Originally posted by twhitehead What in your opinion should the church do to a woman who is married to a very sinful man (an atheist, or known criminal for example). Should she be encouraged to leave her husband?
It depends. Biblically, I would say the woman in question would have the right to leave her husband under certain circumstances such as him having an affair or even physical abuse. In general, however, divorce is discouraged if at all possible but is is allowable under certain circumstances.
Originally posted by Rajk999 Luke 6: 36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Did I say to stone her? Did I say to not be merciful? You must understand that there is a huge difference between condenming people and showing them the truth in love. If I see someone doing something that I feel is Biblically wrong I feel I have a moral obligation to stand up for what I deem is the truth. Did not Jesus do this? However, once you have tried to show them the light, so to speak, it is then up to them in terms of how they recieve what you have said. I think how it recieved is largly due to how it is presented and if they hate the deeds or actions in question. For someone to want to change, the truth must be given in love to promote conviction as well as the persons will to want to change. Both are needed otherwise they will continue in sin despite what any one says or thinks.
Originally posted by whodey Did I say to stone her? Did I say to not be merciful? You must understand that there is a huge difference between condenming people and showing them the truth in love. If I see someone doing something that I feel is Biblically wrong I feel I have a moral obligation to stand up for what I deem is the truth. Did not Jesus do this? However, once you have tr ...[text shortened]... hange. Both are needed otherwise they will continue in sin despite what any one says or thinks.
So Rajk999 and Epiphineas have expressed their opinion. What do
you propose? They said to allow them to attend as is and let their
conscience be their guide to let the spirituality come to them as their
particular situation permits.
As a church member or leader, you would insist that they change their
lifestyle? Or did I misunderstand you?
Originally posted by Nemesio So Rajk999 and Epiphineas have expressed their opinion. What do
you propose? They said to allow them to attend as is and let their
conscience be their guide to let the spirituality come to them as their
particular situation permits.
As a church member or leader, you would insist that they change their
lifestyle? Or did I misunderstand you?
Nemesio
If I were a church leader or member, I don't think disallowing any one from attending church does any good whatsoever. I would, however, stand up for the truth if and when confronted by issues of concern. Having said that, do realize there is a big difference between attending church and becoming a member.
However, if those in question were church leaders or people in positions of influence or church members, then perhaps I would be inclined to remove them or ask them to step down. I feel as though when one becomes a member of a church or church leader, the theology of that church should be spelled out and/or one must agree with certain expectations and beliefs that are deemed of vital importance to the Christian faith in order to join a particular church. In other words, I believe that there should be ground rules set up befor joining a church. It is like a marriage. Both require a comittment, or at least should. There are certain expectations that should be spelled out for both parties involved or why join anything? If not then do not cry foul if and when either party is percieved to have gone awry.
Originally posted by whodey Christ did not dispute their right to do so under the Mosaic law did he? He was simply showing them a better way of destroying the sin without destroying the sinner. Through the power of Christ to break the chains of sin in our lives this is possible.
So if the Church members do stone her (as they have a right to) would that be a sin?
Originally posted by whodey If I were a church leader or member, I don't think disallowing any one from attending church does any good whatsoever. I would, however, stand up for the truth if and when confronted by issues of concern.
But you would be confronted by the truth of their situation every time
you attended church with them?
As a member, would you oppose their joining the church?
As a church leader, would you disallow their joining?
It would seem that Rajk999 and Epiphineas would answer both of these
question as 'no' (unless I have misunderstood them).
No other Christians have an opinion on this matter?
Homosexuals probably wouldnt want to join a church simply because they believe most Christians are homophobs, however as a church going christian I have had several gay friends and would not abandon them. In the old testament God says that it is a sin for a man to lay with another man, take the story of Sodom. However if one was converted the church might try to convert the partner. With the adultering woman it would seem that to cast the first stone you must be free of sin yourself, I believe no man or woman can do that (think original sin)
Originally posted by twhitehead So if the Church members do stone her (as they have a right to) would that be a sin?
I think Dudefromabove reminded us that Christ said in John 8:7 .......He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
So that effectively voids the Mosaic law about stoning.
i do try lol, although I do not know anything about mosaic law, I do know that Jesus told here not to sin again (slight impossibility) but no other punishment came from it that we know of
Originally posted by Rajk999 I think Dudefromabove reminded us that Christ said in John 8:7 .......He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
So that effectively voids the Mosaic law about stoning.
What was Christ voiding? Is it the command not to commit adultery? No. In fact, he was only revealing a new tactic to fight sin in peoples by destroying the sin without destroying the sinner.
What seperates us from God? Is it not sin? Therefore, both the Mosaic law and deleverence from sin through Christ both adress this issue.
Originally posted by Nemesio But you would be confronted by the truth of their situation every time
you attended church with them?
As a member, would you oppose their joining the church?
As a church leader, would you disallow their joining?
It would seem that Rajk999 and Epiphineas would answer both of these
question as 'no' (unless I have misunderstood them).
No other Christians have an opinion on this matter?
Nemesio
What I am saying is that the church in question should reveal to its prospective members what the core beliefs are and what expectations are for joining the church. If those people then join the church and later decide to openly denounce the core beliefs they once chose to embrace by joining the church and/or openly do not meet expectations agreed to when joining the church then they should be dealt with accordingly.
Originally posted by whodey What I am saying is that the church in question should reveal to its prospective members what the core beliefs are and what expectations are for joining the church. If those people then join the church and later decide to openly denounce the core beliefs they once chose to embrace by joining the church and/or openly do not meet expectations agreed to when joining the church then they should be dealt with accordingly.
So, to my two questions, your answer is yes and yes, correct?
The core belief that sexual sin will not be tolerated in those seeking
Christ?
Originally posted by whodey Christ did not dispute their right to do so under the Mosaic law did he?
Was Christ negating the Mosaic law altogether and implying that it was OK to commit adultery?
Christ was ushering in a new era of grace. Therefore, to ignore or disbelieve this I believe would be sinful.
You seem to be changing your position. First you say they have the right to stone the woman then you say they haven't.
Are you saying that the law that adultery is wrong remains but the prescribed punishment has been changed? Is the new punishment to leave her alone as Jesus did? Should the same apply to homosexuals?
What about other sins like murder?