Compelled to change?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Nobody said this. The leaders of a church have every right to call a sin a sin, as laid out in the Bible. But they must do so impartially, without fear or favour and with love and understanding. It is a fact that many do not understand homosexuality, or kleptomania for that matter. Both are sins which have genetic origins and should be dealt with in a simila ...[text shortened]... sins. If the church applied the expel rule to all members who sinned, there would be no church.

I would agree that the penalties for sin are different than in Mosaic times, but not the sins themselves. The first and most important steps are recognizing and owning up to sins in our lives. If sin is what seperates us from God, then I think it would behoove us to deal with it accordingly just as Christ told the woman who was caught in adultery that he showed mercy towards, "Now go and sin no more". I do not think these words to be taken lightly, rather, it was an admonishment for worse things to follow if not heeded.

As for tackling these problems in a spirit of love, I absolutely agree!! I do think there are "bigots" within the church who hate homosexuals and would like nothing better than to see them suffer and sent to hell itself and we should gaurd against them. I know because I have met some. When I say tackling sin within the church in a spirit of love, I am referring to recognizing that it is in their best interest to deal with thier sin so that it does not destroy them. In effect, your efforts are to help them, not punish them. Then again, at times love must be tough. Take a drunk for example, at times one needs to have an intervention. It is neither pleasant nor desirable, yet, often it is needed. Otherwise they will drink themselves to death because they have lost control in many regards. Although the drunk in question may feel ganged up on and attacked, this is but the furthest thing from the minds of those tying to help them.

Having said that, I think that those within the church who openly sin and have been confronted by their sin and reject correction and continue in their sinful pursuits for all to see that they should be dealt with. Espeically if they are leaders within the church itself!!! Leadership equals authority and authority figures are often where we derive our morality from.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I would agree with much of what you are saying.

What I am saying is that judging them, condemning them and kicking them out into the street, is going to make them weaker not stronger, and its not the Christ-like approach.

Again, sin must be judged to some degree just as Christ recognized the sin of the adulterous woman. Otherwise he would not have told her to go and sin no more.

As I have said before, sometimes love must be tough. If I were openly sinning in the church and in the eyes of God and no one confronted me about it, I think God would hold those within the church accountable, don't you? I would want to be corrected even though it might be painful for me initially. I would much rather accept temperal pain verses pain with eternal implications.

As far as kicking people out of the church, I think this is a last resort. I think this is done if the person in question has no desire to change thus violating their moral obligations to the church that they agreed to when they joined. You may think that seding people out into the world is the worst thing to do for someone who desires to sin, however, I am not so sure. Think of the prodigal son. Sometimes we have to hit bottom before we realize where our sinful pursuits are sending us.

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m really not arguing in this thread, Rajk—and I don’t want to seem like I’m playing “both ends against the middle” here, but—

Chronologically, the earliest written “gospel” we have in the NT are Paul’s first letters to already established churches—established by Paul.

The only earlier church that I am aware of is the one in Jerusalem (I’ll stand corr ...[text shortened]... d the source that I cited.

If homosexuality is a sin, then I am simply in agreement with you.

Thanks for your input Vistesd... your 'thinking aloud' is always welcome.

I did not know Pauls letters were written before the gospels, but as you said Paul did not acutally hear the teachings of Christ. In any case, Where there is an apparent contradiction between the two I prefer to err on the side of following Christ. And Christ very clear on the issue of good works. Its not an option, or simply a demonstration of faith or obedience, as some mistakenly think.

Your pastor friend was right. It pointless to let the quality and quantity of your works bother you. The idea is to keep trying.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Thanks for your input Vistesd... your 'thinking aloud' is always welcome.

I did not know Pauls letters were written before the gospels, but as you said Paul did not acutally hear the teachings of Christ. In any case, Where there is an apparent contradiction between the two I prefer to err on the side of following Christ. And Christ very clear on the issue ...[text shortened]... ointless to let the quality and quantity of your works bother you. The idea is to keep trying.

Paul may not have heard the teachings of Christ, but he was an astute scholar of the scriptures just as Christ was. Also, he was a contemporary of the disciples and no doubt therefore knew Christ's teachings intimately.

Edit: Do not forget the conversion on the road to Damascus. There is no doubt in my mind that God chose Paul because he was a learned man of the scriptures and articulate. Without him perhaps the gospels would not have been written at all.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think I understand how deep-rooted this blindness can be, especially with individuals deluded enough to mistake self-righteousness for the Holy Spirit. I've observerd that pride is particulary debilitating.

How can you be so sure that this type of blindness has no cure? Did Baha'u'llah speak of this?

These ramblings of mine are out of frustration. I don't believe there is anything about it in the Faith.

But in order to find the truth, one must be looking for it. Whodey is not looking for any truth, therefore he won't see it even if it hits him on the head.

Originally posted by whodey
So what happens if I am married and I get hit on the head and have amnesia and can't remember a thing afterwad and I then, later in life, marry another woman not remembering I was ever married to begin with? Am I committing adultery? Is it sin? As a rule, there are usually exceptions to every rule.

Your objections remind me of objections regarding abort ...[text shortened]... s that seperate us from animals, that is, unless you believe we are no better than animals.

For example, heterosexuals according to Biblical teachings should suppress their sexual urges at certain times WHODEY

....but no heterosexual was ever asked to become a homosexual thus rebelling against their very nature. Suppression is one thing , negating and doing the opposite is another. If it can be shown that homosexuality has biological causes via science then what we would be doing would be to ask someone to lie and pretend to be something they are not just because it says so in a book (and for no other apparent reason)

Originally posted by whodey
So what happens if I am married and I get hit on the head and have amnesia and can't remember a thing afterwad and I then, later in life, marry another woman not remembering I was ever married to begin with? Am I committing adultery? Is it sin? As a rule, there are usually exceptions to every rule.

Your objections remind me of objections regarding abort ...[text shortened]... s that seperate us from animals, that is, unless you believe we are no better than animals.

As far as human beings born with both male and female genitalia, In all honesty I have not as yet decided what should be done. WHODEY


...and why not? It should be clear shouldn't it. If two people of this kind were having a sexual relationship then it is unnatural. It is not what God intends for us . It is sin. They should be asked to abstain from it (even though it's hurting no-one , it's an expression of their love and no-one has to watch).

So why do you hesistate whodey? Just label it as sin , unnatural and unscriptural (is it not?) and that such persons would need to be excluded from church if they continued to believe that they were doing no wrong.

Now , step back and think . Why have you not "as yet decided"? Examine yourself here and you will start to see what the whole debate is about.

Originally posted by whodey
I knew this would be your response. Just keep in mind that I take my position only to warn others when I take no joy in telling others that they are in error. After all, who likes to be told they are in error? Who likes being the one to tell people they are in error? You are either rebuked as I am here or people are convicted and they repent. However, if ...[text shortened]... is what is required to do in order to stand up for what I percieve as the truth then so be it!!

I see. So now you're the tortured truth warrior, leading the truth to your fellow men at any cost to your own comfort. That's very interesting...because during the last discussion I remember having with you (which was fairly recent), you basically flat-out said that your primary noetic interest lies in the production of beliefs that make you happy -- not in the production of beliefs that are true ('true', as in corresponding to fact). If your primary focus is still on happiness, then again I'll make this simple for you: rational, social creatures can find happiness in any number of innocuous ways. So, you shouldn't just automatically take it as alarming that others dare to seek happiness in ways that differ from your own preferences. As for your truth warring; as for your "if I am right, then..."; there just aren't any reasons to think you're right. That's what I keep trying to say: you keep failing to present any rational support.

As for offending people, yeah it's offensive to go around leveling flimsy, unfounded judgments and criticisms against others. Start offering some rational support for your stances if you want to be less offensive and yet still vocal: generally, bringing considered argument against another is not offensive. I would say I agree with you that people generally don't like just being told they are in error; but if you can present reasons to show they are in error, then they will probably be more receptive.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I see. So now you're the tortured truth warrior, leading the truth to your fellow men at any cost to your own comfort. That's very interesting...because during the last discussion I remember having with you (which was fairly recent), you basically flat-out said that your primary noetic interest lies in the production of beliefs that make you happy -- [i ...[text shortened]... esent reasons to show they are in error, then they will probably be more receptive.

Christ said that if you know the truth then it can set you free and I equate freedom with happiness.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For example, heterosexuals according to Biblical teachings should suppress their sexual urges at certain times WHODEY

....but no heterosexual was ever asked to become a homosexual thus rebelling against their very nature. Suppression is one thing , negating and doing the opposite is another. If it can be shown that homosexuality has biological cause ...[text shortened]... o be something they are not just because it says so in a book (and for no other apparent reason)

Not so fast. I know of some who have claimed to have been delivered from their homosexual inclinations. Crazy huh? If it is a biological disorder, is it out of the realm of "healing" from Almighty God? Can God heal? It appears to me that God can, in fact, heal as witnessed by the miracles of Christ in the Bible. So according to you, if you believe God can cure, heal, and fix any biological disorder other than ones effecting ones sexual inclination?

I have also seen people who are not of the faith who start off heterosexual and then try a homosexual union and then go back to a heterosexual union. What about them? Perhaps they are 50/50 heterosexual/homosexual. Really for them their is no "good choice". Perhapse they were never meant to have a monogomous union of any sort and should continue to go back and forth as their inclinations influence them? Perhaps God understands their going back and forth?

Originally posted by whodey
Not so fast. I know of some who have claimed to have been delivered from their homosexual inclinations. Crazy huh? If it is a biological disorder, is it out of the realm of "healing" from Almighty God? Can God heal? It appears to me that God can, in fact, heal as witnessed by the miracles of Christ in the Bible. So according to you, if you believe God c ...[text shortened]... h as their inclinations influence them? Perhaps God understands their going back and forth?

However , as we know , not everyone is healed. So if such a person is unhealed what is he to do? Give up on relationships altogether? How does it hurt anyone for such a person to have a relationship. If there is only one or two like this on earth then you have a problem.

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , as we know , not everyone is healed. So if such a person is unhealed what is he to do? Give up on relationships altogether? How does it hurt anyone for such a person to have a relationship. If there is only one or two like this on earth then you have a problem.

What is one to do? One should focus on their relationship with Christ first and foremost obeying the mandate Christ layed before us that we are to love him above all else no matter the cost which includes our very lives. Sometimes I think Christians are soft in this regard. Would we really give our lives for him let alone sexual pursuits that we may interpret as being contrary to his will for us?

Originally posted by whodey
What is one to do? One should focus on their relationship with Christ first and foremost obeying the mandate Christ layed before us that we are to love him above all else no matter the cost which includes our very lives. Sometimes I think Christians are soft in this regard. Would we really give our lives for him let alone sexual pursuits that we may interpret as being contrary to his will for us?

“Above all else?” I don’t think that’s what he said. Besides, if the Christ is the conduit of love, and God is love, then you’re talking, in a sense, of loving love. Loving God is loving the love that enables you to love your neighbor and yourself. Do you get the dynamic there?

Now, I am not talking about simply desire—and neither is KM. But agape includes eros, and any artificial separation is a strictly modern view.

What does Jesus say about love? “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's soul for one's friends.” (John 15:13)

Who are one’s friends? Whomever one loves (think about that!).

There is no conflict between love and righteousness in God: because righteousness bows to love. There is no conflict between love and truth: because truth bows to love. It would be better to say that any act of righteousness that is not first and completely loving is a pseudo-righteousness. And—in this sense, which I think has little to do with propositional truth—the same for truth. The terms, in a sense, become redefined.

I think that KM has not only realized the skandalon here, but in this—and other recent threads—has driven it home powerfully and passionately. He’s been delivering that message in ways that I personally thank him for—because I needed the reminder.

Originally posted by vistesd
There is no conflict between love and righteousness in God: because righteousness bows to love. There is no conflict between love and truth: because truth bows to love. It would be better to say that any act of righteousness that is not first and completely loving is a pseudo-righteousness. And—in this sense, which I think has little to do with propositio ...[text shortened]... n delivering that message in ways that I personally thank him for—because I needed the reminder.[/b]

This is where I derive my theology from in Matthew 10:37

"He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And that does not take up his cross, and follow after me is not worthy of me. He that finds his life will lose it; and he that loses his life for my sake will find it."

In effect, you could replace the term father or mother with any one or anything that you may love above your God. After all, the number one commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Christ even said so on many occasions. In fact, the Bible defines what loving God is in 1 John 5:3

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not burdensome." Christ was quoted as saying the same thing in John 15:10

"If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love; even as I have kept my Fathers commandments, and abide in his love."

For Jesus, his love for the Father surpassed ALL. In fact, he was obsessed with doing the will of the Father as seen in John 7:16-18

"Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. He that speaks of himself speaks his own glory, but he that seeks his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness in him. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keep the law?"

So I would ask what Christ asked concerning homosexuality. Do you seek your own glory or the glory of the Father? Did not Moses give us the law?

As far as the will of God conerning his Son, it is apparent to me that Christ was sent into the world not only to die for us but he probably also felt as though a sexual union was not part of his purpose thus he nailed such natural desires to the cross as well. In effect, he placed the will of his Father above his own in everything he did. This is the example given to us to follow. The only question becomes, what is God's will for us and do we love him above all else to do his will? If we do, we will seek to do his will, and even though his will may be difficult, it is not burdensome because of our love and desire to please him even if it costs us our very lives.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Otherwise ? ....... What ?

Whether its homosexuality or adultery, the principle remains the same. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone "

DO you think there are any senior members of any Church that can say they are without sin ? In the time of Moses they 'stone' and now they 'expel'. Christ says ..... IF YOU HAVE ALSO SINNED YOU CANNOT TOUCH THE SINNER.

The reason should be obvious.

You (... together with a lot of people) are confusing two things: detecting and recognising the sin in a person's behaviour and "judging" someone ( .... by casting a stone for instance).

Christ's statement "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" does not mean that you are not allowed to point out the sinning nature of someone's behaviour.

Maybe there are Protestants churches and sects in the US which expell homosexuals just for being homosexual, but this is certainly not the case for the Roman-Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church's teachings are very clear regarding this point: God loves homosexual people and they are welcome to join the Church, while homosexual acts are sinful. If one wants to live a life of a true Christian then one cannot possibly propagate homosexual acts as being morally good.