Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and Christian Rebuke

Forum Quick Jump

160 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/9/2002 6:21 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: I need to add this footnote: I don't believe Jesus "surrounded" himself with anyone. I think he drew people to him. They came to him, including the Pharisees. And he took time out for the Pharisees as well as those the common folk. Jesus did not exclude anyone, even those who would kill him. But to say, as you did, that Jesus surrounded himself with certain people implies that Jesus also excluded certain people that were not good enough (or thought they were too good). The only people that were excluded from Jesus' group were not people he didn't surround himself with, but those who excluded themselves. Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/9/2002 6:33 PM (GMT -6)

Doc: I would simply say that your view is tainted by what you consider the experience of being love to be? Many times people walk away from us angry at what we said, only to recognize that they were wrong and what we said was exactly the truth and exactly what they needed to hear. To be frank, I think you are confusing the "feeling" of love ("hey, talking to him was such a great experience), with the practical applying of love to people in everyday life. Give me a break! People are not always going to know you love them by the experiences we have with them. Love sometimes is harsh, just as life is harsh. Jesus' death was harsh. Did Mary, watching that, feel that God was loving her son at that moment!? Love is an action taken to do the best for a person, sometimes disregarding the fact that they don't want it. Most times people will walk away from you not knowing they were loved. I found that part of your "sermon" truly lacking in reality. Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/9/2002 6:53 PM (GMT -6)

Doc: while it may be "impossible" for them to experience "above all" love when we are not in their "lifestory", it is not impossible for my God to use the words of ordinary humans who are not in someone else's "lifestory" to bring love to another person because my God is in all lifestories. If I waited to be in someone's lifestory before I spoke, I wouldn't be on this website and Billy Graham would never preach and God would need to find another way to reach out to people. Working in the impossible is what God does. If we wait until we are in the "lifestories" of everyone around us, the gospel will just sit around and grow like a weed into complanecy.
Finally, there is a way to relate to people using our knowledge of good and evil in order to love them more. There is nothing in scripture that says we should lay aside our knowledge of good and evil. Knowing what is good and evil allows us to know what is good for those we love and what is not good, not to control them (as your message seems to imply), but to show them the path of God. Your ethical scales may be curved towards self-interest, but I am continuely putting mine before God to live a holy life and to love others around me. We are not excused from sin because we are sinners. We should always continuely warn those who are doing harm to themselves that they are, many times even if they don't like to hear it. Most medicines taste horrible but bring healing. Harold
"For God has made no promises of mercy to the slothful and negligent. His mercy is only offered to our frail and imperfect, but best endeavors, to practice all manners of righteousness." William Law, quoted in Dallas Willard's Spirit of the Disciplines.

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/9/2002 7:00 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: if the message is clear and compelling how Christians have acted towards homosexuals is not in keeping with Jesus's life, than I would suggest you check out some of ministies that deal with homosexuals. The message is clear in your eyes, not in everyone's...by the way, isn't that statement just a little arrogant of you(only kidding)...

Edited by - writerdad on 06/10/2002 12:04:52 AM

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/9/2002 7:39 PM (GMT -6)

SEMEIA:
Thank you.

ALL:
I just finished reading all of the messages thus far, and I think I can wrap up a response to all of them with this subscript.

I agree with most of what has been said on this thread by Semeia, Shell, Boyd, and others. When I made my initial post, I can honestly say that I was expecting more arguements from the "rebuke" side of the issue than from the "tolerance" side. I really wanted to hear more from the "rebuke" side because that is more the opposite of the side that I have been on. As I said in my original post, I lean much more toward the "tolerance" side of the issue than I do the "rebuke" side.

As I was reading through these posts, I was seriously perplexed as to how on earth I could have become perceived by you all as such a judgemental person because I am truly one of the most anti-judgemental and pro-tolerant people that I know. Because I am such, I wanted to put myself in check and see what those who practice more "rebuke" believe and why they believe it.

[Note: I want to use the following deal on alchohol as an example, not to open the door to another discussion in this thread.]

Just recently, my parents confronted me about the fact that I have had alchohol to drink before and that I don't think it is inherently sinful to drink it. They think that it is clearly sin to not be a teetolaler, and I disagreed on what appear to me an obviously scriptural basis. We got into a debate about it.

I knew of Rom 14-15 that talks about the conscience and meat eaters and vegetarians and the love that should be exuded rather than judgementalism, and it re-affirmed my position that it is okay and that people (i.e., my parents) shouldn't be judgmental about it.

Also, for the longest time I have been quite aware of my own finitude as a person and especially as a judge. In my recent study on Hell, I took pains to make an outlined argument for tolerance on the issue of Hell based upon our epistemological distance.

I am a waiter, and it marvels me at how impatient some people can be. They can't understand why I am not able to bring out their four plates of food and their alchoholic beverages the same time as I bring out desserts to the table next to them. Sometimes I wish that they could walk just one day in my shoes because they would so quickly see how unwarranted their attitude is. They don't know all of what I do when I leave their table. It is as if they imagine I'm out back smoking a cigarette or something while they sit with a drink that is empty. That is not the case, and they would know that if they were omniscient.

That's why Dr. Boyd's recent sermons (and the book he's writing) really hit a homerun with me, because I understand what he's saying and agree so freely.

However, I was raised in a very strict Southern Baptist preacher's home and my parents practiced much rebuke and little tolerance. Though I disagree with their approach entirely, I could not honestly shut out of my mind the scriptures they brought to my attention through the years, those such as 1 Cor 5.11:

"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

I believe that the NT in its entirety is inspired and that Paul's words as well as Jesus words are useful in my walk with God, to help me walk more closely to him. I "felt" like I was doing the right thing by eating with my friend and building this friendship (as I "felt right" about not forsaking myself of my best friend in high school who was/is a homosexual Christian). However, I wanted to understand what this talk of "not associating" with sexually immoral Christian brothers is really talking about.

That is what I mean about picking and choosing scriptures. I've been "picking" the tolerance scriptures and not looking seriously at the intolerance scriptures. I wanted to get some people's views as to how to reconcile the two. I believe that in almost everything there is a middle ground between two extremes that we must follow, call it the "narrow road" if you wish. I thought that I was following it, although I was wondering if I was traveling more to an extreme on the "tolerance" side.

As far as the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, I hold (as I hold with most every theological position) tentatively that it is indeed sin, and I will continue to believe that until I am given a convincing argument otherwise. Believing that homosexuality is a sin (even though I tentatively hold to that position), I had to come to grips with Paul's words regarding sexually immoral brethren. Outright rebuke (i.e., "You need to repent of your homosexuality or you are going to hell!") is the very last thing I want to do or have ever wanted to do. But if it is what the Bible says is the best thing for me to do, I was willing to do it. It is not, as some of you have said of me, the other way around in which I am seeking a biblical right to judge. Lord no! That is the last thing that I want to do because it is the very thing that I despise to see others do either to me or to anyone.

Now that you have given me some stuff to digest on whether or not homosexuality is a sin, I am very eager to plow through it. I was hoping that my friend had researched it more than he evidently has so that he could give me a compelling argument for his side. In fact, what provoked the conversation was a book he had on his shelf concerning gay Christians. Assuming he had read it and seriously plowed through the issue before he settled on his gayness, I asked how he reconciled the two, not in a condescending and arrogant way, but in an earnest and sincere way because I seriously want to know. I was hoping he had some enlightening biblical statement, but instead he actually confessed "I didn't know the New Testament even talked about it." I wanted to say, "You mean you are actually content believing that homosexuality is not a sin…and you don't even know that the New Testament talks about it? Man, I would not be able to live with that if I were you," but I didn't say that because I didn't feel it was appropriate.

I too have known and been close friends many homosexuals in my life: many Christian, many not. However, unfortunately, going to a Christian university you aren't around many (that are out of the closet, at least). Fortunately, working at a restaurant I am around many and can learn from and fellowship with them.

One such Christian I have known (an Episcopal priest) sort shaped my current view on homosexuality. He had tendencies toward homosexuality (i.e., he was inclined to desire men), but he said something like this:

"We all have our areas in which we are particularly or naturally inclined toward a certain sin. For example, we are all born with natural inclinations toward selfishness. That doesn't make selfishness holy. Selfishness is still sin, according to the Word of God, so even though we are naturally inclined to it we need to deny ourselves and follow Christ. I see homosexuality in the same way. Some are born naturally inclined to it, but that doesn't make it intrinsically pleasing in the sight of the Lord. Those born with those inclinations need to learn to suppress them and deny themselves (their homosexuality) just as everyone has to deny themselves in their sin (drunkenness, gossip, pornography addiction, etc.)."

I know personally some Christians who have thus denied themselves of homosexual tendencies and God has brought them into a happy heterosexual life. Although I don't know this particular person personally, some of you may have heard of Dennis Jernigan who was once a homosexual and now is a hetero with I think over 12 children. Others, such as the priest and others I know, have suppressed their urges by simply remaining celibate. Others have experienced such urges in the past and try to avoid much homosexual contact so that they do not steep back into sin. However it is done, I know of many who have overcome homosexuality and gone to live happy heterosexual lives by the grace of God. They saw it as sin and repented.

But anyway, that's how I believe concerning homosexuality as of now. I will continue to think of what has been said about it. I am very willing to believe it is not sin if that is indeed God's truth. As I said before, I keep an open mind about pretty much everything that I can think of.

Again, thank you all for your posts (even though some of you jumped to conclusions). I think I may start a new thread concerning "Is Homosexuality a Sin according to the Bible?" and we can speak solely on that issue. Let me know if you want me to start such a thread.

Dr. Boyd, thank you for your sermon.

ONE MORE QUESTION ON REBUKE:
I guess I have one more question in regard to Christian rebuke. I'm really not trying to be the devil's advocate here, I'm just trying to understand how to interpret these passages. If we are "not to associate" yes "not even to eat" with such a man (who lives content and unrepenting in his life of immorality, greed, an idolatry or a slander, a drunkenness or swindling), how could anyone possibly *become* close friends with them at all, much less eventually rebuke them? It seems like the verse is talking about more than the church's reaction as a whole. Maybe I'll crack Craig Blomberg (1 Cor. commentary) out here before I go to bed…

Blessings…

Adam

P.S. - I wanted to say more directly to you, Dr. Boyd, but I must go to sleep tonight. Maybe tomorrow. Thank you so much again.

Edited by - hand_carved on 06/10/2002 12:41:12 AM

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/10/2002 5:55 AM (GMT -6)

Love...or indifferent Kindness?

[Note: Please remember in your comments that I say this to challenge myself as much as any of you who, like myself, lean to the tolerance side of the issue.]

writerdad makes some very good points. It brings to my mind the chapter on "Divine Goodness" out of Lewis' excellent Problem of Pain . There he states:

"By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively his lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness - the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, "What does it matter so long as they are contented?" We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven - a senile benevolence who, as they say, "like to see young people enjoy themselves," and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, "a good time was had by all."

".... Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness.... There is a kindness in Love, but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness (in the sense given above) is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object.

".... And it appears from all records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt."

So, then, we know we are to love. But the question I have had to ask myself is "Am I truly loving or am I trying to be this kind of senile and indifferent grandfather?"

Non-Destructive Sin?
We have spoken before of "destructive" and "non-destructive" sin. But the truth is that all sin is destructive in that it destroys our fellowship with God, steals His glory, and stores our treasure on earth instead of heaven. I think I remember that one person advocating a kind of indifferent tolerance aruged using Eph 6.12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Indeed it is a spiritual battle. There are sins that have physical ramifications as well as spiritual ramifications. But just because a sin doesn't have physical ramifications doesn't mean that it is something that we should be indifferent to. Rather the unseen seems to be more critical than the seen: 2 Cor 4.18 "we look not to what is seen but to what is unseen, for what is seen is temporal and what is unseen is eternal." (see also Luke 12:33 and Matthew 6.19-21)

Love's Response to Sin

I agree wholeheartedly that one should not have a bloodlust to rebuke fellow Christians in their sin. That should not be our drive. That is clearly not love. But as I've said before, I believe that the truth is the "narrow road," that fine line between two extremes. That is what I try to find in everything. I try to be very cautious of theology that leans so heavily to one extreme or another.

Therefore, what is Love's true response to destructive behavior? Does love sit by silently while a loved one (or anyone for that matter) is hurting themselves? Or does love try to lead the beloved away from destruction? This may not be a perfect analogy, but if I saw someone standing out in the middle of the road unmoving while a semi is traveling full-throttle towards them, would I sit quietly and say nothing, assuming that because they are an intelligent person they know what is best for them? I am not, like a Pharisee out of self-interest, judging them as more ignorant or less perceptive than myself. That is not the catalyst for my action. The catalyst is trying to prevent the beloved's imminent destruction.

Paul and Jesus

I think there is a certainly a difference in our hermeneutical approach, Semeia. That is one of the difficult things about posting on message boards: we have to bridge the gap between our differences in hermeneutics, theology, etc. I don't know what you have read or studied and you don't know what I have read or studied, therefore we don't know where the other is coming from.

But as for the discussion of looking at Paul's words or Jesus' words...

(1) I seriously think it an error to see the two as disparate. Many have claimed such, but I have found them not to be convincing.

(2) Yes, Paul was a fallen man who was writing to specific audiences…but so were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Redaction criticism has established that they "mold" the Gospel for their own purposes. This is done not in a way that detracts from the truth of Jesus words, but neither are they always Jesus exact words in the exact context he spoke them in. The words of the Gospels were written for a purpose with an audience in mind.

(3) The Gospels are not exhaustive accounts of Jesus' life. John clearly states this (John 21.25). Therefore, I don't think that arguments from silence (i.e., "Jesus never did this therefore we shouldn't") are entirely convincing, though they should be considered.

(4) When Jesus spoke to "tax collectors and sinners," he was not speaking to those "within the church" or even those who necessarily "knew better." When He spoke to the Pharisees, he spoke to people who should have known better than to do what they were doing: with much knowledge comes much responsibility. Paul, unlike Jesus, is speaking from a time that the Christian church had become relatively established, and there was now a "network" of Christian believers (who were not necessarily "experts in the law"). Paul, too, states that we should not "judge" those outside of the church. How can we expect non-Christians to act Christian? But he says (in 1 Cor 5) that we should judge those inside the church who should know better. But even this judgment must have discretion because Rom 14-15 speaks against judging brothers. Thus there must be times that judgment is appropriate and other times when it is not. Therefore whether you use Jesus' words or Paul's words, I think the case can be made for a certain degree of intolerance for certain sins in the church.

(5) Jesus was speaking at the foundation of Christianity. Paul is speaking to some of the problems that arose after the foundation of Christianity. One of those problems with the Corinthian church Paul spoke against was that they were actually *proud* of their tolerance of this man involved in the incestual relationship, celebrating to an extreme their freedom in Christ. This should at least cause me and you to consider our tolerance of sin. Paul evidently saw it, to a certain degree, to be heinous.

Please remember again that I am playing sort of the "devil's advocate" here. My goal is to continually challenge my beliefs and the beliefs of others. Though I do lean much more toward the tolerance side, I do this to challenge my own tolerance and weigh it against the Holy Scriptures.

May God bless us all as we seek his truth in Love.

Adam

"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 6/10/2002 6:15 AM (GMT -6)

Adam,

I really appreciate you sharing your viewpoints more in depth. It is true that often we are perceived differently than intended because of the limitations of communicating this way. I have to admit the topic of homosexuality and the way Christians in general deal with it is the one topic I tend to get really passionate about. I do feel though that the orginal issues of Christians and rebuke in general were also well addressed by Semeia and Greg, it's just that there were also intense feelings that came up for some of us around the topic you chose as your example.

Also I don't want to discredit your experience of people who have left the homosexual lifestyle, but I have not had the same experience as I have talked with homosexuals, and also see what has happened in their lives. I personally do not believe that marriage is indicative of someone successfully leaving homosexuality behind and "becoming heterosexual". I do know there are those out there like the priest that you mentioned that are choosing to supress the inclination believing it is wrong. As far as marriage goes, I personally know of a Christian marriage of 30 years that broke up due to the husband's inability to live a lie any longer (after choosing to get married when he knew all along he was gay), and a couple I knew from college that were married only a few years and had very young children. The man grew up in a Christian family, attended a Christian college, became a pastor, got married and really thought he could overcome with God's help his homosexual feelings because he did not want to be inclined that way. It didn't happen and the marriage ended with two people feeling like their lives have been destroyed. As was mentioned on another thread, the man who has represented Focus on The Family for years as "THE" success story for leaving the gay lifestyle and getting married(his wife describes herself as a former lesbian) and having children, recently was blasted by the media for visiting gay bars and having improper contact with men. I personally don't believe it ever "goes away" whether one has married and has had children or not. I do not believe that all are being unfaithful to their wives(or husbands)but I do believe that becoming a heterosexual is not what is happening. That is only my opinion.

I'll just add this as you consider moving into another vein talking specifically about the issue of homosexuality and the biblical interpretation:
My favorite college professor and mentor at the Christian college I attended did an indepth study on the issue of homosexuality in the bible. He was also a student counselor. He began his study after he was met with a number of students who were dealing with homosexual feelings. Many were depressed to the point of contemplating suicide, feeling that they would be rejected and thrown out of school if they were honest about their feelings. After his study on the topic, and listening to those that came to him, he could no longer follow the expectation of telling these students that they had to change their behavior, and that it was clearly defined as a sin. Instead he offered them a loving environment in which they could be honest, talk about their relationship with the Lord along with these other issues that they were dealing with. By the way, he himself was heterosexual. He was forced to resign his position from the school. It was a heartbreaking experience for me and the other students in our specific program, and mostly for the students that felt he was the first lifeline they had ever been thrown. He felt so strongly about what he had learned and his postition on homosexuality,that he could not stay at the school by agreeing to stop offering his point of view on the topic to those coming to him for help. I do believe that there is a lot more to learn about the topic of homosexuality. I would love to learn more about the biblical interpretation of homosexuality and get references for respected authors and theologians on the topic. So if anybody can share I would love it...I think that would be a great thread Adam. I'll leave on that note...don't want to beat a dead horse as it seems you are wanting to go deeper into other issues on this thread.

Blessings,
Shell

Edited by - shell on 06/10/2002 2:39:22 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 6/10/2002 10:59 AM (GMT -6)

I agree with everything Shell said about homosexuality, except that I do not think it is a good idea to start a thread on whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is certainly a valid concern if one is a homosexual Christian – because in the process of aligning with God’s will (a process that is never complete in any of us) they need to come to terms with what they hear God calling them to do.

But it is not a valid concern for non-homosexual Christians for these reasons:

The one thing we can all be sure of is that we are all filled with sin – that we are all wretched sinners for whom Christ died. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus step by step shows us how we can never compare ourselves favorably to another – because the lustful thought is the same as adultery, the angry thought is the same as murder, etc. And we all know that we have lustful thoughts and angry thoughts, repeatedly, inescapably, through the course of our life. He also shows us clearly how we should perceive our sin compared to another: our sin is a log, our brother’s sin is a speck. Our sin is so large we are blinded to even seeing our brother’s sin, and if we could see it, we would realize it is only a speck. Repeatedly Jesus gives us this paradigm: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

So we know by this that we are all sinners. If homosexuality is a sin, it in no way alters Jesus’ words that define our brother’s sin as a “speck.” If homosexuality is a sin, then it is part of our brother’s speck. Of what concern is that to us who have a log in our own eye?

Many will yet want to argue that nonetheless the practicing monogamous homosexual is not “repenting” of his sin. Although I do hear Jesus calling me to repent, his repeated admonition to me concerning my brother is to love and forgive.

And if we are honest we must admit that in our own lives, we can only go after a certain amount of sin that we have at any given time. We select certain sins to focus on, and we put many other sins on the back burner. But the truth is that we live in sin, and some things we will never overcome, and other things we will give up trying to overcome. Paul himself had a “thorn in his side” that he prayed three times for God to help him overcome, but the answer essentially came back that it was something with which he was going to have to live.

There are several sins that the bible treats quite seriously that we all pretty much leave people alone on. One of those is gluttony. Although Adam feels comfortable confronting people on that, most Christians would be appalled if people went around talking to overweight people about gluttony. One reason we are touchy about that is because so many people have that issue, we would need to make that the major focus of our Christian life if we were going to consistently apply the biblical admonitions against it.

Secondly, most Christians understand that the issues surrounding obesity are very complex, and involve heredity, hormones, psychology, environment, as well as life-style choices. In that way it is an issue very similar to homosexuality in that it is virtually impossible for anyone on the outside, and even for the people themselves, to understand what is actually happening, and how much control the person has.

One thing that happens with obesity, for example, is that constant dieting and fasting – which are the main methods people use to overcome their problem, usually driven by shame in a culture that makes an idol of thinness, and only intensified if one adds religious censure – actually lead to changes in the underlying metabolism which make it next to impossible for these people to ever lose weight, to which many people suffering with this problem can attest. Repeated dieting and fasting cause the body to expect starvation, and because our bodies are set up to go into “survival mode” when they are repeatedly deprived of nourishment, the bodies of overweight people eventually have a far lower rate of metabolism than the average person, which results in the necessity that they stay on a starvation diet forever in order to lose weight, and maintain it.

Most people are unaware of this, however, and tend to judge overweight people as “out of control” in their appetites. They might be very surprised to learn that many of those people eat less than the average person, and yet cannot lose weight. In our culture this is of course very depressing to them, and they periodically “give up” and say, what the heck, if I can’t lose weight, I might as well enjoy life and go back to eating. And then some Christian who’s never suffered with this problem sees them eating a doughnut, judges them as gluttonous, and decides to confront them on it – even though they have no access whatsoever to the myriad of complicated circumstances that lead to the situation. (For example: it is not uncommon for women who have been sexually abused as children to be overweight. They gain weight in the hopes that sexual unattractiveness will shield them from future violation. Most are unconscious of this thought process, and only discover it and recover after years of therapy. If they themselves don’t know what is happening, how in the world can anyone on the outside make a judgment about their perceived “gluttony” and confront them on it? Can you imagine the pain such people feel when confronted with their weight problem? They already feel damaged and unlovable.)

Another issue with confronting people about gluttony is that we tend to view gluttony as an eating problem. But gluttony is a consumption problem, and we Americans are the most consumer-oriented culture on earth. If we are going to confront our brother on his eating habits, are we prepared to be confronted on our television-watching habits, or our clothes-buying habits, or our compulsion to buy cds, or videos, or our obsession with working out to sculpt our bodies so that we might be admired, or our desire to have more of everything, or our desire to know more than others? Almost everything one can think of can be done to excess or turned into an idol. Although sometimes our compulsions are obvious to others, most of the time they are kept underground. In my whole life I have met very few people who were moderate in all areas – although I do know people who make an idol of moderation (and that is their criterion for judging others)! One can’t go through a drive-thru without getting a “jumbo” drink that we don’t need, and a food order that only comes in excessive sizes. We all have our idols. We all have our compulsions. I’ve never met anyone whom I felt had it all together to the extent that I thought they were sin-free enough to go around pointing out someone else’s sin, or spending time determining if someone else’s behavior qualifies as a sin. Don’t we all have too much to address in ourselves to spend our time defining sin in others? Isn’t it our own hearts which Jesus asks us to search?

Another sin which we ignore in people is the sin of divorce and remarriage. Jesus makes it crystal clear that any divorce that is not for reasons of unchastity causes the woman to commit adultery when she remarries. The adultery is not a one time deal. Sex outside of a sanctioned marriage (which is in essence what Jesus is saying about any remarriage that happens after an “incorrect” divorce) is adultery. More than half of all marriages end in divorce. Many of those divorces are not due to “unchastity.” We are surrounded by people who, according to Jesus, are living in “adulterous” relationships, by virtue of being remarried. And Jesus assumes that the women will remarry. He did not forbid it; he simply pointed out its sinful nature. Why didn’t he make a new law outlawing this, if in fact it meant people would be living in sin? My answer to that is because Jesus knows we are all living in sin, and his comments were in the context of not allowing people to let themselves off the hook, most especially as they look askance and judge and confront their brother. He acknowledged man’s inability to live up to God’s ideal, which is why divorce was allowed in the first place.

But if our concern is going to be toward people “living in sin” – and if our focus is going to be toward “defining” what is sin and what is not – we cannot help but pick and choose. And it is human nature to be self-serving by choosing those sins we ourselves do not suffer from to root out.

So if determining whether or not something is a sin for our brother is not a valid focus, what is?

Certainly it is valid to help our brother if we think he is destroying himself. Of course we would act quickly if we saw a semi bearing down on our brother who is unaware. There are behaviors that come to dominate us to the point that we are victimizing others, and bringing destruction down around us. Certainly drug addiction, alcoholism, pedophilia, rape, spousal abuse, incest, murder, and any kind of violence all qualify as behaviors that call for a “stop-action” – not done with condemnation and judgment but in love. When we become aware of a situation like pedophilia, we must act quickly. If we are close family or friends of someone spiraling out of control in an addiction, whether it be to a drug, alcohol, or sex, we must act in love to stop the downward spiral, and provide help.

Paul’s “sin lists” are not comprehensive lists of all sins. They are lists of behaviors that dominate. The question is: is homosexuality a destructive behavior that dominates and leads to death? Or is it a behavior (like divorce and remarriage) that while not God’s original ideal, is nonetheless the best path forward for these particular people, who did not choose to be born gay, and who are not called to chastity? (By the way, divorced and remarried people can avoid “living in sin” if they remain chaste for the rest of their lives. In the past this is exactly the stance the church took toward them. But today we would find it absurd if our fellow Christians demanded chastity from divorced people. Even though Jesus clearly called remarriage adultery.)

This question, “Is it destructive?” is not an abstraction that can never be answered. We can watch an alcoholic come to ruin. We can watch a drug addict kill themselves over time. In the same way we can observe gay families, and see if they hold up over time in the same way straight families do. My own experience of gay people tells me that they suffer from the same kinds of addictions and problems as everyone else, although they are more likely to commit suicide because of the anguish they feel over being “different,” and the judgment they feel from others. My gay friends and family members suffer from the same kinds of things that my straight friends and family members do. Most of them are in committed, long-term “marriages,” they lead productive work lives, they raise their children if they have them. Their “gayness” does not destroy them over time. Their ability to follow the highest commandment: “Love God with all your heart, and love your brother as yourself,” is not hindered by their gayness. Whereas it is easy to see that incest and pedophilia and drug addiction eventually hinders and blocks one’s ability to follow that commandment.

I am personally not interested in the slightest about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. I would just as soon try to figure out how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. If it is a sin, it is not one I suffer with, and so it merely adds to my brother’s speck. I have a log in my eye I need to attend to.

I have two sisters who are gay, and numerous friends. One of my first loves was a man whom I later discovered to be gay. He is brilliant and funny, a Rhodes Scholar, a writer for Time magazine, now a successful executive, humble, self-effacing, world-traveled, kind, and loving. About five years ago the man he thought he would spend his life with died of AIDs. Since then he has found a new partner whom I’ve only met on the phone, but he’s left me in stitches every time. Our gay friends in town are again smart and kind and loving. Not only does “tolerance” not ever enter the picture, as it would be the height of absurdity for me to “tolerate” people whom I look up to and learn from, but I have been humbled by the grace and maturity with which they have been able to deal with the judgments directed at them throughout the course of their lives. Myself, I would not have the courage to be so kind.

They are not perfect; none of us are. But individually they are beautiful before God, and I love them. Not only do they not lead destructive lifestyles, but some of them have been an inspiration to me, in the way that they parent, and in the way that they love. The question of whether or not homosexuality is inherently destructive in the way dominating-type sins are is easily answerable for me. All I need to do is think of the people I love, the type of lives that they lead, and I have my answer. Undoubtedly there are homosexuals who lead promiscuous or sex-addicted lives, just as there are heterosexuals who do. I have known people of all sexual orientations who fall into those categories. But it is not inherent to homosexuality, and homosexuals are not homosexual because they are “over-sexed.” The gay people I know are no more likely to lead destructive lives than the straight people I know.

Adam,

You brought up the idea of starting another thread on this topic, and this is my answer to that suggestion. I would appreciate it if you did not call it “chasing a rabbit” or any of the other discounting language of your post before last.

And I would really appreciate it if you did not call me “my dear sister” and such. I’m going to assume you meant to be friendly, but given what I perceive as the overall sarcasm of your post I hear it as very disrespectful.

Concerning Paul: I am in no way discounting Paul. Paul did experience revelation on the road to Damascus. But everything Paul said must be looked at through the lens of the life and ministry of Jesus. When we do that, we discover that Paul is saying something quite different from what we thought at first glance. We discover, for example, that the Romans passages that people frequently use to defend Christian judgment are actually in profound consonance with the Sermon on the Mount, and pull the rug out from underneath our judgment. When we look at Paul through the lens of Jesus Christ, we find that they are indeed saying the same thing.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 6/10/2002 11:38 AM (GMT -6)

Adam said:

quote:
If we are "not to associate" yes "not even to eat" with such a man (who lives content and unrepenting in his life of immorality, greed, an idolatry or a slander, a drunkenness or swindling), how could anyone possibly *become* close friends with them at all, much less eventually rebuke them?

Yeah, those people who eat and associate with sinners---now just who do they think they're emulating? Oh, right . . . Jesus.

[Like Semeia is saying, I think we need to see Paul's writings through our understanding of Christ, not the other way around.]

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 6/10/2002 11:57 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia:

I am personally not interested in the slightest about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. I would just as soon try to figure out how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

Shell:

I like that.

Semeia,
I hadn't thought about it the way you presented it in your post...of course...it's like I have these lightbulb experiences reading what you write. I'd like to share my reasoning sometime...just heading out the door now...

Shell

Edited by - shell on 06/10/2002 5:03:00 PM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/10/2002 1:43 PM (GMT -6)

Shell: My people perish for lack of knowledge. Hosea 4:6.

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/10/2002 1:50 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: whether or not homosexuality is a sin should be a concern to everyone, because sin affects all people, not just the person sinning. Such a view is not only sad, but dangerous. Would you say the same for lying? Or murder? Or blasphemy? Of course not! As such your view is damaging to those in the world who care about whether or not people do things that are contrary to the will of God.
Finally, there are no homosexual Christians, because a person who knows God would know that such a thing is wrong and contrary to the will of God and, therefore, would not affirm such a thing as God glorifying. While there may be Christians who are confused or ignorant on the subject, Christians who honestly investigate the sin (and do not allow their sentimentality to cloud the issue) know that it is a harmful lifestyle and is not God glorifying. Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/10/2002 1:54 PM (GMT -6)

Brett: I hold up all scripture as God breathed. Scripture interprets scripture. When holds certain parts of scripture above others, then you get a lopsided view of truth, because your "favorite" parts supercede everything else. For instance, while the Sermonon the Mount is important it is not the end all and be all of Jesus's life and it is only example of how Jesus interacted with people. When we hold it up as such that's all we see of Jesus.
Oh, and one more thing: Paul was called specifically by Jesus on the Damascus road. So I am pretty sure he was happy with everything Paul wrote. Harold

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 6/10/2002 4:55 PM (GMT -6)

Harold: Proverbs 21:11 When the scoffer is punished, the naive becomes wise; But when the wise is instructed he receives knowledge.

Edited by - shell on 06/10/2002 10:27:15 PM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/10/2002 5:30 PM (GMT -6)

Shell: I am not really sure what that means (in the context of what we are talking about), but it is scripture so thanks...

Edited by - writerdad on 06/10/2002 10:30:46 PM

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 6/10/2002 5:36 PM (GMT -6)

Actually Harold it was a joke... scripture taken out of context, just to throw it out there to you like you seemed to be doing with me. If you have a point to make with a scripture directed at me feel free to make it.

Edited by - shell on 06/10/2002 11:15:05 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 6/10/2002 6:20 PM (GMT -6)

I would like to share a personal experience that taught me, in the most visceral way, the impossibility of assessing other people’s “sin” based on their behavior.

The sister closest to me in age in my family (not one of my gay sisters) always hated me. She was an angry kid, and as her younger sister I could do nothing right. We lived in a big dysfunctional family, but our relationship stood out for its hostility even amid the turmoil. We shared a room in the basement that was down two hallways, so that when the lights were out no light would penetrate: it was like a sensory deprivation chamber, with a reinforced concrete ceiling, and rough-cut cedar walls without windows. I remember that she constantly pinched me and slapped me, and nothing I could say ever got her approval. I couldn’t make her laugh. She constantly ridiculed me, and she would pinch me any time I hummed or sang, telling me to shut up because it sounded awful. To this day I will never sing in front of anyone except my husband and children (unless I’m hidden in a crowd). She was a deeply angry person. She had trouble in school, and didn’t have a lot of friends. Things took much less effort for me, and until mid-adolescence school and friendships came easy. I never knew when an offhand comment would send her into a rage. As she got older she would comfort herself with food, and seemed to live on Oreo cookies and chips. She gained weight as I starved myself, and the gulf between us grew. When I was eighteen, and had already been living on my own for two years, I sought her out to try to reconcile, and to understand what had gone so terribly wrong in our relationship. In tears (which she almost never shed, being stoic in her anger) she admitted her cruelty to me; she admitted the many terrible things she had done – but even as she admitted it she had no idea why she felt so much hatred for me, nor any real idea why she behaved the way she did. She promised to try to change, but we were still very careful around each other.

Fast forward a dozen years. My sister has been married (unhappily) and divorced. I am newly married. I get a call from her saying that she has something important that she wants to tell all of her siblings, and she has arranged for the seven of us to rent a houseboat on the St. Croix for several days, if we are willing to come. Because I was still nursing my first baby I would need to bring her with, but of course I was willing. I remember feeling dread, though, as the time approached, having no idea what was coming. And I felt nervous gathering with my family away from my new husband, who was sort of a buffer between me and a lot of bad stuff.

After a minor argument with the boat rental attendant, which almost led to a major one, we set off down the river laughing about how everyone was playing their expected roles: whether bossy or helpful or comic relief. But soon we turned our attention to the purpose for the trip, and we gathered around my sister as she told us her story.

She said that a few months earlier she had been reading a biography of Virginia Woolf, and as she read about the sexual abuse Virginia had suffered at the hands of her brothers she started having full-fledged panic attacks, which would come on every time she picked up the book. She couldn’t breathe; she started getting flashes of a man in a mask, and she was filled with terror. Thinking she was going mad, or having some kind of extreme sympathetic response toward Virginia Woolf, she started emergency sessions with a therapist she had been seeing over the previous several years. She had always been afraid of the dark, and had slept with the lights on, but now she was gripped by terror. Over the following weeks she started recovering a memory long buried: that at the age of 8 years old she was raped at knifepoint in her own bed, by a relative who was staying with the family.

To say that we were stunned would be an understatement. As we drifted down the river slowly, the lushly scenic banks of the St. Croix set a surreal backdrop for the nightmare brought to light, dug up from the cemetery of our shared past, pieced together from the bones of persistent memory.

We all remembered this relative. He was the oldest stepbrother of our cousins. The older siblings recalled that he was a con artist – a small time criminal that by now was surely in jail or dead. We all marveled that our parents had let him live with us for a while – it was very unlike our mother who was paranoid about such things. But for whatever reason she had, and one night he crept down the hallway, climbed on top of my eight-year-old sister, put a knife to her throat, and raped her. Since I shared a bed with my sister there is a very high likelihood that I was asleep right next to her as it happened.

Unless you have experienced a paradigm shift in your life it is hard to imagine how a lifetime of experience can somehow morph in a matter of seconds into something else. It’s like those clever pictures, that if you look at them from one angle you see an old hag, but from another angle, if you look hard enough, reveal a beautiful woman. The knowledge of the crime that had been committed against my sister suddenly gave meaning to hundreds of incidents that heretofore held nothing but confusion.

I immediately remembered an incident that happened when I was seven (which is the age I would have been during the event). My sister had approached me in private and asked me how people have sex. I giggled, because I thought she was setting me up with a joke. She slapped me hard across the face, and stormed out of the room, leaving me crying. Knowing that she was serious, I pulled her aside later and drew a crude picture of a man and woman having sex. (I have no idea where I gained such knowledge at such an early age, but I did know.)

Looking back at this, I think my sister was trying to comprehend what had happened to her. But she was frightened and didn’t tell. She eventually buried it deep inside, and her mind protected itself, and she forgot. But it did not die: it lived in her anger, her depression, her shame, her inability to connect with people, and in her rage at me – for being untouched, left alone, spared.

Can one event change the course of a person’s life? Everything I knew about my sister and what had gone on between us took on a different meaning.

As we made our way through the past, the sky took on the timber of our memories, and darkened into a storm, catching us in the middle of the river. It was oddly perfect, reflecting our experience, our journey: so like the storm-tossed boat of our childhood, and here we were grown, having survived, come together by choice to weather this moment, to try to understand, to try to get somewhere. And as I thought about my sister I held my baby close, wondering how I could protect her.

And most of all I thought of how I had spent my whole life not knowing about the most traumatic devastating moment of my sister’s life – and how that knowledge changed everything.

And later, looking through school pictures, there it was: my sister up to age eight, grinning from ear to ear, free-spirited, eyes sparkling, a face that could light up a room. And ever after: sullen, eyes flat, her face masked by her dark mood. The change was so dramatic it was surprising I hadn’t noticed it before. And I understood why my bright spirit had been such an affront to her – such a reminder of what she had lost. And how unbearable that must have been at eight years old, to be shadowed by a carefree sister as a reminder of your lost soul. And how my whistling and singing could have cut her so deeply.

My sister lives alone in another part of the country, with a dog whom she loves. It is impossible to know what might have been different if this had never happened, or if it had come to light earlier, and she hadn’t spent decades expecting the worst of people, afraid of the dark, full of unnamed fears and a rage that was always brewing under the surface. She’s happiest alone, and she doesn’t like to be bothered much.

But I am eternally grateful that she put an end to my judgment by uncovering the truth. Because I did judge her, for her meanness and her bad moods, and her inability to be happy in life. I am not particularly afraid of dying except for one thing: I am afraid of what God is going to reveal to me, concerning every judgment I’ve ever made, every harsh word, every screaming fight, every little bit of inner dialogue I’ve had about the people I’ve encountered in the course of a lifetime. I am afraid of each layer that he is going to peel back, until he gets to the one devastating truth behind every encounter that will convict me of my lack of compassion and love. And every excuse I might make will be silenced by the sight of Jesus dying on the cross, just as the image of my sister suffering erased a lifetime of pain, leaving only regret, that I hadn’t somehow been more patient and loving and understanding.

I just have way too much to work on to worry about other people’s sins.

What’s strange is that now I don’t filter my sister’s behavior through its impact on me. I filter it through whether or not she’s doing better or worse. So when she’s really testy and short-tempered, I try not to take it personally and I think of her as needing more compassion, not less. This doesn’t mean that I avoid giving feedback when she hurts my feelings – but I am much more likely to stay calm.

Knowing how much sin she has in her life is meaningless in that it brings me not one inch closer to loving her. Knowing how much pain she has in her life means everything, and frees me to love her. In fact, focusing on a person’s sin – except in a situation where life is threatened and a stop-action is called for – actually blocks us from loving another. It is the log in our eye that prevents us from seeing their real story, which in any case we can only ever see in part.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 6/10/2002 8:35 PM (GMT -6)

Thank you, Semeia

Electra

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
…in him, lost in him and his love…

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/10/2002 9:28 PM (GMT -6)

Shell,
Thank you so much for that information about the Focus on the Family guy. While I don't want to discount that example, I would like to point out that even though we may be "over" a sin for a while, it often gets us back eventually. For example, my uncle who is a drug addict was clean for two years. But then some "triggers" were set off and he relapsed into drug addiction. Does that mean that drug addiction is the thing that he was created for? Certainly not. Rather, it means that he is human (as we all are). Therefore, I don't think that just because a person relapses into homosexuality (after years of denying him or herself) means that homosexuality is not a sin. That is the awesome thing about grace is that no matter how many times we mess up, Christ receives us when we come to Him again.

Semeia,

Wow, I am seriously sorry that came across my warm words to you came across as sarcasm. As I wrote that post, I tried to speak (as far as I remember) as sincerely and lovingly as I could. The only sarcastic remark I remember making is that sentence about writing a detailed account of my interaction with him so that you could better rebuke me for my rebuking. I admitted in that post that I found it humorous that you were so critical of me for doing something that I didn't do, but that you were yourself doing. However, I think that my harping on that crossed the line of graceful speech, and for that I am sorry.

SEMEIA SAID:
"Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is certainly a valid concern if one is a homosexual Christian – because in the process of aligning with God’s will (a process that is never complete in any of us) they need to come to terms with what they hear God calling them to do.
But it is not a valid concern for non-homosexual Christians because…"
Adam says:
I apologize if I'm misreading your post, but I sum up your argument as such: non-homosexual Christians shouldn't be concerned with whether or not homosexuality is a sin because (1) they are not homosexuals and (2) they are not completely without sin.

ON YOUR FIRST PREMISE and THE PLANK PARABLE

I think you may be reading your own presuppositions into Jesus Plank parable. Nowhere do I see that Jesus is advocating that we ignore sin in our brother's eye.
The point of Jesus parable of the plank is not that we should ignore sin in our brother but that we should not try to correct it while simultaneously ignoring our own sin. I believe that in this parable, both men have the same sin, only the one who is trying to take the speck out of his brother's eye actually has a bigger problem than his brother. "Do not judge or else you will be judged" and in the same way (that is, same sin) with the same measure (or degree of that same sin). It is hard to argue that this is speaking of two different sins. You are more than welcome to try, though. I'm not without the possibility of error.

The only way that you can see clearly to take the speck of sawdust out of your brother's eyes is if you don't have anything in your own eye. Therefore according to this parable, the only way we can help a brother out of his sin is if we are not currently in that sin ourselves (i.e., if it is the case that active homosexuality is a sin, the only person who can help a person out of homosexuality is one who is not an active homosexual.) It might certainly be argued that only a person who formerly practiced homosexuality can "take the speck of sawdust" out of a homosexual's eye. And while I believe it may certainly be that such a person would be the best qualified to help a person out of their homosexuality, I don't see this parable as stating that (for example) only a former homosexual is qualified to help.

Rather, the passage seems to be saying: If you judge a person for A, you will be judged by whether or not you have A. If you have more A than your brother, don't hypocritically (as if you didn't have the sin yourself) condemn your brother for having A because he has less A than you; you condemn/judge yourself! Rather, make sure you don't have A. Then, if you don't have A, you can help to rid your brother of A. And on top of that, you don't have to worry about condemning yourself because you are not doing it.

Thus, I don't see how your premise (1) holds even according to Jesus words (whom you most frequently to defend your position).

ON YOUR SECOND PREMISE

It should be noted that the passage - John 8 - "let he who is without sin should cast the first stone" is NOT saying "you shouldn't consider adultery sin unless you've not committed it yourself." Rather it seems to say, "you shouldn't kill this woman for her sin unless you are without sin yourself." There is a difference between thinking adultery is a sin and punishing a person with death for the sin of adultery.

And if you're going to hold that only the absolutely sinless Jesus can judge a sin that he doesn't struggle with himself, then we might as well omit about half of the NT because it is written by sinful men and is full of rebuke by sinful humans of other humans who committed sins the writers haven't committed themselves.

Otherwise, was Paul currently (or previously) involved in an incestual relationship (although, Blomberg suggests that it was not an incestual relationship being described but rather that the son of the father was having sexual relations with his step mother, most likely after his father had died), or else having sex with his dead dad's second (or third…) wife, thus giving Paul authority to judge that sin? And was James a lustful murderer, thus he could judge his lustful murderous brothers' sins (cf. James 4.2)? And John a heretic so that he could speak against heresy? Again, if we should only care about sin that we struggle with, we might as well rip out about half of the NT out of the canon, including Paul's words which Peter reckoned equal to scripture (2 Pet 3.16), because they are all sinning by writing such statements of rebuke (according to your reasoning).

On the basis of this second premise, not even when we "get on the inside of the relationship" (as Boyd puts it) can we ever rebuke a person for any sin we have not ourselves struggled with.

Therefore, unless you want to omit what Peter considered scripture from the canon, how does premise (2) stand?

Again, in my humble opinion Semeia, I think you are falling to an unhealthy extreme. Granted we should not study the scriptures so that we can use it as a stick to beat people with (like the Pharisees). But neither can we honestly say (in my opinion) that the Bible says we should be unconcerned with what is sin and what is not. Rather, the scripture seems to (in my understanding) beckon us toward knowledge of good and evil: "And this is my prayer for you, that your love may about more and more in knowledge and depth of insight so that you may be able to discern what is best and remain pure and blameless before Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes from Christ, to the glory and praise of God." Phil 1.9.

Should we all wait around until we are tempted with a sin to determine whether or not it is sin?

MORE ON PAUL AND JESUS
Yes we should "see what Paul writes through the words of Jesus" but we should also see the words of Jesus through the elaboration and explanation of Jesus' words that exists in the canonized Pauline corpus. The two are unified (in my estimation). Paul and the other writers of the NT elaborate on the words of Jesus. Jesus words were not recorded exhaustively, and one of the epistle and letter writers' primary intentions were to clear up misunderstandings of Jesus words, to correct false doctrines that were being espoused concerning Jesus words, etc. Paul fills in the most crucial gaps in the Gospel records of Jesus words. Therefore, I think it is folly to hold Jesus words recorded in the Gospels as being always more clear than Paul's authoritative explanation of Jesus' words.

MORE PICKING AND CHOOSING, OR JUST INNOCENT (not meant condescendingly) IGNORANCE OF WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?
My goal is to see what the scriptures say as a whole. If I am missing something in the scriptures, please point it out (as you have been, and thank you).

Semeia (et al), you say "We should follow Jesus example of tolerance." You say we shouldn't be concerned with whether or not homosexuality is sin. In fact, you go so far to say that calling homosexuality sin is a sin. But then you seem to ignore Jesus example of calling sin what it is ("Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Luke 16.18). Instead, Semeia, you say when concerning others "we should be unconcerned about what is sin and what is not." That doesn't follow Jesus example.

You say that Jesus never preaches that anyone should judge or rebuke at all, and you pretty much discount Paul's rebuke and exhortation for others to rebuke. "We should see Paul through the words of Jesus." Okay, how about this: " So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him." Luke 17.3. If we are to be unconcerned about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, how can we heed these words of Christ to be alert to whether or not our brother is sinning?

SEMEIA SAID:
"When we look at Paul through the lens of Jesus Christ, we find that they are indeed saying the same thing."

ADAM:
Yep.

Grace and Peace…

Adam

P.S. – By the way, I agree that gluttony and these other things are sins. That is not the issue at hand. I know you were using them as examples, but they are kind of weak in my opinion, based entirely on a misunderstanding (which you pointed out many people have) of what gluttony actually is. It is not necessarily being overweight. It is (in my estimation) indulging yourself to the point that it not only hurts yourself, but is very wasteful and inconsiderate of the many who don't have food to eat.

P.P.S. – Again, I don't "confront" the way you are thinking I do. If you should even call it "confronting," what I do is, if it comes up in conversation, mention something I've learned about it. For example, after going to refugee camps in Indonesia it made me incredibly noxious of the wasteful and ungrateful lifestyle American's have. I very seldom (if ever) have "confronted" in the sense of "You need to stop doing this now!" And that (as much as I can remember) only to close friends.

P.P.P.S – Thank you for your account of you and your sister. I could share many similar accounts. We should be very wary to think of someone as a "bad person" because of this or that. Sin doesn't make someone a "bad person" any more than we are all "bad people" because we are tainted by sin. I think that is the heart of non-judgment. I don't see why there is this great fear of calling something a sin or someone a sinner because we all sin and we are all sinners. Calling idolatry (which doesn't have physical ramifications to it, as per your qualification of a sin that demands a "stop action") a sin doesn't mean that I think an idolater a bad person and not myself. I'm not sinless, therefore I am a bad person. Let's call sin what it is. Let's not let the reality of sin embarrass us as a teenager being embarrassed to be seen with her parents (to use an illustration from Peter Kreeft). Rather we should call sin what it is in the name of Love. Loving people and calling sin what it is are not two mutually exclusive things. See my Lewis quotes again (Kindness is not always the divine expression of love).

P.P.P.P.S. – Good gravy…I just spent over 3 hours writing this! I need to go to bed and perhaps get my priorities straight!

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 6/11/2002 5:37 AM (GMT -6)

Adam:

quote:

Shell,
Thank you so much for that information about the Focus on the Family guy. While I don't want to discount that example, I would like to point out that even though we may be "over" a sin for a while, it often gets us back eventually. For example, my uncle who is a drug addict was clean for two years. But then some "triggers" were set off and he relapsed into drug addiction. Does that mean that drug addiction is the thing that he was created for? Certainly not. Rather, it means that he is human (as we all are). Therefore, I don't think that just because a person relapses into homosexuality (after years of denying him or herself) means that homosexuality is not a sin. That is the awesome thing about grace is that no matter how many times we mess up, Christ receives us when we come to Him again.

Hi Adam. I had specifically addressed this because you said in your previous post that you knew of those that had "become heterosexual". I do not have any evidence that this happens. Of course homosexuals, like any of us with our sexuality, can deny themselves, and supress it, but everything that I have learned about homosexuality is that they do not "become heterosexual". As I try to look at it from your point of view, I think there are a lot of things in this world that we were not "created for" such as babies that are born without arms etc., but is it a sin for that child to not have arms? Should that child's whole goal in life be to try and grow arms? Or do we embrace this child for who she is? A child loved by God for who she is, and truly see the beauty that she can share because of who she is. I don't think that drug addiction and homosexuality are comparable. One is a choice(to start) the other is not.

Semeia, Thank you so much for sharing about your sister. That is a powerful example.

Shell

Edited by - shell on 06/11/2002 11:15:31 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 6/11/2002 6:47 AM (GMT -6)

Shell and Electra, thanks for the affirmation - I really appreciate it. And I really appreciate the personal accounts you have shared on this thread, too, Shell.

After writing that yesterday I was very much up in the air about whether or not to post it. Sharing that kind of experience always leaves me feeling exposed. But my husband encouraged me, in the belief that it gets directly at the heart of this issue - at the heart of our fallen nature.

Adam, thank you for your response. The crux of our disagreement, and why we will never agree, is contained in this statement:

"But neither can we honestly say (in my opinion) that the Bible says we should be unconcerned with what is sin and what is not. Rather, the scripture seems to (in my understanding) beckon us toward knowledge of good and evil..."

The serpent in the Garden of Eden beckoned us toward the knowledge of good and evil, and our eating of that fruit brought about the Fall of Man.

As long as you believe that that is what the bible, and Jesus' life and death and resurrection, are beckoning us toward, it's hard to see how we won't miss each other in anything we say.

I believe that the bible, and Jesus Christ, beckon us toward love and mercy and eternal life - and that the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil still stands.

John 9:39

Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not blind, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."

When we think "we see" good and evil, we bring the full weight of our judgments upon ourselves. But when in humility we leave it up to God, which is what it means to put ourselves "in Christ," we are washed clean.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 6/11/2002 7:45 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia...I was talking to my husband about how emotionally drawn in I feel about this particular thread, and I told him that I feel "naked" after posting sometimes, so I know what you mean. Although I know that it is through relaying those very personal experiences that we can learn so much from each other. It paints the pictures of the life stories that are our own or belong to the deep relationships with others. Those experiences change our perspectives and shed light on things that we would never understand unless our lives are entertwined in love with a person going through such things. You sharing your story gives all of us a glimpse of the harsh realities of life and helps us learn and gain sensitivity and love for those around us that we cannot understand. I cannot thank you enough for your vulnerability.

Bless you.
love Shell

Edited by - shell on 06/11/2002 9:02:04 PM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/11/2002 8:11 AM (GMT -6)

Shell: my point was simply that knowing what is and isn't sin is extremely important and should not be taken lightly.

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 6/11/2002 9:50 AM (GMT -6)

Harold,
Thank you for clarifying what you meant because that is not how I took it from you at all. When you just throw out a scripture to someone without an explanation of the point you are making, it can easily be misunderstood.

Thanks,
Shell

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 6/11/2002 7:06 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: interesting story. A couple of brief points. Something happened to your sister. True. However,
research into the area of memory recovery has shown that it is extremely unreliable. Memory in general is. It has also shown that many therapists have, sometimes knowing, sometimes unknowing, lead people to believe they were sexually molested when they were not. In fact, many people have come out with detailed memories of it happening, accused their parents, only to later recant.
Remember Sybil, the story of the girl with 16 personalities> Not true. It has been admited that her therapist was simply giving detailed descriptions of different parts of her personality and leading her to believe they were seperate persons. They knew this BEFORE the book came out and still published it.
Memory is very subjective and many times people want to believe something tramatic has happened because they believe they could not possibility feel this bad. But you can.
Your sister had a panic attack. They can happen for many reasons, some as simple as having an adverse reaction to caffiene. And they are not deadly at all, yet they can also be so bad that they make you feel like you want to die.
I deal with panic attacks all the time. Much of the reason why they happen is mundane. However, given my own memories of the past abuse (and lack of it in some cases) in own family, I have a hard time accepting long ago buried memory as the sole evidence for anjy type of abuse, particularly when it is the sole claim and no one else has seen or witnessed the actual event. The evidence suggests that memory can be changed to fit what we want to believe. we may want to believe such a thing happened because it is suggested to us that only a truly bad thing could make us feel this way, or we may need justification for feelings that we may not want to work through. I only hope your sister is dealing with her panic attacks. They never get better if you don't face them.
It is a truly sad story. Yet the saddest thing is this: if she was truly molested, she is allowing it to ruin her life twice. In the past and in the future. The past she has lost. The future, she chooses to lose. In the past, she was the victim. In the present, she is choosing to be a victim by letting the past dictate how she lives. If she feels unsafe around people, it is because she is not taking the steps to surround herself with people who will make her feeel safe. We all have feelings. But we make the choice has to what we will do with them, how we will react to them and whether or not they will control us or we will control them. We each have a choice as to whether or not we will fight or give up, regardless of what the past has brought.

Edited by - writerdad on 06/12/2002 12:45:26 AM

Edited by - writerdad on 06/12/2002 12:55:24 AM

Edited by - writerdad on 06/12/2002 12:56:04 AM

Edited by - writerdad on 06/12/2002 12:59:21 AM

160 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:42 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