeia, I strongly disagree that Paul was gay, that homosexuality (and fornication) are the same as a coveting thought over a new dress, and that people are just born (destined and have to live) into the homosexual lifestyle...with no CHOICE involved.

*Icon, when I was agreeing with your former post it was because I believe in the trigger/anchor/NLP facts presented.
Also, I agree that we should avoid any and all trigger/anchor words & or images where possible.

I'm gonna get it,
selah

PS. If there is passion here it is because this is a site read by many, some who take the best and leave the rest, and some who take what they wish and center their theology around it.
also, I don't know (except in forgiveness) how we can equate the sin of cheating on a husband or wife (possibly with many partners)
to the sin of coveting a new dress.
People are amazingly quiet now.

"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1

Edited by - selah on 11/30/2001 10:38:47 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/30/2001 1:34 AM (GMT -6)

Not connecting this to anything in particular....(no surprise).....but perhaps setting it along side the S & I quotes on the mind, here is a perspective that links the mind and the heart, and defines sin as a sickness caused by separation of them... (OK, I left that a bit vague or awkward; so sue me after you have read a bit.)

ORTHODOX PSYCHOTHERAPY
THE ILLNESS AND CURE OF THE SOUL IN THE ORTHODOX TRADITION
ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY
THE PERSON IN THE ORTHODOX

All are by Metropolitan Hierotheos S. Vlachos

quote:
The study of the patristic texts and particularly those of the hesychast Fathers of the Philokalia, many years of studying St.Gregory Palamas, association with the monks of the Holy Mountain, many years of pastoral experience, all brought him to the realisation that Orthodox theology is a science of the healing of man and that the neptic fathers can help the modern restless man who is disturbed by many internal and existential problems.

Within this framework he has written a multitude of books, the fruit of his pastoral work, among which is "Orthodox Psychotherapy". Some of these books have been translated into various languages, such as English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic. With these books he is conveying the Orthodox spirit of the Philokalia to the restless and disturbed man of our time. This is why they have aroused so much interest.

Great stuff.

MEPH---LOVED THAT HUGE SMILEY!!!!!

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 11/30/2001 6:32 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia,
I am so sorry that you have been hurt. I understand completely what you and Iconoclast are saying. One of my pet peeves is when people are discussing the problem of evil and in an attempt to make it concrete they give the example of woman getting raped. It seems of all the concrete examples of evil that could be used, this one is a favorite. I get tired of reading it, and I am always aware of how it could be a trigger to pain for someone.

I think your initial response was appropriate. You not only addressed Adiaphora, you also wrote Triskal personally and asked him to 'please' reword the title. I can understand how he might have intially felt misunderstood, and wanted people to know that he was not trying to be offensive but having been offended was interested in hearing a refutation of it. However Semeia did post again saying she understood his motivation, and asked for his understanding
of hers, and again asked for editing. At that point I thought it would have been good for Triskal to honor that request.

I understand where Meph was coming from, but even he finally aquiessed to changing the title. I undertstand that Triskal was using a title from their page as his title. But the key here for me is that it was Triskal who wrote the title on our page, not them. He could just have easily written,
Does God hate homosexuals? He chose to include the word fag in his title. I am with Semeia in saying I respect Triskal and his motivation but would like to see the title changed.

And Semeia I know you were upset when you wrote your last post, understandably so, from
my point of view, but I don't get why when you wrote, "when a homosexual see the question, "God hates Fags?" they hear the sentence God hate fags" that you wrote 'God hates fags' in huge bold face type. If a person were to scroll down this thread, that is the one thing they would read even if they hadn't read anything else. It seems almost to defeat your purpose. Would you be willing to tone that down? Just wondering.

Springs

"Because what can stop us when God reaches us in our deepest heart and our brightest imaginings?" - Semeia

Edited by - Springs on 11/30/2001 11:33:45 AM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/30/2001 6:37 AM (GMT -6)

Wow. hi all. I am just here to reflect, no real answers here, just some thoughts.

Sin is described as the sickness unto death. Not physical death mind you but true and final death. Yes, in one sense, like many other sicknesses, we could not have prevented it from visiting us. But very unlike that, we with all our being continue in that sin and will to continue in it. We participate in it actively so it is not sufficient to say that it is simply happening to us. We, as selves, are clearly a part of the problem.

God offers an outrageous solution. God says, "I will become sin and you will become righteous, deal?"

Deal.

If we say that sin is only something that happens to us, then the removal of sin is only something that happens to us. But this is not the message. WE become NEW CREATIONS in Christ. The old has passed away and the new has come. Of course sin in pretty persistant in us. It doesn't let go, and we don't let it go. Our wills are corrupt, not just our minds, or our subconsciousness or our bodies. Our very selves are in need of redemption and completion.

Selah is correct, so far as I can tell, we need to be in this together for the good of each one. That is one part of what a community of faith is supposed to be. She is just asking for some practical tips. The salvation question is not present. Selah, correct me if i am wrong, but I think you are asking HOW can we do better at building each other up and calling each other forward to further and closer union with each other and our Lord? We know we know Christ, and we want to be transformed from one degree of glory to the next. not just be left in the mud we've been sitting in all our lives. I think we all want this, now what can we say to Selah's question?

Anyone?

Selah, did I miss your point?

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/30/2001 7:02 AM (GMT -6)

Springs, I toned it down. I wanted to give a clear visual of the emotional impact of those words on a gay person. I wanted it to look like the words were being screamed, because I think that is how they are heard. I figured that by page two of a thread anyone reading it would be well into the context. But I understand your concern, and I think it retains most of the impact with somewhat smaller type.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 11/30/2001 7:37 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Semeia. I appreciate your consideration.

Selah,
When I was young my Catholic friends told me there were sins of different weight. At that time I thought it was weird to conceptualize categories of sin, for the purpose of describing the works needed to redeem them. As an adult I still don't believe in salvation through works, but I have come to think that sin varies in degree of evil, death, consequence, and judgement. So yeah, committing audultery is worse than coveting a dress.

Springs

"Because what can stop us when God reaches us in our deepest heart and our brightest imaginings?" - Semeia

Edited by - Springs on 11/30/2001 12:39:16 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/30/2001 9:19 AM (GMT -6)

Selah, glad I got some of your point right. And yes, I do think we do need to call sin sin. In my understanding, sin for the Christian is basically disobedience, though there are more subtle and other serious forms of sin as well. Prior to being Christians we need to be awakened to our sin, and this is done for us by proclamation. God reveals our sin to us and we see that God has also offered a solution. Great. But now that we are Christians, what now? We still sin, what gives? Well, there has already been an awakening, so what is now the main issue is discernment of what God requires of you now. There is no condemnation for your sin, that is dealt with, but you, as a new creation, have no business remaining in sin indefinitely. The motivation is postive, not negative. You are truly better than this now, God has made that true of you in the "happy exchange."

The "mechanism" that the church (ahem, the anabaptists that is) has often neglected is confession and repentence as an ongoing rhythm in life. Yes, we still sin, yes we are forgiven, but this is not technical, its relational. God suffers when you sin, so do you. So does the church and those who love you. So, to weigh sins and choose among them, this forgets the relationships that you have to yourself, others and God. Read the discussion Paul gives in Romans 6. He addresses this directly.

Teh "mechanism" of confession and repentence is pure grace. God did not have to make it so available to so many. Let us not lose sight of the fact that that grace is for something. It is for the sake of reconciliation for anyone anywhere in their lives, with the Loving God of the Universe. And at the same time, it is completely FOR us, not against us.

Any thoughts?

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 11/30/2001 10:04 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

In my understanding, sin for the Christian is basically disobedience, though there are more subtle and other serious forms of sin as well.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

In your understanding what are the "serious" forms of sin?

selah

"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/30/2001 10:13 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

In your understanding what are the "serious" forms of sin?

selah

"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1

Personally I think that prejudice, gossip, laziness, greed, and selfishness are the most damaging sins in our context. The go practically unchecked and permeate our lives with destructive force.

If we started to genuinely confront each other in love, or better, create an environment where these things would be culturally uncomfortable or "anti-social" behaviors, which they totally are, we would be much closer to what The Church should look like.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 11/30/2001 10:39 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia, balancing a passionate heart and peacemaker personality is tricky, ain’t it? I hope that this does not sound trite or dismissive—I say this with all sincerity—but when I read your post I was reminded of the serenity prayer Mephi shared with me: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, MAD courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

I’m sorry, but not surprised, to hear that your sisters have encountered so much condemnation from straight Christians. I pray that they will encounter straight and gay Christians who can share the gospel with them in a way they can hear. And I pray that your relationship with them would help heal the wounds they have received from Christians and help open their hearts to the Spirit.

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
The glory of God is the human being fully alive § Irenaeus

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 11/30/2001 12:49 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia, I re-read your post about your sisters and hope that I haven't offended further. I should share with you that part of the reason I have been pushing the envelope on this subject is that I work as a hairdresser and am confronted with these issues often. I've always held that directing towards Jesus Christ and showering people with unconditional love, as much as humanly possible, is the most effective witness. Usually it takes a lot of time.

Re-reading your post, and entering in, has reminded me of the short time we have to make a difference in peoples lives. Hopefully you can discern that I would never preach to anyone that their homosexuality/heterosexuality could come between them and God's available, universal, and perfectly loving relationship.
I also have 2 sisters who are not saved. God longs for them, and I hurt for them. I pray that through this discussion and others I will more carefully and completely be able to speak the truth in love while walking along side my sisters and co-workers.

Thanks for allowing me to stretch my thinking on the subject.
exceeding blessings,
selah

Edited by - selah on 11/30/2001 7:09:20 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/30/2001 2:17 PM (GMT -6)

What did Jesus do about sin? He healed people. There are instances of him saying, “Go and sin no more.” Gently, after showing love, from a position of perfection which only Jesus has.

His anger was saved for people who judged others. The Pharisees were the “good people” of the day. They went to synagogue, and knew their scripture like the back of their hand. They knew how people fell short, and they were not afraid to point it out. Even to Jesus, who broke the Sabbath. The Pharisees knew it was important to point out to people their sin: if they didn’t, who would? Jesus certainly wasn’t--that’s one of the reasons they didn’t trust him. How would people do God’s word, if their sin weren’t pointed out to them? Didn’t God demand it? This is the thinking that made it impossible for the Pharisees to recognize God when they saw him.

What did Jesus do about sin? He died on the cross. Let’s go over that one more time. What did Jesus do about sin? He allowed himself to be nailed through his wrists and his ankles to a wooden cross, to let the full weight of his body hang excruciatingly from his torn flesh for hour after hour while being taunted and jeered, as his body fluids settled and slowly filled his lungs, eventually drowning him in an end to what must have felt like an eternity of suffering. Before he died he begged the Father, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

That’s a compelling statement in any context, but from the mouth of a man who is in the process of being murdered it reverberates through history, it convicts us with its simplicity: its integrity in the mouth of the murdered man grabs us and will not let us go. All of our sin, our woundedness, our failure, and our judgment is dashed on the rock of that scripture.

Did he mean, “Forgive them, because they do not know I am God”? Or did he mean something deeper and exact: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”?

Jesus ministry was not one of going around and telling individuals what their shortcomings were, lovingly or not. It was mostly stories and parables. He rarely gave a straight answer. Few Christians model their ministry on Jesus. Most model their ministry on Paul, or at least what they think Paul was saying. That seems a little strange to me. Paul was a flawed human being who spent quite a few years murdering Christians. Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus’ most comprehensive discussion of sin takes place in the Sermon on the Mount. In that sermon Jesus erases now and for all time any distinctions we would like to make between one sin and another, between our sin and our brother’s. He unequivocally declares that the angry thought is the same as murder; lust in the heart is the same as adultery. No one escapes. “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” He indicts each and every one of us, for all time.

And yet He said, “I come not to condemn the world but to save it.” So his indictment of us is not a judgment. It is simply a fact, from which none of us can flee. He makes it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that we are all full of sin all the time.

How does he save us then? Does he save us by lecturing us on our individual sin? I see no evidence of that in the Gospels, except for the sins of the people like the Pharisees and the Lawyers who thought they were righteous. If you are merely a prostitute or someone who has been married five times or a reviled tax collector, you get no lecture. If you claim in any way to be righteous before God, watch out. He constantly tricks us into knowledge with stories that upset our view of the world. When people want specific advice, He says, “Why ask me to settle your dispute for you? Settle your own dispute.” He frequently answers a question with a question. He does say to rebuke a brother who is sinning against you, but he says to forgive as many times as the brother offends, as long as they repent. (And of course none of the homosexuals I know are sinning “against” me, so I do not see that I have a position to rebuke them from.) Jesus says, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free… …Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” Jesus has already shown us how high the bar is-—how impossible it is for us to claim we are without sin. Here he tells us that if we sin (which he has already shown us we always do) we are slaves to sin. My understanding of a “slave” is that of a person that does not have control over his life. Something outside of him controls him. A slave cannot “choose” to be free. A slave cannot “will” himself out of slavery. A slave cannot free himself from slavery through “good works”. A slave by his own doing has no way out. Jesus tells us we are slaves to sin. This metaphor powerfully suggests that we do not on our own have control over our sin. On the contrary, it is sin that has control over us. From what position do we judge our brother, whom Jesus says is a slave to sin? From what position does our brother judge us? Think about slavery in American history. Does anyone looking back blame or judge the slave for their condition? What does he mean by calling us slaves to sin? If you were to come across an enslaved person, chained to the wall, would you rebuke him? Would you call out the sin of his enslavement? Would you try to talk him out of his slavery? Would you point out to him that he has chains on and if he worked harder at being good he would not be enslaved? But of course, you yourself have sin, and according to Jesus you too are enslaved, so it would seem a little odd to rebuke the slave chained next to you on the wall.

But Jesus holds out hope, “The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” Jesus can do what you cannot. Jesus can set you free. Our slavery is temporary—if we believe in the Son of Man we will be free, simply because Jesus makes it so. But there is an issue here: when are we enslaved, and when are we freed? And what exactly does freedom mean? There are two ways to look at this, and both are true.

Were we enslaved before we knew Jesus, and then were free? Or was humanity enslaved before Jesus lived, and freed through Jesus’ death on the cross? And furthermore, does freedom mean that we have no more sin?

Believing in Jesus Christ makes us free. To the extent that we can “continue in his word” we will know the truth and the truth will set us free. To the extent that we will admit him into our heart is the extent to which we will recognize the truth, and in truth is freedom. Does this freedom mean we will be without sin? No, the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, from a tiny beginning comes a huge, living, growing result. But it happens slowly, in small increments. Knowing Jesus gives us a chance at knowing our own sin, and changing. It does not, however, teach us much about someone else’s sin, because freedom only comes through Jesus Christ, not through human beings. It is not something we can bestow on someone by calling out their sin. The only currency of exchange is love—that is our only contribution to the freedom of others. We are all slaves to sin. We cannot bestow freedom on someone else, when we ourselves are enslaved. Only Jesus can-—He says so. In this sense our freedom starts small and grows.

In another sense our freedom came in a cataclysmic event, and all at once. Jesus took our sin and nailed it to the cross, and with his flesh paid ransom for many. He paid with his life for the salvation of the world, including his murderers. His plea: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I think about what Jesus did, and why he did it, and for whom, and it changes everything I think about myself and others, forever. Because this was Jesus response to our sin: to die on the cross. He took the sin of the world on himself, so it could die with him, so we could live. He took the pain of the world on himself, so it could die with him, so we could live. He said, “I come not to judge the world, but to save it.” So how do Christians go from the blood of the cross to the belief that it is their job to help their neighbor see his sin? Jesus asks us, “Are you willing to take up my cross?” What is his cross? His cross was to take on the sin of the world, ON HIMSELF, so that others may live. In what way is our evaluation and weighing of other people’s sin anything like what Jesus did? Jesus took our pain on himself. The only way we can ever make a baby step in that direction is by loving our neighbor and our brother and taking the suffering of their sinfulness on ourselves, without judgment, to allow them to live. How do we take up the cross? How do we take on that sin? By absorbing it without judgment or condemnation or retaliation and through loving people into a freeing relationship with God. Jesus died so we could repent and be forgiven. How do we “die” in this life for a brother? We die by taking ourselves out of the equation-—our judgments and evaluations and egos and resentments and self-righteousness and arrogance and criticism and inspection and pride. We take ourselves out of the equation so we can meet our brother where he is. We take ourselves out of the equation so we can love our brother where he is right now. This does not mean we are indifferent to sin. We are not indifferent to something we are willing to die for. What it means is that we recognize that the only one who has the power to free anyone from being a slave to sin is Jesus Christ himself. What it means is that we are willing to do the only thing that brings Jesus into anyone’s life, and that is love. What it means is that we are willing to take ourselves out of the equation so that Jesus Christ can work in us and through us to love the world. Pointing out someone else’s sin is not love, even if it is said in a soft Christian voice. Love is putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and seeing the world through their eyes. Love is seeing the person the way God sees them, hurting and in need. Love is taking someone else’s pain, and all the sin that flows from that pain, and withstanding it without judgment or condemnation. Love is asking God to forgive your murderers as you are nailed to the cross and drowning in your own blood.

How do we get from Jesus sacrifice to weighing the sins of others?

I search the Ten Commandments for any sign that God wants me to fix my brother, but all I find are commands for me.

I search the Lord’s Prayer for any sign that God wants me to fix my brother, but all I find are my requests for God to do his will and take care of me. The only thing I promise to do is forgive my brother’s trespasses.

I search the Sermon on the Mount for any sign that God wants me to fix my brother, but all I find are commands and warnings for me.

I search Jesus death on the cross for any sign that God wants me to fix my brother, but all I find is love and forgiveness for all.

I know Jesus saves. I just need to get out of the way so he can do it. I need to find within me a fraction of that love and forgiveness so that my heart may be cracked open to let freedom reign.

Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. It’s not as complicated as we make it out to be. But like everyone else, I fail miserably at it, every day.

After church one day we spent the afternoon with friends who are gay. I asked my friend about his job as a social worker working with troubled teens. I asked him if the kids he worked with knew he was gay, and if they ever reacted negatively about it. Oh yes, most of them knew, and he had been called faggot and lots of other things, and he had been spit on, and had several episodes of fairly violent behavior. I was kind of shocked, and I asked him if he continued to work with the kids who did that. Yes, he said, because they’re the kids that need me the most. He was able to take himself out of the equation, and absorb the sin, in order to love and to heal. I wish I could get to where he is. I’ve got my work cut out for me.

Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/30/2001 2:39 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Modes/Pia:
One last question. Would it matter if a pastor was lazy, had a coveting thought, or was selfish? Would this type of sin be enough to call the overseers? or demote?
Now, if the same pastor slept with many people besides his wife, would this 'type' of sin be enough to call the overseers? Would you stand up for each pastor equally because sin is sin?

selah
(Hopefully you guys know these questions are hypothetical and don't represent my beliefs in any way. Right? You know that right? I am not really making a "point", as Modes said. IF any point is to be made at all it is best expressed in Modes' last post, second paragraph.)

"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1

Okay, in my mind, what qualifies a person spiritually to be a pastor (assuming a certain set of giftings and all) is that they understand what it means to resort to grace on a regular basis and can lead others to do likewise. I do know of pastors that have committed adultery and have later been restored to ministry. But it takes time. Gossip does deep damage too and depending on the specifics, I would say they could/should lose their positions over that as well. This too can be healed over time and restoration can happen. Pastors are not perfect people, but they must be humble people who know how to repent and press on. If they do something that damages many people, they will have to be removed for possible restoration at a later time, perhaps not in the same setting or with the same sets of people. Depends on the healing process.

In a sense, we ar talking about a matter of orientation. Does one live a life marked by humilty, repentence and forgiveness? Is one receptive to transformation and basically a cmmunity builder rather than a community divider? These would be essential to who I would consider as my pastor. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect to be pointed toward it.

great questions. I hope these responses are helpful. Just my thoughts on this.

Lastly, yes, I would get rid of a pastor, or leave, if they were selfish, lazy and coveted unrepentantly. Its the trajectory I am interested in. Role models need not be perfect but they must be humble and resort to grace as needed. That's what needs to be modeled.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 11/30/2001 3:07 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks Modes. (A.K.A. Quick Draw) I trusted that you would say that

In fact, since I knew the answer, I tried to erase the question.
Semeia, hopefully you understand my intent. Fixing someone or something is never on my to-do list.

Huge, Mad, blessings,
selah

"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/30/2001 3:10 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia,

What does it mean to you to "speak the truth in love"?

I believe the only meaningful way that a person comes to see that they are a sinner is by God's revelation of that. But often God uses people to get God's work done. How would this happen if we refused to let God use us to confront sin?

If your husband became an alchoholic, would you intervene at any point?

We need to hear how love looks when we are forced to deal with other people's sin because of relationships. You could be read as saying that no one ever has the right to speak into anyone else's life about problems. I don't think this is what you mean. Perhaps we need to distinguish between addressing sin in different categories: before or after conversion, in or out of personal relationship.

Jesus did not really ignore people's sin, he intervened.

We need to speak clearly about what sort of interruptions are appropriate when. Transformation can only follow interruption. Loving someone in an invariably non-confrontational way does not lend itself to the necessary interruption. In fact, I would say that it is not really loving someone.

Personally, I wait for the Lord to lead me before I take action in this way. BUT, the Lord does do this and I will do my best to follow. This causes me to be convicted that sin, which has its own continuity, must be interrupted. God will do it, and repentence is possible. Sometimes God uses people to participate in this process. Again, the distinctions I mentioned above are critical (before or after conversion, in or out of personal relationship).

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/30/2001 3:36 PM (GMT -6)

Modes said:

quote:

Semeia,

What does it mean to you to "speak the truth in love"?

I believe the only meaningful way that a person comes to see that they are a sinner is by God's revelation of that. But often God uses people to get God's work done. How would this happen if we refused to let God use us to confront sin?

If your husband became an alchoholic, would you intervene at any point?

We need to hear how love looks when we are forced to deal with other people's sin because of relationships. You could be read as saying that no one ever has the right to speak into anyone else's life about problems. I don't think this is what you mean. Perhaps we need to distinguish between addressing sin in different categories: before or after conversion, in or out of personal relationship.

Jesus did not really ignore people's sin, he intervened.

Modes, This is from the Women, Homosexuality and Slavery thread:

Message to the Non-Believer:

Core problem: The non-believer thinks that their own knowledge of good and evil can save them: if they can do mostly good they will be OK. Their presupposition is that they are Not-OK.

Core solution: They must come to understand that the very belief that their own knowledge of good and evil can save them is the problem. This is most powerfully done by showing that the slightest sin means we are already dead – if we even lust in our heart we are like the adulterer and there is no way out. This is best done by living the law in a way that invites inquiry, with the humility that we are all alike in the inescapability of our sin. Just that concept alone when comprehended shows that we all have no hope of being saved by our own knowledge of good and evil and must therefore seek a different solution.

Jesus of course is that solution. We have only to believe that we cannot save ourselves and that Jesus loves us even in our sin: we are already OK. Once we understand this – that we can take the position of being OK because of Jesus – then we can become transformed into what we are capable of being: then we can start doing the law. Jesus died for our sins to show us that we can die “to” our sins, and find new life “in” him. In Jesus we can operate from a position of being OK, even though we are fallen, even though we have enduring sin, even though we can never fully overcome.

Before being saved we think we get life from our knowledge of good and evil. Our identity is based on this. For this idea to be challenged feels to us like our very life is being threatened. This is just a feeling – it is not true. We are being asked by Jesus to take the pain of allowing this false life to “die” so that we may have true life. The life that comes from Jesus.

Believing that our knowledge of good and evil can save us, we do not know that we are slaves to sin. John 8: 31-36 – Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, ‘You will be made free’? Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Core difficulty: If we preach that one sin is different from another – if we preach that homosexuality is a big problem and don’t in the same breath mention that if anyone lusts in his heart and all the other list of sins to show that we all fall short always – then we are actually presupposing that one can be saved by their knowledge of good and evil. If we tell homosexuals they are sinners needing to be saved because of their homosexuality, the underlying message is: be good and you will be OK. This is what the Pharisees did. In any society the individuals most capable of actually obeying some of the laws are the most susceptible to the lie that we can actually be saved by doing good – they are then the most far apart from God.

Side note: If one takes the psychological position of I’m OK – You’re not OK then one is in serious trouble. This is the position of the sociopath. The core message of the Log and Speck is to prevent this position; this position in its fullness can lead us to actually murdering our brother.

Message to the Believer:

Core problem: Giving feedback without “judgment”. There is a concept in organizational psychology called "Intent>Behavior>Impact" which shows how we can give feedback on the impact of someone's behavior on us without "judging" his or her intent.

Intent>Behavior>Impact: Each of us has an Intent – from that Intent we design our behavior. Unfortunately 95% of our behavior is designed unconsciously. Let me say that again: cognitive science has clearly shown that 95% of our behavior is unconscious: we are not even aware of what we are doing exactly, what tones we are using, what our facial expressions look like, etc… Our behavior leads to an impact on other people. We are unaware of the impact our behavior has on other people. Our intent is to give a caring response – unfortunately (because of our behavior) the response can have the exact opposite impact. Usually we are unaware of the impact. If the other person makes us aware we typically become frustrated and believe that the fault lies in the other person. Since we believe it should have been clear what our intent was – we “shoot the messenger”.

By the way, this arrow, Intent>Behavior>Impact, points at both parties who are interacting. For example, someone impacts us by his or her behavior, and as soon as we go to respond, we also have an intent that leads to a behavior that leads to an impact. The main issue is to respond to the impact that was felt, and not to make “judgments” about the other person’s intent. To call a particular behavior a “sin” is to respond to the perceived intent. To call attention to the impact, always under the assumption that the intent was well meaning, allows the other person to retreat from sin, and gives them permission to try a different behavior to achieve their intent. To name the behavior as “sin” immediately sends the other person into deep shame, which they must reject to survive, and in rejecting the judgment they are also closed off from trying a new behavior. So the person who, in trying to do good, labels another person’s behavior as “sin”, is actually complicit in causing the other person to do more sin, which is in itself sinful.

Core solution: Love. Only love can overcome this dilemma. Kierkegaard, in a chapter of Works of Love called "Love Hides the Multiplicity of Sins" makes a distinction between sin that requires a "hiding action" and sin that requires a "stopping action".

Hiding Action

Kierkegaard says that love hides the multiplicity of sins. Love does this by silence, by finding mitigating language, and by forgiveness. This is leadership at its finest: calling out the good in each of us in a way that makes it become true.

Remarriage after a “non-compliant” divorce is an example of this. The person should be treated as though it was their first marriage – pure and without sin. This leads to purity and being without sin – it leads to the health of their current marriage. The potter in action.

Lust in the heart is another example of this.

Stopping Action

Sometimes a stopping action is required – even to the point of declining fellowship. A clear example of this is alcoholism. Or any situation where people lose themselves so totally that they require strong outside assistance to find their way back. One measure that a stopping action is really required is that when it works and the person is restored they are truly thankful that the stopping action was taken.

The key here is that their sin is rapidly becoming death all around them: that their sin is right now causing evil to occur. This demands a strong, direct, loving confrontation. The confrontation however, is not about labeling the person’s intent as “sin”. The confrontation is about giving feedback about the impact of the person’s behavior. Clearly one must be very careful here when taking a stopping action. Alcoholics Anonymous has built very good guidelines for what is effective. One clear issue is that in order to confront or intervene effectively you must be a person who has experienced direct negative consequences from the behavior, or are advocating for a child or otherwise helpless victim who has experienced direct negative consequences.

Paul says, “All things are lawful for me but I will not be dominated by anything.” Being dominated by something other than love is the key problem. When someone is dominated by something that takes “control” of him or her then a stopping action is required.

So… are homosexuals dominated by homosexuality? Are heterosexuals dominated by their sexual orientation? Or is the real issue whether a person is dominated by promiscuity or sex-addiction or self-abasement through prostitution, etc.?

The one time Jesus explicitly names the kind of folk who are headed for eternal damnation, he lists only those who did not provide food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, did not welcome strangers or provide clothing to the naked, did not visit prisoners. Not one of these was an action taken but rather an action not taken. Quite simply this is about a lack of loving action taken towards your fellow man. Anyone “dominated” by some particular sin (e.g. drunkard) won’t be taking a lot of loving action toward others – quite the contrary. And this is because they are not taking any loving action toward themselves.

When Paul produced his list in I Corinthians 6: 9 it was not a list of sins. It was a list of what can come to dominate us and take away our freedom – our ability to go forward transparent and growing in love. When dominated by these things we are heading straight for death – we are in death - here and now.

Referencing a list of sins in a group invokes either judgment or shame. If I don’t see myself in the list then I immediately go to the place where I judge – where I separate myself (I am good) from “them” (they are bad) – good thing I am not like that. If I do see myself in the list then I feel shame and I feel separated from those around me whom I feel judged by. In either case the essence of my fallenness (knowledge of good and evil – judgment/condemnation) is invoked and I separate from God.

Jesus provided a list of sins in his Sermon on the Mount. It was not, however, your typical list of sins. Jesus took the typical list and refused to use it in a way that separates us from God by invoking our judgment to condemn or shame. Jesus did invoke our judgment. Jesus called our judgment to judge that our judgment is no longer valid as a means of guiding us to our own salvation. We can no longer judge others, we can no longer judge ourselves, and this means we can no longer judge God. Our only response is to rely completely on God’s grace and on God’s goodness and not ours.

So, how does this sound? Does this additionally clarify the difference between judgment and action?

Thanks,
Semeia and her helper Iconoclast

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 11/30/2001 4:47 PM (GMT -6)

selah:
How about loving 'them' with the love that overflows from your fullness of Christ's love just as you would love anyone else? Pour out to 'them' and lavish 'them' in whatever is true, pure, lovely.
(I don't think you can make a blaket statement that 'they' all have this problem
with the "reality of the situation")

Iconoclast: I totally agree with you on this – I think you are right on. And yes – you are also quite correct that this blanket statement is an over-generalization and therefore false. Good catch.

Previous post Icon: The second “re-framing” is a bit more of a leap. It is like going from algebra to calculus. Newtonian physics to relativity. It is to come to the realization that it isn’t about how good we are. Being more good does not make us more OK. Now this is a big bummer at first. What?!?! Not about how good or bad I am being?!?! Do you have any idea how hard I have worked to be at least this good – the sacrifices I have made – the wonderful vices I struggled so hard to give up? If it is not about being good then why did I have to suffer so much to achieve this? What was the point? Where is my reward? I want my denarius in direct proportion to how good I am being in comparison to my brother.

selah:
Who asserts this? I certainly don't. But I do not think that if I sin I will BENEFIT by ANYONE telling me I was just born that way.
I think that telling me it IS SIN and loving me through it is going to BENEFIT me most.
Walk WITH me, show me the way, speak the truth in love to me...

Iconoclast: Hmmm… I am a little lost on what you are saying here. Sorry about that.

selah:
All I can think of here is: What a RIP OFF for God to mention homosexuality as a sin, then preprogram people to be that way with no way out. I wonder about the character of God...is your God just? Maybe we, with finite minds, could just blot fornication and homosexuality out of the Bible?

Iconoclast: Big time RIP OFF for sure!!! Could you even imagine going through puberty and suddenly realizing that you are attracted to the same sex. That you have feelings which you have no control over and they ain’t going away. Can you even imagine what it would be like to suddenly realize that all the enormous judgment and condemnation people have toward Gays will now suddenly be directed at you. The shame, the confusion, the crazy thinking about how you must be one of those people that Christians say God just destined for hell. It just don’t get much worse than this. Do you really think anyone would choose this? Would you, could you choose to be Gay?? Also – the scientific evidence is clear. Sexual orientation is determined by age 5.

And yes – even with the above said my Lord is totally just and completely loving. And yes – my Lord allows people to be born blind and born to savagely abusive parents and born into war and strife and suffering and death. Born into sin, completely and totally born into sin – with absolutely no way out. Jesus made it crystal clear: Lust in your heart is the same as Adultery. An angry thought toward your brother is the same as murder. No escape.

Ok – one way out. The same way out – for all of us. No matter what our sin. And do we stop sinning when we become a Christian? Will we ever stop sinning in this world?

Oh - and by the way – Greg Boyd’s new book “Satan and The Problem of Evil” powerfully addresses the issue of why our loving God allows suffering.

Selah:
also, I don't know (except in forgiveness) how we can equate the sin of cheating on a husband or wife (possibly with many partners)
to the sin of coveting a new dress.

Iconoclast: I don’t know either. I would never have come up with this. In the core of my being I want to scream out that Lust in the heart is WAY different than adultery. Yet Jesus said they are the same. Now I am absolutely certain that when I stub my toe it doesn’t hurt nearly as bad as breaking my arm. And so I am also absolutely certain that I won’t be hurting myself and others nearly as bad by a brief covet here and there as by actually commiting adultery. And thank you, thank you Lord for being so merciful and helping me to be strong enough to not commit adultery. Because man, oh, man that would really hurt. I would sooner take the pain of breaking an arm.

Selah to Modes: In your understanding what are the "serious" forms of sin?

Iconoclast: There is only one category of sin that leads to the unforgivable sin: that is Judgement. The unforgivable sin is “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”: seeing pure Love and judging it as evil: “he casts out demons with the power of Beelzebub.” I think Jesus answers this question unequivocally in his confrontation with the Pharisees. The most serious forms of sin all look the same: judgement. In fact what is it that we conceptualize as the ultimate evil? It is Satan. Which is really of course “ha-satan” or “the accuser”. The evidence is overwhelming.

thanks,
Iconoclast

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/30/2001 5:46 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia,
Thanks for that. I trusted that we didn't really disagree. However, can you see that without this most recent post (yours I mean) people could get the wrong idea about what your message is? It seems that you and Icon have declared war on the word "judgment" but this is a bit problematic. Many Christians use the word to indicate that discernment that you and Icon agree to be necessary to intervene, or as I say, interrupt. We need to be as gracious as we can about what people are getting at. It may be that there is more agreement than not. The bible doesn't unequivocally declare war on the word "judgment" it can be used rightly and Christianly. We do agree, I think. I don't think you would deny that "good judgment" is used in life and especially in community.

Icon,
Your equating the unforgivable sin with judgment only intensifies the above problem infinitely.

In terms of Selah's question, we were not even in the realm of the salvation question. I took her to be asking what were the most damaging sins and asking this in the context of the question of how I might relate to a pastor committing the sin. We were talking about dealing with "residual sin" if you will. In short, your answering Selah's question about "serious sins" was accomplished by pulling the question completely out of context.

Besides:
As I understand it, the unforgivable sin is confusing God with Satan. You demythologize and reinterpret the meaning of that problematic passage beyond the historical discussions. This may be defensible, but you'd need to do more to defend it than assert your conclusions. First, we'd have to agree that Satan is a metaphor for judgment. This is difficult to establish biblically, though certainly Satan did play the role of accuser, in the OT it was in the service of God's law. There's a bunch of messy stuff to work through before we can do what you have attempted. Second, we'd have to agree that judgment itself is somehow equivolent to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (in particular) but not of Christ. For blaspheming Christ is not the unforgivable sin. Actually, it seems we'd also have to accept the premise that God is a metaphor for Love.

I want you both to know that I often find myself in agreement with you, at least in terms of intuitions if not more. But we have got to be more careful and tentative when challenging long accepted and widely recognized truths of the faith. I truly want you two to have the sort of impact that you desire to have, but some of the communication choices are getting in the way significantly. It may be that some of the reframes that you have decided on could have been satisfied by reworking traditional language and thereby transforming the impact that those words have. The church is not likely to give up the concept of "good judgment" for instance. I truly do not intend to just be contrary, I am trying to help clarify what seems to be problematic for others trying to understand your views. If others disagree with this attempt just say so and I will shut up.

Blessings to you all....
Modes

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Edited by - modesofthought on 11/30/2001 10:49:46 PM

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 11/30/2001 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Iconoclast: Big time RIP OFF for sure!!! Could you even imagine going through puberty and suddenly realizing that you are attracted to the same sex. That you have feelings which you have no control over and they ain’t going away. Can you even imagine what it would be like to suddenly realize that all the enormous judgment and condemnation people have toward Gays will now suddenly be directed at you

RIP OFF for sure!!! We are each born with our own "thorns" or "crosses to bear," although some are more widely discriminated against. A person who is born and realizes in puberty that they are attracted to the same sex has a "thorn" or "cross" to bear, but so too a person who cannot take a drink of alcohol without getting drunk. Both are physiologically beyond their control. Both are judged by society (especially Christians) as missing the mark. Definitely both are often preached against in sermons in a very judgmental fashion. The battle of bearing the "cross" lies in what the person chooses to do with it. It's not the BEING but the DOING that can lead to sin.

quote:
Semeia: I wanted to give a clear visual of the emotional impact of those words on a gay person. I wanted it to look like the words were being screamed, because I think that is how they are heard.

BTW, Semeia, when I read how you wrote that statement, with the big lettering, I really felt the impact! It made a strong and effective statement to me on how a gay person would read that title.

Peace

trosie

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/30/2001 7:05 PM (GMT -6)

Trosie said:

quote:

quote:

Semeia: I wanted to give a clear visual of the emotional impact of those words on a gay person. I wanted it to look like the words were being screamed, because I think that is how they are heard.

BTW, Semeia, when I read how you wrote that statement, with the big lettering, I really felt the impact! It made a strong and effective statement to me on how a gay person would read that title.

Semeia: Thanks for letting me know!

Trosie said:

quote:
RIP OFF for sure!!! We are each born with our own "thorns" or "crosses to bear," although some are more widely discriminated against. A person who is born and realizes in puberty that they are attracted to the same sex has a "thorn" or "cross" to bear, but so too a person who cannot take a drink of alcohol without getting drunk. Both are physiologically beyond their control. Both are judged by society (especially Christians) as missing the mark. Definitely both are often preached against in sermons in a very judgmental fashion. The battle of bearing the "cross" lies in what the person chooses to do with it. It's not the BEING but the DOING that can lead to sin.

Semeia: I may be misunderstanding you here Trosie, but by your comparison with alcoholism and the statement: "The battle of bearing the "cross" lies in what the person chooses to do with it. It's not the BEING but the DOING that can lead to sin." it sounds like you are saying that homosexuality is like alcoholism-- a sin that can be overcome by abstention. That never having sex again is just the cross these people have to bear.

What Iconoclast and I are saying is that homosexuality is similar to remarriage after divorce. God clearly states that this is a sin. These people are living in sin. But he allows it because it is the most life affirming path forward for these people. Homosexuality is exactly like that-- it is a relationship that is less than ideal, but is nonetheless much more life affirming than asking people to never have a fulfilling love relationship that most of the rest of us pursue as a major life goal and enjoy and take for granted.

Alcoholism is a problem that if unchecked destroys families and careers and inflicts pain on all who are affected. Homosexual relationships do not destroy the people around them. The majority of homosexuals I know are in long term "marriages" and living productive family lives just like the rest of us. It is a much more similar situation to divorce and remarriage-- where the original ideal of God is not met, but since you can't unscramble eggs we have to move forward in the best way possible. Homosexuality (unless promiscuity is an issue--which is no different from heterosexual issues of promiscuity) is not like alcoholism because the people around them are not being victimized by their "sin".

Why would Christians require the homosexual to never have sex again because they fall short of God's ideal? How can Christians justify requiring that of homosexuals when they do not require divorced people to stay celibate, and never marry again? Jesus made it crystal clear that in most cases remarriage was adultery. Adultery is ongoing sin. No different from the ongoing sin in homosexual relationships. No different from the ongoing sin in my life. If none of us are capable of eliminating all our sin, in fact we never come close, why would we hold a particular group of people to a higher standard?

If you're going to ask homosexuals not to have sex, then in order to not be hypocritical you would have to ask most remarried people to get divorced, in order to stop living in sin.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have said so much, because I'm not sure if that's what you were even saying!

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 11/30/2001 11:01 PM (GMT -6)

Since we all want to be biblcial, I need some verses. I really do. How do you equate homosexuality to remarriage? Better yet, how do you classify sin? O.K, I am new to this idea, so humor me, What are the justifications? I will "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY" HERE. I arbitrarily pulled this verse out of the bible (actually I arbitrarily pulled them out of my concordance), by Gods grace hopefully. In 1Corinthians 6:1-11 (has anyone touched on this verse?)it states some ideas against homosexuality.
"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgement instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge the angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead one brother goes to law against another--and this in front of unbelievers!
7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctafied, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
semia said:
quote:
Jesus ministry was not one of going around and telling individuals what their shortcomings were, lovingly or not. It was mostly stories and parables. He rarely gave a straight answer. Few Christians model their ministry on Jesus. Most model their ministry on Paul, or at least what they think Paul was saying. That seems a little strange to me. Paul was a flawed human being who spent quite a few years murdering Christians. Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus’ most comprehensive discussion of sin takes place in the Sermon on the Mount. In that sermon Jesus erases now and for all time any distinctions we would like to make between one sin and another, between our sin and our brother’s. He unequivocally declares that the angry thought is the same as murder; lust in the heart is the same as adultery. No one escapes. “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” He indicts each and every one of us, for all time.

Semia I totally disagree with your statement that most Christians "model" there ministry after Paul. You draw a pretty sharp distinction to prove your point. I am also disturbed by your attacking of Paul's credibility by appealing to things he did before God shed his grace upon him. Remember, it was Jesus who elected Saul to Paul.
If we as christians hold the bible to be 100% inerrant, then Paul must be under the guidance of the holy spirit (assumed) when he is writing his letters, unless stated otherwise (e.g 1Corinthians 7:10).
Like probably most christians, that want to prove the inerrancy of the bible, I am going to say 2Timothy 3:16
N.T Wright, in his book "What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, states:
quote:
It will not do, therefore, to line up 'Jesus' key concepts' and 'Paul's key concepts' and play them off against one another. It wil not do to point out that Jesus talked about repentance and the coming of the Kingdom, while Paul talked about justification by faith. It misses the point even to show (though this can be done quite easily) that these two, when set in context and translated into terms of one another, belong extremely closely together. The point is that Jesus believed himself to be called to a particular role in the eschatological drama; and so did Paul. The real question is, what were those roles, and how might they relate?

Semia said:
quote:
Semeia: I may be misunderstanding you here Trosie, but by your comparison with alcoholism and the statement: "The battle of bearing the "cross" lies in what the person chooses to do with it. It's not the BEING but the DOING that can lead to sin." it sounds like you are saying that homosexuality is like alcoholism-- a sin that can be overcome by abstention. That never having sex again is just the cross these people have to bear.
Refer to above verse.

quote:
Why would Christians require the homosexual to never have sex again because they fall short of God's ideal? How can Christians justify requiring that of homosexuals when they do not require divorced people to stay celibate, and never marry again? Jesus made it crystal clear that in most cases remarriage was adultery. Adultery is ongoing sin. No different from the ongoing sin in homosexual relationships. No different from the ongoing sin in my life. If none of us are capable of eliminating all our sin, in fact we never come close, why would we hold a particular group of people to a higher standard?

What?... How?... where?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see these ideas as unbiblical . Please get back to me.

God Bless!

I'm outta here!

Click here for past posts on this topic

"God cannot be concieved not to exist_God is that,than which nothing greater can be concieved.That which can be concieved not to exist is not God." St.Anslem

To unsubscribe click here

Edited by - The Cut and Paste Theologian on 12/01/2001 04:45:19 AM

Edited by - faithfullservent on 12/01/2001 11:00:02 AM

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 12/1/2001 3:50 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia said:

quote:

...homosexuality is similar to remarriage after divorce. God clearly states that this is a sin. These people are living in sin. But he allows it because it is the most life affirming path forward for these people. Homosexuality is exactly like that-- it is a relationship that is less than ideal, but is nonetheless much more life affirming than asking people to never have a fulfilling love relationship that most of the rest of us pursue as a major life goal and enjoy and take for granted.

My response:

You make a good point by comparing homosexuality to adultery, but by saying that continuing to live as a homosexual is "much more life affirming than asking people to never have a fulfilling love relationship", I believe you are using your own subjective feelings and emotions as substititions for biblical truth.

It is not asking the impossible to say that homosexuals will be cleansed of their unnatural sexual orientation as they are sanctified by Christ. Jesus "gave his life to free us from every kind of sin" (Titus 2:14). God saves us from our evil sinful nature (Ephesians 2:1-7). God leaves us a way out of every temptation, meaning no sinful sexual desire is unbearable (1 Corinthians 10:13). Even though homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7), God washes away the sin (1 Corinthians 6:11) and we are transformed (Romans 6:1-4). Homosexuality is not an unescapable and irresistable desire as many would have you believe. Instead, we are controlled by God, not our sinful nature (Romans 8:9). We are no longer slaves to sin, but are instead, slaves of God (Romans 6:18). Sin has lost its power in our lives (Romans 6:6-11). It is our responsibility to stand against advocates/sympathizers of homosexuality in the church, but we should not rebuke unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

--Jewgrass

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 12/1/2001 6:29 AM (GMT -6)

faithfullservent,

The verses you cite and the whole issue comparing homosexuality and divorce was covered extensively on a thread that just finished up a few weeks ago, called "Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery". It can be found on page two of the Tearing Down the Walls forum. I wrote many essays on that thread, with considerable effort, and I don't feel like rehashing it here so soon. I would be interested in knowing what you think after you read that whole thread (which is pretty long), although I'm getting kind of burned out on this discussion, so I don't know if I personally am willing to revisit that so soon.

As far as what I say about Paul: to be honest I do look at the words of Jesus as trumping anything else in the Bible. That's just me. I don't have the desire or need to convince anyone of that, but it may help to know where I am coming from to know that I see it that way. I think Paul is a great and important Christian, obviously. He's probably second only to Jesus in what he had to do for the kingdom. But Jesus was perfect, and Paul was not. To say that everything in the Bible is somehow equal (and I'm not saying that you're saying that--I'm just following a logical progression here) is to equate Leviticus with the Gospels, say. I’m not willing to do that. Furthermore, I think parts of Paul’s message are greatly misunderstood, like the verse you cite above. I go over that on the other thread. But all that is just to say why I personally am continually pulled back in to Jesus’ words. I think Jesus’ words are essential for understanding Paul’s words, not the other way around.

That doesn’t mean I dismiss Paul’s ministry, at all, not in the least. But I do think most Christians misunderstand the issue of judgement, and that that misunderstanding is the cause of most of the harm that Christians unknowingly cause to both non-believers and believers alike. The more I read Paul, the more I think people are misunderstanding some of what he says. But it's complicated, and in this case I choose to talk about what Jesus said.

Jesus' words are also very difficult to grasp in many cases. He said many things that are counterintuitive and appear contradictory. In the essay above I am wrestling with the whole issue of being a "slave to sin". Since I have never in my whole life seen evidence that anyone I ever came in contact with was free of sin, or even remotely free of sin, then I think Jesus' words here are critical. It is clear to me that whatever freedom comes from our relationship with God, it does not include eliminating all sin, or even most sin, from our life. I can try all I want, I will never be able to stop all my careless thoughts, because most of them come unbidden from my unconscious. I am completely unable to control my unconscious mind. You are completely unable to control your unconscious mind. The unconscious mind serves up thoughts constantly, often giving me underlying presuppositions that are outside of my awareness. We all "miss the mark" (sin - hamartia) all the time, frequently due to forces that are in fact out of our control. To me, the daily sin of homosexuality is no different than the daily sin of the careless thought, or the sin of remarriage after divorce. I see it that way because Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount clearly tells me to see it that way. The reason that I wrestle with these small passages and try to dig in and understand what could possibly be meant, is because I think Jesus is often getting at something paradoxical and almost impossible to describe to such limited creatures as human beings. If it were simply about rules, and "weighing" the importance of different sins, which seems to captivate so many Christians, then the Bible could have been a lot shorter. It would only have required a numbered list in descending order of importance, and everyone would know their chances based on what rules they broke, and where they fell on the list. But I see myself and everyone all around me fail to live up to the Ten Commandments--fail on a daily basis: none of us honor our mother and father to the extent we should, human relationships are fraught with difficulties; it's almost an oxymoron to say "non-coveting American"-- coveting what we don't have is bred in the bone--just watch an "innocent" two-year-old for a few minutes to see how this is our very nature; and since Jesus says unequivocally that lust in your heart is the same in the eyes of God as adultery, we are all basically adulterers-- unless anyone out there wants to claim that they never have lust in their heart. And if we all constantly fail to live up to the Ten Commandments, then what business do we have talking incessantly about homosexual sin, which doesn't even make the top ten list?

Much of the groundwork for this came on the other thread. If you didn't see that thread I can understand your surprise at the claims I am making here. I am very confused about how to proceed in these discussions without constantly reposting everything from past threads. That seems cumbersome and not entirely satisfying either, especially when a thread is so recent and long. Maybe something could be posted on the Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery thread to move it back up to the top.

Does that help?

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 12/1/2001 6:48 AM (GMT -6)

Jewgrass said: You make a good point by comparing homosexuality to adultery, but by saying that continuing to live as a homosexual is "much more life affirming than asking people to never have a fulfilling love relationship", I believe you are using your own subjective feelings and emotions as substititions for biblical truth.

Semeia: Jewgrass, did you read the whole thread that you started, Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery? If you haven't, read what I just said to faithfullservent above, because it applies here, too. But if you have, then remember that I am not just comparing it to adultery. I am comparing it to the "living in sin" that Jesus and most Christians allow for people who remarry after divorce. Jesus said remarriage after divorce in most cases was adultery, which is ongoing sin, and yet he allowed it. How can we give divorced and remarried people that grace and yet deny it to homosexuals? How can we allow remarried people to have satisfying sexual relationships, but ask homosexuals to solve their problem by being celibate? Particularly since Jesus minces no words about the sinfulness of divorce, and yet had not a single word to say about homosexuality. That seems hypocritical and illogical to me.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual