 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Gay ... But Not Funny | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/23/2004 5:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I don't believe homosexuals have been as persecuted by the church as many Christians want us to believe. I think it mainly has to do with people unwilling to confront others with the truth. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/29/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I don't believe homosexuals have been as persecuted by the church as many Christians want us to believe. I think it mainly has to do with people unwilling to confront others with the truth.
Hello,
I’m curious who you think we should be confronting, Christians, Gays or Gay Christians?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/29/2004 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Assume I unconditionally love Michael Jordan. I send him fanmail every day. What if he never opens my letters? Does that make my love conditional? It makes the transmission of that love conditional; that's for sure. But the love itself I still give unconditionally whether or not he opens my letters. I give it unconditionally, because my love is based on an appreciation of his basketball career. I don't love him because he's great at receiving mail.
Likewise, God just loves us. We persistently refuse to receive that love. But just because we don't receive it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. God's love for us is not conditioned on whether or not we are good at receiving his love.
Granted, in a pragmatic sense for us the love might as well not exist if we don't receive it. But once you allow for the idea of objective truth and reality love does exist. The reception of love is very conditional. The love itself is not.
Sahid,
I agree with you that God continually is offering His salvation, the tangible evidence of His love that He demonstrated by dying for us, to all men. In His kindness and mercy He continues to extend His love to them. He feeds them, rains on them and gives them breath and life. What do you think changes at the "end" when the wrath of God is revealed on all who have not accepted His love and believed and repented. How does the love of God interact with the objects of His wrath condemned to eternal punishment? quote:
Neither their silver nor their gold
Will be able to deliver them
On the day of the LORD’S wrath;
And all the earth will be devoured
In the fire of His jealousy,
For He will make a complete end,
Indeed a terrifying one,
Of all the inhabitants of the earth.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/29/2004 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | Spark: there are no Gay Christians, so the answer is obvious: gays who are sinning against God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/29/2004 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sahid: if Michael Jordan doesn't know about your love, it is irrelevant to its life. Non-existant. Therefore, the only love he would know of is the love he must respond to and the dictates by which that love may be known in his life. Conditional love. To know that love and have it in his life he must accept the conditions of it. It is a conditional love or it is a love that is non-existant to him. And if it doesn't exist to him, it isn't love at all. It is nothing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/29/2004 10:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Irrelevant and non-existant aren't the same thing, unless you're Dewey or one of his pals. (Dewey gets a bad rap; I'll lay off Dewey.)quote:
It is a conditional love or it is a love that is non-existant to him.
Yeah, to those who deny the truth that God loves them God's love seems non-existant. That does not mean the love itself is non-existant or conditional. quote:
there are no Gay Christians, so the answer is obvious: gays who are sinning against God.
Peter was a Christian before the crucifixion. He sinned. He kept on sinning. There was at very least that one period of time in which he "lived in sin". Sin is sin. Denying Christ is just as bad (if not worse) than being gay. Did Peter lose his salvation?
The members of the Corinthian church who Paul says were "in Christ" had all kinds of problems. Was Paul wrong? Were they not in Christ?
Abraham, Moses, Samson, David, Solomon, Jonah, Zachariah (Jesus' uncle), Peter, Paul, Israel itself. All these sinned in the midst of their election. Does that mean that they became unelected? We too often read 1 Cor 6:9,10 and then stop without finishing the paragraph. The whole thing is an exhortation to reflect their new nature, their true nature. Why would he need to exhort them if they had completely stopped sinning?
What about verse 8? Those who are "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God" are still "wrong[ing] and defraud[ing]" themselves. But the same sentence that condemns homosexuals condemns theives.
These people were stealing at the very time when Paul says, "Such [theives etc.] were some of you," and still Paul says that they are "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". It seems to me that they were no longer characterized by their lingering corruption but by the name of Jesus.
All that to say this: if by "gay" you mean one with homosexual feelings or one who currently commits homosexual acts or one who was once homosexual, then I think you are in disagreement with the bible. If by gay you mean one who is a homosexual and hasn't accepted Jesus, then I agree. Once a gay person accepts Jesus, they are no longer accurately discribed as "gay christians" just as I am no longer accurately discribed as an "overly introverted christian" though my tendency to be introverted to an unhealthy degree still surfaces.
Also, you were right about the "worthy of an audience" thing. But I do believe that I, by myself and of my own merit, am no more worthy than anyone. It's a good thing I've got more than myself and my own merit.
Spenlake,
I believe that God and his actions are and always will be characterized primarily by love. My view of love requires that the lover have both free will and the power to act on that will; essentially love cannot be forced. God certainly meets these requirements. We, to a lesser degree, share this ability. Therefore, our love cannot be forced. Those who choose not to accept God's love don't have to accept it. God will eventually stop "pestering" them with his love. That's Hell. I can't describe Hell beyond that. Inihilationism, physical place, spiritual place, I don't know. As far as I can tell every reference to Hell in the bible is ambiguous. For me there's no way to tell whether they are literal or metaphorical descriptions. I almost have to believe they are at least partially metaphorical; look at all the metaphorical language used in describing the kingdom of God. However, I do trust God to be loving, even to the objects of his wrath. Wrath and love seem mutally exclusive until you personally love someone with all your heart who doesn't love you back. Trust me, they go hand in hand. My personal experience taints my theology just like everyone is tainted, but it's God who made us experiential beings. Not to be arrogant, but for a good portion of my life I've felt a lot like I think Hosea felt, and Hosea's whole experience was there to show him and others how it feels to God. Of course there's a lot of metaphor in that too, but that's what I think wrath and Hell are. Wow, that's longer than I thought it would be!
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/30/2004 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Spark: there are no Gay Christians, so the answer is obvious: gays who are sinning against God.
Can you please explain how a non-believer is bound by Christian Laws? If a Muslim "confronted" me at a restaurant as I was enjoying a nice juicy steak and he said it was a sin to eat meat. Well, I think I would say oh really, hmmm that’s a good reason not to ever become a Muslim. I think the Bible makes it quite clear that pagans were not bound by Jewish law. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/30/2004 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Spark: there are no Gay Christians, so the answer is obvious: gays who are sinning against God.
Can you please explain how a non-believer is bound by Christian Laws? If a Muslim "confronted" me at a restaurant as I was enjoying a nice juicy steak and he said it was a sin to eat meat. Well, I think I would say oh really, hmmm that’s a good reason not to ever become a Muslim. I think the Bible makes it quite clear that pagans were not bound by Jewish law.
Sparky,
I think that you are dealing with a "catagory switch" of sorts when it comes to the Law and what applies. While I have some questions regarding someone like Namaan which seem "vague" there are clear passages that seem to apply to those who would follow after Abraham. quote:
9God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10“This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11“And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12“And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13“A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14“But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
quote:
14but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15‘You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
I think that before the crucifixion, the ceremonial laws were mandatory and to failure to keep them was a sin. To be joined with and to be considered one of the people of God meant to become a Jew and submit to the ceremonial laws of Moses until Christ fulfilled the Law and offered salvation to the Gentiles.
I'll go out on a limb, but it seems to me that Cornelius, even though he was devout and "God fearing" and gave alms, etc., wasn't saved. I don't think that he was saved and reconciled to God until Peter came and preached the gospel. Were the sins of Cornelius covered before he heard the message of the gospel, even while he wasn't a Jew and hadn't received the Holy Spirit. I don't think so. I welcome your disagreement. If you disagree I would love to see your scriptural support because I have wrestled to understand this one. Maybe it should be on a different thread but I think that it is applicable here. I think that the passages below indicate that God's response to Cornelius' God fearing heart and alms-giving was to send Peter so that he could hear the gospel. This is the object of God and the only source of salvation. Until the message of good news came, was he saved? I maintain that he wasn't, just externally good, just chosen to hear the gospel and believe.
quote:
1Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian £cohort, 2a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many £alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. 3About the £ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and £alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5“Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; 6he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea.”...
22They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.”...
34Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. 36“The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— 37you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39“We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, 41not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/30/2004 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Sparky, we are ALL bound by sin, which is trasgression of the law of God. Homosexuality is sin. Unless of course you believe certain "sins" are not held accountable to God.
Sounds like you are one of the ones I was talking about  . | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/30/2004 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Sparky, we are ALL bound by sin, which is trasgression of the law of God. Homosexuality is sin. Unless of course you believe certain "sins" are not held accountable to God.
Sounds like you are one of the ones I was talking about .
Have you now redirected your focus towards me, a confessed Christian?
Hey! You better be careful, your letting all the gays get away. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/30/2004 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I'll go out on a limb, but it seems to me that Cornelius, even though he was devout and "God fearing" and gave alms, etc., wasn't saved. I don't think that he was saved and reconciled to God until Peter came and preached the gospel. Were the sins of Cornelius covered before he heard the message of the gospel, even while he wasn't a Jew and hadn't received the Holy Spirit. I don't think so. I welcome your disagreement. If you disagree I would love to see your scriptural support because I have wrestled to understand this one. Maybe it should be on a different thread but I think that it is applicable here. I think that the passages below indicate that God's response to Cornelius' God fearing heart and alms-giving was to send Peter so that he could hear the gospel. This is the object of God and the only source of salvation. Until the message of good news came, was he saved? I maintain that he wasn't, just externally good, just chosen to hear the gospel and believe.
Spen,
I like the Cornelius story, but you might be getting a little off topic here. Anyways to answer your question, I think Cornelius was doing his best considering his limited knowledge of God. I think God judges all men according to their limited knowledge of Him and to the degree of ones ignorance. I think that a "gay" person’s perspectives of sin according to religious laws are limited by their knowledge of God. If Cornelius was not saved, it was not because of his breaking Jewish laws but by his rejecting God. Cornelius was not "confronted" about any laws he was breaking, he was confronted about the truth of God revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. God spoke to Peter about such issues: Acts 10:15 (NRSV) The voice said to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane."
My point to feelinahole was just that, were does a person get off confronting non-believers about laws that only believers our bound by. I’m all for confronting gays (or anyone else) about their knowledge of God and pray that their God giving conscience and the Holy Spirit will convict them of this truth. But about laws that they are not bound by, hmmm.. did John the Baptist call for pagans to repent? I don’t think so. Instead of rejecting God, they will be rejecting you the messenger. Gandhi was known to be absolutely fascinated by Jesus, but he turned away after meeting Christians. I think some times God is up there saying: hey! Please get of my side. You wrote to Leila on another thread that the gospel can be offensive, I somewhat disagree with that statement. What I often find offense is not the gospel, but the demeanor of many Christians in their delivery of the gospel message. Would feelinhole suggest Leila confront her father with his sins against her God like he suggest we do with non-believing gays?
I know there are two schools of thought about the methodology of witnessing to non-believers. I know it is a common practice for street preachers to be confrontational, it attracts a larger crowd. But I don’t know how effective it is in converting non-believers, granted maybe some backsliders are helped. I think it comes down to the order of trusting and repenting, do we trust or do we repent first? I have wrestled with this and have concluded we need to have some measure of trust in God first. I think our human pride gets in the way of true repentance until we can put our trust in God. I don’t see how one can partake in the sacraments of Christianity if they are not a Christian or how anyone would be bound by the laws of Christianity if they are not a Christian. Like I said, did John the Baptist demand pagans to repent? | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/30/2004 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | "her God." "Christian laws." Perhaps we should all just stay ignorant about sin and then we can all get into heaven, huh Sparky? Perhaps we shouldn't tell anyone anything offensive and just be "nice" little people. You fit squarely within the parameters of our society today. Make every effort to be nice and make every effort to avoid saying anything that might be seen as offensive. NICE!
Where do I get off confronting people about "laws" that only believers are bound by? What kind of garbage is that? Are you afraid to use the word "sin?" We all fall short of the glory of God, because we all sin. There aren't any Christian "laws." Are only Christians bound not to sin?
Nevermind, I'm getting a feeling I haven't felt before. Its either guilt over how big of a meany I am, of I'm all goosey over the warm feelings I'm vibing from Sparky. Either way I need a latte. If I'm cool, I'm sure God'll see his way to letting me into heaven. After all, I'm not bound to any of his laws. He isn't my god, he's Sparky's. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/30/2004 10:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Apparently no one wants to talk about letting homosexuals attend sevices. Ok. It now on to eternal destination. Well, I think the Cornelius story is a little off the subject, because a lot of the application to this issue is speculative. It seems to me we need to deal with God's relationship to the unevangelized. The lesbian couple walking into church, more than likely is not in that group. But maybe not. Maybe they've only heard the gospel of "for God so hated the world that he sent Jesus to justify sending 'unchurchy' people to hell." But for the sake of arguement, let's say they are not unevangelized. In such a case they are accountable for this knowledge: that in the midst of their sin Jesus died that they might live. Anyone, gay or straight, who hears that message is responsible for their response.
If we talk about truly unevangelized people, my great-great-great-grandmother living in present day Georgia in A.D. 100, then the issue's up in the air. Personally, I lean to the goosey, nice side that says God won't condemn people for what they couldn't help. But I don't think that the example of the lesbians really fits this category.
Everyone, have a goosey, nice day filled with sunshine, smiles, and small, furry, friendly aminals.
  
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/1/2004 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
"her God." "Christian laws." Perhaps we should all just stay ignorant about sin and then we can all get into heaven, huh Sparky?
I introduced myself to this thread by asking you to qualify if the gays you’re targeting to confront were Christians, you answered no. Now you seem to waffle between Christians and non-believers whenever it suites your argument. I contend that the true sin of non-believers is their rejection of God. Once one has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior they should repent, which means to turn away from their sins. You have it all backwards if you think a non-believer should turn away from their sins before they are part of the covenant. I think the only thing they are going to reject and turn away from is you, maybe I’m wrong. How many gays have you converted using your confrontational approach? If your objective is to see them in hell, you are still better off delivering them the gospel of Jesus so they can reject God not laws. Their rejection of the truth of Jesus is why they will ultimately end up in hell for. First things first, in order to reject Christ the presentation has to be made.
quote:
Perhaps we shouldn't tell anyone anything offensive and just be "nice" little people. You fit squarely within the parameters of our society today. Make every effort to be nice and make every effort to avoid saying anything that might be seen as offensive. NICE!
I think you are taking my comments way out of context. Let me try and make this clear to you. I think you should speak out as a responsible citizen of our “society”. What I disagree with is your effort to try and fuse the kingdom of this world with the Kingdom of God. I think I disagree with Sahid about his politics in this regard. I strongly disagree with the same sex marriage push and the entire gay movement that is sweeping this country and destroying the institution of traditional marriage and families. Secular studies by professionals have clearly proven that a child needs both a mother and a father. It is not just the gays doing damage to children and the future of this country. We need to look in our own backyards as the Christian (outside of some denominations) divorce rate is no better then the rest of society. Morality is going down the tubes in this country fast, why - because sex sells. Porn has grown from a 4 billion to an 88 billion dollar industry in 4 years, mostly because this evil can now live in the dark corners of the internet where even Christians can sneakily buy it. I support the fight against immorality just not with your tactics. Please don’t get me confused with Iconoclast and his arguments about comparing the sin of gays vs. divorcées; I already fought that battle with him. My point is I don’t think it’s an issue of morality when we are talking about non-believers; it’s an issue about the great commandment, the greatest sin of all, rejecting God.
When it comes to so called believers it’s a whole different issue. Money talks again as pastors and churches don’t want to offend anyone’s feelings. I say love is not about feelings and it can be very unloving not to confront Christians with immortally.
quote:
Where do I get off confronting people about "laws" that only believers are bound by? What kind of garbage is that? Are you afraid to use the word "sin?" We all fall short of the glory of God, because we all sin. There aren't any Christian "laws." Are only Christians bound not to sin?
Sorry, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
quote:
Nevermind, I'm getting a feeling I haven't felt before. Its either guilt over how big of a meany I am, of I'm all goosey over the warm feelings I'm vibing from Sparky. Either way I need a latte. If I'm cool, I'm sure God'll see his way to letting me into heaven. After all, I'm not bound to any of his laws. He isn't my god, he's Sparky's.
Sorry about your mixed feelings. I think some of the most confused people in society are those that are strongly led by their feelings. Get over them feelinahole, that’s what the gay’s need to do. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/1/2004 3:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Sparky,
I think you did an excellent job of separating the secular/civil and the spiritual/eternal jurisdictions and governments with their unique responsiblities and obligations.
Thanks Spen,
Funny thing happened after I wrote that. I ran into a large group of protesters down on Hennepin Ave. They were carrying signs that read: "GOD HATES FA*S"
I stopped and tried to talk to them saying as a fellow Christian I was offended by their signs. They quickly responded by saying people like me were a child of the devil  and that I would burn in hell. 
P.S. I responded to your post up above about Cornelius. I would like to hear your take on John the Baptist and his audience. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 10/9/2004 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Spark: all sin is a rebellion from God. And one must repent of one's sins in order to be squared with God. Your response shows your ignorance of the nature of sin and how God views it. It is not law, that only applies to Christian. It is the essense of what is what with everything. To know God one must comes to grips with how horrible ones life is.
What does Peter say in Acts? What is the first thing one must do? Repent. A person cannot turn to God unless a person realizes that said person needs God because of the mess the person has made of their lives.
God has everything to do with morality; otherwise he never would have died. So do his followers. So does love. The truly loving person is the person of the highest morality because being truly moral is being truly loving. One cannot be loving without being moral because being moral is the most loving thing there is.
Since you do not know me personally, nor how I "confront" homosexual, you have no way to judge me. I would suggest you don't.
Again, you have it backwards. A person must be ready to repent before they can come to God, not after. If they are not in that position, they would never want God in the first place.
People end up in hell because their sins put them there. People reject or accept the knowledge of God that they have. People will end up in hell without hearing of Jesus BECAUSE they rejected what they did know of God. They reject because of their sin and must realize that their sin keeps them from God.
I am not fusing anything. Sin is sin to believers and non-believers. You are trying to write off sin as laws that non-believers do not have to follow, as if ignorance can get one into the kingdom. AS if simply by not knowing we are exempt from sin. Again, such a view shows a vast ignorance of what sin is to God and how tragic it is. Such a view also demeans what God did because it makes sin relative to culture and not universally evil. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/9/2004 6:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
A person must be ready to repent before they can come to God, not after.
How about both? If we must repent of our sins first, then only those with an unhumanly good memory can be saved. I'll agree that there must be repentance first, but the main thing is realizing we are bad and accepting the gift. You talk about Peter's speach (I'm assuming in Acts 2), but what about Peter's actions, his life? Afterwards, Peter still hasn't totally repented from sinful acts (Gal 2:11). Was he not saved when he spoke at Pentacost?
I would tie the whole sentence together (if you were talking about Acts 2:38) and say we must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness. The two go together. Does Peter say, "Repent of every sin you've ever committed"? No, he says, "Repent and be baptized." The problem with us is not the individual sins; it's the corrupt people we've made ourselves by those sins.
I would argue that the sin to kill has detroyed the sinner even before the signal from the brain reaches the finger that pulls the trigger. Don't get me wrong; it's still horribly bad when the consequences of our individual sins play out, but just fixing or replacing the individual acts does nothing for our corrupt state of being.
Repentance must go along with baptism. We know baptism is more than just a ritual preformed by human hands. It is the act of becoming identified with Jesus through the Spirit. It is the dying of the old self and the creation of the new. These are things that our ritual symbolizes. I could repent of all the individual sins in the world and never truly live if I didn't accept the spiritual baptism.
Maybe this is all my ego in wanting to sound good or maybe I'm just to lazy, but I think the higher truth of "Repent and be baptized" is found not in the specific acts of repenting from each and every sin and then participating in a baptism ritual with water. It is found in the repentance from the old self and the puting on the new self through the baptism of the Spirit.
Once again, I think the rituals and individual acts of repentance are very important and effective, but not salvitic. Salvation comes through the repentance of the person one has become and the baptism into the person who would make us new.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 10/10/2004 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | SAhid: all or nothing, huh? You sound like a Calvinist there  My simple point is that one must be ready to come to God knowing that one is a sinner and made a mess of one's life> A person must be in a position to need God before one can come to God.
I do not believe (as Spark seems to want to do) you can seperate rebellion from sin. Rebellion is sin and sin is rebellion. The two go hand in hand. And to somehow see rebellion as seperate from the sins we commit is shortsighted and relieves us of our responsibility for our own sins before God.
I do not want to belabor this point. OBvious Spark and I disagree fundamentally over this point. But I would like to add this (for you Sahid as well);
God is not just love. God is also a consuming fire. AS Hebrews says: it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. WE as Christians would do well to let the world know that if they do not accept God's love freely, they will accept his judgment whether they like it or not. In the age of Christians who do not wish to offend anyone, there are few who wish to be as offensive as Jesus was.
In church today, I was thinking about the rich man who Jesus rejected. Why would Jesus reject him? Because something in his life kept him from God. Something he needed to remove. Christians should stop acting like God is this easy little way that anyone can follow.
It isn't.
We are called to be disciples not converts. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/10/2004 8:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
all or nothing, huh? You sound like a Calvinist there
I don't get it. You've got to tell me how I'm like a Calvinist.  quote:
Rebellion is sin and sin is rebellion. The two go hand in hand. And to somehow see rebellion as seperate from the sins we commit is shortsighted and relieves us of our responsibility for our own sins before God.
Sure, I'll agree on one level. But I think our sinful state is different than our sinful acts. quote:
WE as Christians would do well to let the world know that if they do not accept God's love freely, they will accept his judgment whether they like it or not.
Why should we tell them this? So they will accept God, right? Well, emphasizing the judgement over the love isn't the way to do that, at least not in most cases. Even in the Bible judgement is more often brought up in dealing with "religious" jews than with the heathen or the "sinners". What sin did Jesus speak out against most, judgemental religion or homosexuality? Jesus had a great chance to condemn sexual sin, but instead he saved her. She hadn't repented. She was caught in the act. He spoke out against judgementalism, I think, because that is the main thing that keeps people from God. Sex can be bad, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/11/2004 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Spark: all sin is a rebellion from God.
Have you now become devoid of sin and an exact replicate of Jesus in every thought and deed? If you are not completely pure and holy, is it because you still harbor a degree of rebellion? I think to rebel is to reject the love of God; I agree with you that most rebels want to continue in their life of sin. But I disagree with you that “all” sin is a rebellion from God for a least two reasons.
1. Some people don’t understand and are ignorant to God and his laws. Granted some of these people suppress their guilty conscience and intentionally close their ears to the Word.
2. All Disciples of Christ, at some level, continue to struggle with sin. Day by day we pick up our cross, die to our self and press forward growing mature in Christ.
Often sin is not as much a rebellion as it is a form of idolatry.
quote:
And one must repent of one's sins in order to be squared with God. Your response shows your ignorance of the nature of sin and how God views it.
As a disciple of Christ I humbly drop to my knees in repentance, crying for reconciliation and union with the Lord. But again I remind you of the non-believing gay that is not in Christ. You state above, “how God views it”, I affirm that God’s omni-eyes detest of MY sin. But I disagree that I should hate another man’s sin like God hates another man’s sin. The burden of the world’s sin is reserved for God to judge. My burden is to love and forgive as I’m loved and forgiven by God. It would be unloving to leave a brother of Christ in the darkness of his sin. But I myself am not the Light; it is not for me to shine into the darkness of my fellow man. I can only reflect the Light by reaching out a loving hand to help those in need. I can’t repent for the sins of others but only for my own.
quote:
It is not law, that only applies to Christian. It is the essense of what is what with everything. To know God one must comes to grips with how horrible ones life is.
What does Peter say in Acts? What is the first thing one must do? Repent. A person cannot turn to God unless a person realizes that said person needs God because of the mess the person has made of their lives.
God has everything to do with morality; otherwise he never would have died. So do his followers. So does love. The truly loving person is the person of the highest morality because being truly moral is being truly loving. One cannot be loving without being moral because being moral is the most loving thing there is.
I agree that at the end of one’s self you find God. I just don’t agree that it is my job to beat someone into submission. I also believe in the moral government of God and affirm that all Christians should stand accountable for their moral conduct.
quote:
Since you do not know me personally, nor how I "confront" homosexual, you have no way to judge me. I would suggest you don't.
Again, you have it backwards. A person must be ready to repent before they can come to God, not after. If they are not in that position, they would never want God in the first place.
I don’t mean to offend you, please help me understand how this confrontational evangelism technique results in awaking hearts to Christ.
quote:
People end up in hell because their sins put them there. People reject or accept the knowledge of God that they have. People will end up in hell without hearing of Jesus BECAUSE they rejected what they did know of God. They reject because of their sin and must realize that their sin keeps them from God.
I think I understand what you’re trying to say here and basically agree. But once again I don’t understand your tactics; I have seen so many people turned off by self-righteous Christians condemning non-believers to hell. These non-believers turn and walk, leaving a disrespectful and sour taste towards Christians and the God they represent. Maybe the message wakes up their conscience at a latter date, I don’t know, I’m all ears.
quote:
I am not fusing anything. Sin is sin to believers and non-believers. You are trying to write off sin as laws that non-believers do not have to follow, as if ignorance can get one into the kingdom. AS if simply by not knowing we are exempt from sin. Again, such a view shows a vast ignorance of what sin is to God and how tragic it is. Such a view also demeans what God did because it makes sin relative to culture and not universally evil.
I can only speak for my self. I would like to hear the opinion of others in how they view the sins of pagans. For some reason, it seems to me that it is much harder to see my own sin. I’m afraid I can see the sin of others crystal clear, or at least way to clear for my own good. I fight and struggle for my plight to see the face of Jesus in all people.
Shalom,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/12/2004 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 10/12/2004 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark - I love what you said here. I think it bears repeating:
quote:
But I disagree that I should hate another man’s sin like God hates another man’s sin. The burden of the world’s sin is reserved for God to judge. My burden is to love and forgive as I’m loved and forgiven by God. It would be unloving to leave a brother of Christ in the darkness of his sin. But I myself am not the Light; it is not for me to shine into the darkness of my fellow man. I can only reflect the Light by reaching out a loving hand to help those in need. I can’t repent for the sins of others but only for my own.
If only most Christians lived out your words... | | Back to Top | | |
| 49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:50 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|