# Acceptable sins



## Artfuldodger (Jul 9, 2012)

We as Christians don't have a problem with drunkards & fornicators being labeled as being really bad sinners. Certain sins today such as envy, greed, pride, lust, and jealously are more acceptable. Sodom was destroyed in part because the people had prospered and neglected their poor and needy. 
I must say i've heard more sermons preaching against these types of sins than adultry, murder, false idols, etc. which is a good thing.


----------



## barryl (Jul 10, 2012)

I know exactly what you are talking about, not just any church, but ALL churches !! It's called selective sin{my name for it}If you aren't goin to preach on it all,don't step into the pulpit! As long as you point that finger away from yourself ?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 10, 2012)

If anyone needs a preacher to preach about sins, then he is void of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit convicts me at the momment. I don't need to wait until sunday morning


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Sodom was destroyed in part because the people had prospered and neglected their poor and needy.



Really?  

I don't think that is why Sodom was destroyed.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> I don't think that is why Sodom was destroyed.



It was the gayness that did them in.  But, if you look at the OT as a whole, God destroyed the whole world for all sin.  

Anyway, to the point of the OP, my confusion is in the way each seems to be given a different level of "evil."  Gossip, for instance, seems to be a relatively common stumbling block.  However, I do not see a public movement to stop the "advancement of the pro-gossip agenda."


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 10, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?
> 
> I don't think that is why Sodom was destroyed.



me either.... ever heard of Sodomy?

There is a reason they sound so much alike.

Pappy


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Well, I don't think people view drunkards or fornicators as less evils...so I guess I disagree with the OP on all fronts


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Well, I don't think people view drunkards or fornicators as less evils...



Depends on the way a person fornicates, I guess.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Depends on the way a person fornicates, I guess.



Not really.  Lust is lust.  


I think it is a good reminder to realize the pain and suffering that God went through to sacrifice His Son on the cross for our sins.  

Kinda like punishing our own children.  Not fun to do.  Can you imagine punishing your child for something they didn't do...but what some other punk kindergartener did?

And then...to think God's forgiven me...yet I have trouble forgiving others?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> And then...to think God's forgiven me...yet I have trouble forgiving others?



I have problems letting things go, for sure.  Good thoughts.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Not really.  Lust is lust.



Eh, we could probably drag this thread way off course here.  I agree with your statement.  Just disagree with the concept that folks seem to view all "lust" as equal.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I have problems letting things go, for sure.  Good thoughts.



Me too.  Definitely been something that God has been trying to teach me recently.



JB0704 said:


> Eh, we could probably drag this thread way off course here.  I agree with your statement.  Just disagree with the concept that folks seem to view all "lust" as equal.




I agree that most probably don't.  As far as drunkards and fornicators though....I dunno.  Just look at how far the SBC goes with drinking.


----------



## TTom (Jul 10, 2012)

Lets ask the Bible why Sodom was destroyed.

1. The decision to destroy Sodom was made BEFORE the angels went to Lot's house so even if we assume that the mob's intent to "know" the angels means sexually (which is open to debate) it cannot be the reason for destruction, as it happened AFTER the decision was made.  

Gen 18 at Abraham's request God said if he could find 10 righteous men in Sodom he would not destroy it. He didn't say 10 heterosexual men, he said righteous and we all know that standard is pretty high. 

Secondly and more precisely to the point of the OP:

2. Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

So RJcruiser you can argue against Ezekiel if you wish, but Artfuldodger has the right of this.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 10, 2012)

TTom said:


> ... Artfuldodger has the right of this.



I disagree.

Here's the rest of the Ezekiel passage:

 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." 

Compare that with Leviticus 18:22:

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

... and with Jude:

" ... just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

This "S&G were destroyed because they were inhospitable" argument is just sophistry.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 10, 2012)

barryl said:


> I know exactly what you are talking about, not just any church, but ALL churches !! It's called selective sin{my name for it}If you aren't goin to preach on it all,don't step into the pulpit! As long as you point that finger away from yourself ?



This is more what I was wanting to discuss but i'm ok with the Sodom discussion too since the OP did mention Sodom.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 10, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Well, I don't think people view drunkards or fornicators as less evils...so I guess I disagree with the OP on all fronts



The point I was making was that drunkards & fornicators are looked down upon or thought less of than gossipers & gluttons.


----------



## TTom (Jul 10, 2012)

Centerpin fan you failed to read the OP closely though

Artfulldodger said :

"Sodom was destroyed in part because the people had prospered and neglected their poor and needy. "

So I reassert that Artfuldodger has the right of it.

As to the rest of the context there are 60 or so abominations available in Leviticus and elsewhere that could be plugged in to the passage. 

Additionally you ignored the primary point that the decision was made BEFORE the angels even went to the city.

The reasons that are attributed to god himself are the hue and cry about the wickedness of the city. (the nature of that wickedness is undisclosed)


20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

"What they (Sodom)have done" is past tense and thus the decision to destroy Sodom had already been made, based on previous behavior.

The angels were dispatched to save Lot and see if they could find the 9 other righteous men.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 10, 2012)

TTom said:


> Centerpin fan you failed to read the OP closely though ...



I read it very closely.  I just disagreed with it.  If S&G were destroyed for being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned", then what city is safe?


----------



## TTom (Jul 10, 2012)

Artfuldodger, I agree there is a selectivness to the amount of time some churches spend on various sins. Some will spend weeks discussing the evils of drinking and fornication and a comparatively small amount of time discussing sins such as failure to help the poor. 

In part though that comes from the fact that some sins tend to create something like "compound interest" in the way of sin.

The sin of drinking might lead to fornication which may lead to ignoring other duties we have to our fellow man. So although they don't always do a good job of explaining it spending more time on sins that tend to create that "compound interest" effect seems perfectly logical. Now if they would only explain it that way so the people will understand.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 10, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Here's the rest of the Ezekiel passage:
> 
> ...



Are you trying to say sleeping with a man is the only "detestable" thing to God?

Here is something I just read:
Ezekiel 16:49-50:


Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
What reasons does this passage give about Sodom? They were proud and arrogant. They had fulness of bread, in other words they were self-indulgent. Abundance of idleness - they were lazy. They assumed NO responsibility for poor people, they had no social conscience. They were haughty - "stuck-up" with an attitude of superiority, arrogant. They committed "abomination" before God ("to'ebah," something disgusting, especially idolatry.) Abomination included such things as eating shrimp or catfish, and having sex while the wife was having her period. A disobedient child was an abomination to God and was supposed to be stoned to death! The list goes on forever.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 10, 2012)

As to the rest of the context there are 60 or so abominations available in Leviticus and elsewhere that could be plugged in to the passage.  ... but the one applicable to S&G is homosexuality.

Additionally you ignored the primary point that the decision was made BEFORE the angels even went to the city.  Again, I didn't ignore it.  I just disagreed with it.  The decision made beforehand was because rampant homosexuality was SOP in S&G. 

The reasons that are attributed to god himself are the hue and cry about the wickedness of the city. (the nature of that wickedness is undisclosed) You can't be serious.

20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

"What they (Sodom)have done" is past tense and thus the decision to destroy Sodom had already been made, based on previous behavior.  Yes, previous homosexuality.


----------



## TTom (Jul 10, 2012)

I have seen nothing to back your position that is convincing at all.
We have an impass and yes I am entirely serious 

So those other sins that Ezekiel mentioned were just throw away sins? They didn't matter? They were not part of the reason for the destruction? Then why did Ezekiel, a major league profit, bother to mention them?

You can't be serious.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 10, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Here is something I just read:
> Ezekiel 16:49-50:
> 
> 
> ...



Did you happen to read that on whosoever.org, "the online magazine for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Christians"?  I did a quick Google search, and that was the first thing that popped up.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 10, 2012)

TTom said:


> We have an impass ...



We usually do on these "gay is OK" threads.


----------



## TTom (Jul 10, 2012)

Lets look at this for a second more.
We have what 5 entire cities, S&G and three other cities on that plain were set to be destroyed.

And your contention is that the entire population of those 5 cities were homosexuals?  Do you realize how incredibly close to impossible that would be, to populate 5 entire Old Testament cities with nothing but homosexuals? That would require a miracle level act to pull off.

Additionally one city originally set for destruction (Zoar) was given a reprieve. If it were full of homosexuals only why the reprieve? 

BTW the angels only went to Sodom and thus the engagement at Lot's door would not apply to any of the 4 other cities. 

The idea that homosexuality was the reason for S&G destruction is so full of holes.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Wow.  This went way off tangent 

But...I guess....what thread in here hasn't.

TTom...I think you're reading/interpreting scripture to justify your position.

Look at Sodom from the other point.  What did God tell Abraham as far as how to save it?  Abraham begged God to save the city if what?  He could find 50 upright God fearing men.  Abraham was able to get that number down to 10 and still couldn't do it.

Regardless of the homosexuals in Sodom...the lazy in Sodom...the inhospitable in Sodom....the city was a downright nasty place....and that is why it was destroyed.



Artful...I see your point now...I read it the exact opposite of how you intended.  I'd agree that some churches preach that way to support the entertainment value that their congregation gets.  Wouldn't want to confront pew and coffer fillers.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 10, 2012)

TTom said:


> Then why did Ezekiel, a major league profit, bother to mention them?



Maybe because he couldn't begin to fathom that, a few thousand years in the future, there would actually be a question as to why S&G were destroyed.

Further, why did Jude not mention them?  Also, if the reason was "arrogance", why not just leave it at that?  Why does he add the "detestable" sins S&G were guilty of?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 10, 2012)

TTom said:


> And your contention is that the entire population of those 5 cities were homosexuals?



No.  I'm only saying that the sin was rampant.




TTom said:


> The idea that homosexuality was the reason for S&G destruction is so full of holes.



The idea that it was not is just _ridiculous_.  Nobody in 2,000 years of church history even suggested such a thing until about the 1960's.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 10, 2012)

> We as Christians don't have a problem with drunkards & fornicators being labeled as being really bad sinners. Certain sins today such as envy, greed, pride, lust, and jealously are more acceptable. Sodom was destroyed in part because the people had prospered and neglected their poor and needy.
> I must say i've heard more sermons preaching against these types of sins than adultry, murder, false idols, etc. which is a good thing.



How 'bout we start this post with "Some Christians" and not "We as Christians".

"We" don't think that....you might....others might....but "We" definitely do not.


----------



## TTom (Jul 10, 2012)

rjcruiser, my position is closer to your last post than you may think.

I would agree that Sodom was destroyed for a long list of sins and wickedness, and that it was a downright nasty place. 

It actually relates entirely to the main point of the OP though.
Why are the lists of "other sins" ignored? Why when we hear preaching about S&G do we never hear about all the other forms of wickedness that have biblical backing that are cited by a major Prophet as being at the very least specifically cited reasons for their destruction? Instead we have an interpretation that this abomination was one specific one from the list of 60 some abominations, to the exclusion of the other reasons.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 10, 2012)

This is from a thread I started back in 2010.  Similar direction as this one...but from a different angle.

To a degree, I believe there is some justification for considering some sins "bigger" than others...biblically I mean.



> I was listening to a sermon this morning on the way to work and was convinced that I've been wrong about something for a very long time. So I wanted to ask you guys this question:
> 
> Is sin all the the same? We've been convinced over time that "sin is sin". I think that's the basic belief that most in Christian churches would tell you they hold. All sin is sin...there are not degrees of sin (in fact, if you search my posts I'm sure I've said that several times over the years).
> 
> ...



Let me be clear though...no sin is "acceptable" as the thread title suggests.  Not one.  I agree that some seem to be glossed over in most churches.  It's likely one of the reasons that the Church (cap C) is in the weakened state it is in right now.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 10, 2012)

TTom said:


> rjcruiser, my position is closer to your last post than you may think.
> 
> I would agree that Sodom was destroyed for a long list of sins and wickedness, and that it was a downright nasty place.
> 
> ...



Probably because of what the men of the city tried to do to the men of God when they went to visit Lot.

Probably because when Lot offered them women, they refused..wanting the men of God instead.

Probably because of the origin of the english word sodomy.

But...I don't ever think I've heard it preached that there was just one reason/sin as to why S&G was destroyed.


I think what it shows though, was that this town or group of towns was so far gone in its sin that sodomy and homosexuality was the norm.  In my mind, sins of that nature are so gross and so against the rules of creation/nature that one has to have given into so much to perform them.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 10, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> We as Christians don't have a problem with drunkards & fornicators being labeled as being really bad sinners. Certain sins today such as envy, greed, pride, lust, and jealously are more acceptable. Sodom was destroyed in part because the people had prospered and neglected their poor and needy.
> I must say i've heard more sermons preaching against these types of sins than adultry, murder, false idols, etc. which is a good thing.



Not from me or most of the other preachers I know.
The greatest sin I preach is the sin of lukewarmness.  Christian laziness.  Christian worldliness.

I teach the positive aspect of a good marriage rather than adultery.  I teach the goodness of iced tea rather than the evils of drunkenness.

The greatest sin for Christians is normal whatever sin the other folks are committing that I am not.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Jul 10, 2012)

It was CHRIST himself that said the well have no need of a physician. To step into the pulpit on  Sunday morning and flail away on adultry is not something I'd call wrong, but perhaps less than prudent. For the Sunday morning crowd, which in the average Church is the largest service, likely to contain the unsaved, I choose to preach the TRUTH, but it can be done more gently. My goal is to win them to the Lord. When a person gets SAVED you should start seeing them Sunday night and Wednesday night. These are the occasions I would spend more time teaching doctrine. To present a sermon on adultry Sunday morning would often be akin to feeding Babes in Christ " Spiritual Meat" they are not yet prepared to digest. I've seen a few New Converts sail into a study of Revelation. Never works out well. I'll remind you in I Corinthians 14 the great Apostle Paul reminds us what preaching is for. Edification of those hearing it. Such a sermon as has herein been proposed might edify the mature Christian, however I'd suggest they are the very ones that least need to hear it. When the Lord Blesses a young couple with a new baby, thay don't set it at the table and feed it from the families menu. They use baby food, or formula, or perhaps Mom feeds the infant the way the Lord intended naturally. There is a lesson here for us. Let the babes grow and mature, and desciple them accordingly. I've seen a harvest of green fruit. It is always bitter. God Bless.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 10, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> This is from a thread I started back in 2010.  Similar direction as this one...but from a different angle.
> 
> To a degree, I believe there is some justification for considering some sins "bigger" than others...biblically I mean.
> 
> ...



Right on.
No sin is acceptable.  No sin is proper.
No one should be comfortable with any sin.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 10, 2012)

Rom 14:23b
"... and whatever is not from faith is sin."

Now that's one to consider. 
Even a good deed will not have a reward where there is no faith/dependence/trust/abiding...

He calls us to Himself in ALL things.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 10, 2012)

Sodom was never meant to be a picture of how God hates the wickedness of vile sins. It is meant to be a picture of those running after preachers instead of Christ. For example, Many follow Joel rather than Christ. This sounds like a rant, but ALL the OT stories are picturistic of that which is to come.


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 10, 2012)

We all talk a big game but our actions speak
much louder than our words. 

S&G was destroyed because of their sins,
grevious sins.

Our problem is, and not just some Churches
but most people, we have drifted and let
society set the standards for sin. 

We think we have a balance scale mounted
in our mind that weighs sins, we think some
are heavier than others and we in turn live
in that way.

What does it matter which individual sin
the cities destroyed for, it was sin that
was set forth by God. 

And just for the record they were not
destroyed because of their sin, they were
destroyed because they refused to repent.
The only sin that is unforgiveable.


----------



## Israel (Jul 11, 2012)

being lovers of pleasure...

self indulgence will manifest itself...

the fact that God lets it get to the point where it is open, bare, irrefutable, and plain...is his mercy...so that we do not argue against his righteous judgment.
But, it all begins with refusing the truth of the Lord Jesus to whatever extent we have witnessed it...and to live for ourselves

Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness is as simple as the undealt with thought..."I have suffered something more than others...and therefore I am entitled to that last bit of cake..." 

That little lock box of excuses of why we are "more" entitled to anything...gets exposed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2012)

TTom said:


> I have seen nothing to back your position that is convincing at all.
> We have an impass and yes I am entirely serious
> 
> So those other sins that Ezekiel mentioned were just throw away sins? They didn't matter? They were not part of the reason for the destruction? Then why did Ezekiel, a major league profit, bother to mention them?
> ...



And why did he mention them first. Not helping people who are poor & needy is just as bad as laying with a man. 
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." 
Sodom was destroyed for "all of the above." I can imagine Sodom being a "detestable" place to be. Like one of those pirate towns or gold prostector towns with all sorts of carnage going on.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> How 'bout we start this post with "Some Christians" and not "We as Christians".
> 
> "We" don't think that....you might....others might....but "We" definitely do not.



You are correct, I should have not even mentioned Christians at all. Something on the line of what society feels would have been better. Even non christians no what sins are. 
I realize murder and rape are worse than cheating and lust.
I would think most preachers would try to help us overcome the sins we are most likely to commit sush as the one's I mentioned. Most Christians aren't going to commit murder and rape anyway.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 13, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Me too.  Definitely been something that God has been trying to teach me recently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The SBC position is quite simple. It is far easier to abstain than to treat the dire social consequences we face as a community from either behavior. 

Does abstaining from beverage alcohol truly pose an imposition? Not if that is your personal choice. 

Would it have been of net benefit if such had never been the experience of mankind?  Probably, when we consider the destruction (directly or indirectly) of individuals and families from such indulgence.

The social argument is not about those that drink responsibly, but those who will not or can not do so.

I am at a loss to understand where you are on responsible fornication and irresponsible fornication. Can adultery fit into either classification?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 13, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> I agree that most probably don't.  As far as drunkards and fornicators though....I dunno.  Just look at how far the SBC goes with drinking.





gtparts said:


> The SBC position is quite simple. It is far easier to abstain than to treat the dire social consequences we face as a community from either behavior.
> 
> Does abstaining from beverage alcohol truly pose an imposition? Not if that is your personal choice.
> 
> ...



The problem with the SBC position (whether that be the official or unofficial position) is that it just isn't Biblical.  The Bible says to not be drunk....not to abstain.  To me, whether your adding to scripture to "keep from further problems" or not, doesn't justify doing so.




gtparts said:


> I am at a loss to understand where you are on responsible fornication and irresponsible fornication. Can adultery fit into either classification?




Go back and read my quote.  Never said anything about responsible fornication.  Just that I was unsure that some view all forms of drunkards and all forms of fornicators as being equal.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jul 13, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> How 'bout we start this post with "Some Christians" and not "We as Christians".
> 
> "We" don't think that....you might....others might....but "We" definitely do not.



Thanks for this post. I don't really like being lumped in with the "we" that represents Christianity in this forum, or this country for that matter. 

I would much prefer to standon my own opinion and let others do the same.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jul 13, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Right on.
> No sin is acceptable.  No sin is proper.
> No one should be comfortable with any sin.



I agree with this as well. Couldn't have said it any better, so I won't.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 13, 2012)

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Ecc 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.
There is no doubt with most of us that we sin but what about the "fall short of the glory of God" part? 
Romans 3:24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
We have all sinned and we are all  "Justified Freely by His Grace."
This is another example that salvation is  available to all who seek.
Justified means Jesus made it possible.
Part of all this and also mentioned in the Bible is the Wrath of God.
I guess i'm trying to figure out how short Christians "fall short of the glory of God?" I don't believe in "OSAS" so it's a little harder for me to get to Heaven than some of ya'll.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 13, 2012)

TTom said:


> Lets ask the Bible why Sodom was destroyed.
> 
> 1. The decision to destroy Sodom was made BEFORE the angels went to Lot's house so even if we assume that the mob's intent to "know" the angels means sexually (which is open to debate) it cannot be the reason for destruction, as it happened AFTER the decision was made.
> 
> ...



We know what the term "know" meant, because it had been used in previous books and chapters. It always meant to have sex. Even Lot acknowledges this when he offered his daughters to the men. 

Do you honestly think this was the first time these men had practiced sodomy?  Not a chance. It was one reason God was judging the city.  I would agree the decision was made before this occurance, but the act was rampant before the decision was made.

I didn't say this was the only reason Sodom was destroyed, only that this is the origin of the word sodomy, and with good reason. 

Pappy ---- sorry, I didn't read down and see others had posted the same thoughts.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 14, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> The problem with the SBC position (whether that be the official or unofficial position) is that it just isn't Biblical.  The Bible says to not be drunk....not to abstain.  To me, whether your adding to scripture to "keep from further problems" or not, doesn't justify doing so.



Do you abstain from things that are not explicitly identified as sin in Scripture? Is it wrong to observe practices that safeguard you and others from danger and destruction?. Some things are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture that are of personal and communal benefit. Why would you poke those who see this matter reflected in Scripture? Remember, the SBC is comprised of people, your Christian brothers and sisters. As for their official position, they have Scripture and practical experience which informs them that abstinence makes more sense than dabbling with the possibility of stumbling or causing another to stumble. (This applies to any number of behaviors.) 
Regardless, the SBC imposes nothing on anyone nor can they. Membership is comprised of like-minded churches. Membership is absolutely voluntary and revokable by either party. Their stance on beverage alcohol and virtually every other major faith issue is a matter of public record. If you don't care to participate in an SBC church, then don't. But, the obvious attempts at denigrating a body of Christ-followers needs to stop.


Truly, what is sin for one is not sin for another. Perhaps taking shots at other Christian denominations is ok where you attend and practice your faith. 





> Go back and read my quote.  Never said anything about responsible fornication.  Just that I was unsure that some view all forms of drunkards and all forms of fornicators as being equal.



I'm surprised. You are usually sharper. Having an off day?
The reference to responsible and irresponsible fornication was to point out the spurious contention of some that there is responsible and irresponsible beverage alcohol consumption. Perhaps if a child of yours becomes a raging alcoholic in their teens or college years, you will see the wisdom of discouraging the practice. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Are you willing to jeopardize your own children?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2012)

Did the men who went to Lot's house want to have sex with Angels or did they think they were just strangers? Why would Lot offer his daughters instead?
Sodomy covers some acts that a man could also perform with his wife. Do you consider the acts between a man & a woman to be as sinful as between two men?
I often wondered why Lot lived in such a terrible place. With all the bad things happening in Sodom, the un-natural sex acts were just another bad thing heppening. Strangers(men) were often raped to keep them away. Were these men gay or just wanting to rape men?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2012)

Here is a Jewish view of Sodom:

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Not at all. Rather, the cities were destroyed because the inhabitents were nasty, depraved, and uncompromisingly greedy. Classical Jewish writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were, among others, terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and to outsiders. Saying "God killed them because they were gay" is, to say the least, not the Jewish teaching on the subject.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 14, 2012)

gtparts said:


> As for their official position, they have Scripture and practical experience which informs them that abstinence makes more sense than dabbling with the possibility of stumbling or causing another to stumble. (This applies to any number of behaviors.)
> 
> Truly, what is sin for one is not sin for another. Perhaps taking shots at other Christian denominations is ok where you attend and practice your faith.



Nothing wrong with abstinence but I have heard preachers tell the congregation that drinking is a sin. They try to bind the conscience with legalism. That in itself is more dangerous than the drinking.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 14, 2012)

Although I do not believe drinking a beer is a sin, and I know the Bible doesn't describe an alcoholic drink as a sin, I always have a little smile when I hear another Christian defend their right to fulfill their American rights as a man to hang around with the guys and drink beer on Saturday afternoon.

I think a lot of it has to do with a Christian's world view.  Does a Christian consider themselves to be different from people in the world?  Does a Christian think that God expects them to be different from the thinking of the world?

Paul said he had the freedom to do all things, but life in Christ wasn,t about doing everything he could.  Paul thought a person should consider the ramifications of everything they do.

I would never call a Christian drinker a sinner, I just smile when I hear the subject brought up.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Here is a Jewish view of Sodom:
> 
> http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html
> 
> Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Not at all. Rather, the cities were destroyed because the inhabitents were nasty, depraved, and uncompromisingly greedy. Classical Jewish writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were, among others, terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and to outsiders. Saying "God killed them because they were gay" is, to say the least, not the Jewish teaching on the subject.



You need to read my last post again.  I said that sodomy was not the only reason the cities were destroyed, but to make out like homosexuallity was not rampant there is just not being truthful. 

Lot lived in Sodom because he was greedy. When Abraham asked where he wanted to live, Lot chose the valley that looked to provide him with the best income. He chose Sodom out of greed.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I often wondered why Lot lived in such a terrible place.



Maybe Lot grew up in Detroit, and he was looking for greener pastures.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Maybe Lot grew up in Detroit, and he was looking for greener pastures.



Got a chuckle out of me with that one.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Maybe Lot grew up in Detroit, and he was looking for greener pastures.



good response


----------



## Mako22 (Jul 14, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?
> 
> I don't think that is why Sodom was destroyed.



Oh this is the standard pro-homo interpretation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2012)

I don't take a pro or anti homo stand. If God destroyed Sodom because it was the capital of the Queer Nation then so be it. I just think it was one of the many wicked things that was going on. It might have been all the Father rapers in Sodom. You know they are the most evil of all the rapers.


----------



## Israel (Jul 15, 2012)

Unrestricted self indulgence will always lead to abomination...


----------



## gtparts (Jul 16, 2012)

If we go back to the OP, we might want to look at the justifications given for sin. Is once just a minor slip-up? How about twice?
Are some sins, viewed from the human perspective, less revolting or heinous?

The heart bent toward sin will always find some excuse for its actions. But, God can, has, and will deal with all unrepented sin. Seems kind of foolish to quibble over the specific nature of rebellion against God... or second-guess His judgments.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 16, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Although I do not believe drinking a beer is a sin, and I know the Bible doesn't describe an alcoholic drink as a sin, I always have a little smile when I hear another Christian defend their right to fulfill their American rights as a man to hang around with the guys and drink beer on Saturday afternoon.



If you don't have liberty to do it, don't. But please, in your haste to run away from it, try not to spill my rum and coke or step on my fine cigar.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Nothing wrong with abstinence but I have heard preachers tell the congregation that drinking is a sin. They try to bind the conscience with legalism. That in itself is more dangerous than the drinking.





gemcgrew said:


> If you don't have liberty to do it, don't. But please, in your haste to run away from it, try not to spill my rum and coke or step on my fine cigar.



We (all Christians) are called to live as Christ loved others. With that in mind, it is an obligation of our commitment to Him (if He is Lord, surely we are His bond servants, willing slaves) that we consider others before we assert our personal rights or freedoms.

 How sad to think one might have to face Jesus and give reason for someone stumbling because of the example we set in life, knowing that we exercised our freedom at their expense.

The prospect of being accorded something worse than a millstone around the neck for the verbal or visual counsel we give should not be taken lightly.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 16, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Do you abstain from things that are not explicitly identified as sin in Scripture? Is it wrong to observe practices that safeguard you and others from danger and destruction?. Some things are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture that are of personal and communal benefit. Why would you poke those who see this matter reflected in Scripture? Remember, the SBC is comprised of people, your Christian brothers and sisters. As for their official position, they have Scripture and practical experience which informs them that abstinence makes more sense than dabbling with the possibility of stumbling or causing another to stumble. (This applies to any number of behaviors.)
> Regardless, the SBC imposes nothing on anyone nor can they. Membership is comprised of like-minded churches. Membership is absolutely voluntary and revokable by either party. Their stance on beverage alcohol and virtually every other major faith issue is a matter of public record. If you don't care to participate in an SBC church, then don't. But, the obvious attempts at denigrating a body of Christ-followers needs to stop.



I will point out Biblical error in any denomination including the SBC, if that is where it is located.  And yes, I've been a part of an SBC church where the pastor wrote the by-laws and included partaking any alcohol as well as visiting any restaurant that served it as a sin and an offense that would cause one to be disciplined by the church.  

Things like that are not found in scripture.  

Just as you posted above, it is adding to scripture....and a very similar position to the pharisees in Christ's time.



gtparts said:


> Truly, what is sin for one is not sin for another. Perhaps taking shots at other Christian denominations is ok where you attend and practice your faith.



Taking shots? or pointing out error?  Whether it be the SBC, the UMC, Catholicism, Mormonism...I will point out the issues I have with all of them if it is unBiblical.  In this case, it is the legalism of the SBC.  

Let me ask you this.  Where do you draw the line with alcohol?  Total abstinence?  What about for health reasons?  What about one drink a week?  A glass of wine?



gtparts said:


> I'm surprised. You are usually sharper. Having an off day?
> The reference to responsible and irresponsible fornication was to point out the spurious contention of some that there is responsible and irresponsible beverage alcohol consumption. Perhaps if a child of yours becomes a raging alcoholic in their teens or college years, you will see the wisdom of discouraging the practice. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Are you willing to jeopardize your own children?



There is absolutely responsible and irresponsible alcohol consumption.  Taking cough syrup....responsible.  Having a glass of wine with dinner...responsible.  Having a beer with pizza...responsible.  Drinking a 12 pack on an empty stomach...irresponsible.

Please tell me how having a glass of wine or having cough syrup jeopardizes my children?



gemcgrew said:


> Nothing wrong with abstinence but I have heard preachers tell the congregation that drinking is a sin. They try to bind the conscience with legalism. That in itself is more dangerous than the drinking.



Bingo.  Legalism.  Wonder what Christ had to say about that....hmmm...I actually think he spent more time condemning that then he did alcohol 



Woodsman69 said:


> Oh this is the standard pro-homo interpretation.





Please....if you'd read my position within this thread and others, you'd realize that I'm not a pro-homo Christian.



gemcgrew said:


> If you don't have liberty to do it, don't. But please, in your haste to run away from it, try not to spill my rum and coke or step on my fine cigar.







gtparts said:


> We (all Christians) are called to live as Christ loved others. With that in mind, it is an obligation of our commitment to Him (if He is Lord, surely we are His bond servants, willing slaves) that we consider others before we assert our personal rights or freedoms.
> 
> How sad to think one might have to face Jesus and give reason for someone stumbling because of the example we set in life, knowing that we exercised our freedom at their expense.



Amazing.....drinking can be a stumbling block...but legalism and forcing extra Biblical preferences on people is somehow okay in the name of "personal holiness."


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 16, 2012)

gtparts said:


> How sad to think one might have to face Jesus and give reason for someone stumbling because of the example we set in life, knowing that we exercised our freedom at their expense.



Exercising freedom sometimes exposes the hypocrisy of legalist religion. Why do you suppose Jesus performed many miracles on the sabbath?

While enjoying fine tobacco, I have had many opportunities to witness to religious legalist.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 16, 2012)

Romans 14:21  It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

And not only your brother, but everyone else in the world.  
Drinking alcohol now creates many problems in American society.  It isn't just a freedom for Christian men to assert their Christian "freedom"(whatever that means).  It has now become a doorway into our young men and women destroying their lives and the lives of others.

I just think a Christian should be prudent in those things they are free to do.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2012)

There is a flip side to all of this......what if legalism causes a person to stumble?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Romans 14:21  It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
> 
> And not only your brother, but everyone else in the world.
> Drinking alcohol now creates many problems in American society.  It isn't just a freedom for Christian men to assert their Christian "freedom"(whatever that means).  It has now become a doorway into our young men and women destroying their lives and the lives of others.
> ...



Wonder why alcohol causes more problems in America than in other countries where they drink more alcohol?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> There is a flip side to all of this......what if legalism causes a person to stumble?



That would fall under the "anything else" mentioned in 14:21. But we are misusing the text to squeeze in legalism.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Bingo.  Legalism.  Wonder what Christ had to say about that....hmmm...I actually think he spent more time condemning that then he did alcohol



The more I realized the point above, the more I wanted to learn about him.  I grew up being taught the angry / condemning Jesus who was perched on his thrown waiting to toss the evil consumers of beer, cigars, etc. into he11.

Then, I actually read the gospel smyself, and saw a very different picture.



rjcruiser said:


> Amazing.....drinking can be a stumbling block...but legalism and forcing extra Biblical preferences on people is somehow okay in the name of "personal holiness."



I would venture to say that the stuff highlighted above pushes more folks away than me having a beer and a smuggled Cuban cigar on my back porch does.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 16, 2012)

.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm always somewhat amused by overweight Christians that condemn drunkards.

Its always the other guys sin that is bad.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 16, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm always somewhat amused by overweight Christians that condemn drunkards.
> 
> Its always the other guys sin that is bad.



Except, the Bible condemns one but not the other.

But I didn't think we were discussing drunkards.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 16, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Except, the Bible condemns one but not the other.
> 
> But I didn't think we were discussing drunkards.



There's nothing in your bible about gluttons?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2012)

Gluttony is an acceptable sin, over-drinking is viewed as a terrible sin. Drinking alcohol isn't a sin.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2012)

Proverbs 23:2
New International Version (©1984)
and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 16, 2012)

Well artfuldodger....I guess it took you over a weak to get your answer....but I guess you're right.  Some sins are overlooked by Christians while others are condemned.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Gluttony is an acceptable sin, over-drinking is viewed as a terrible sin. Drinking alcohol isn't a sin.



This is the point I was making, Gluttony is acceptable to man. But to God?

http://www.gotquestions.org/gluttony-sin.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Well artfuldodger....I guess it took you over a weak to get your answer....but I guess you're right.  Some sins are overlooked by Christians while others are condemned.



And what is acceptable is related to what the current preacher thinks. We had a preacher that said, you shouldn't shop or go to restaurants on Sunday. My family quit running to the store for bread. (we didn't go out to eat much anyway)
We got a new preacher and started back shopping on Sunday. We had another preacher who preached about doing worldly things on Sunday so we stayed home and napped. Mom & Dad liked that better than us kids. That's probably where legalism comes into play. There is nothing wrong following the rules but the "rules" should not overshadow the true meaning of the New Covenant which is basically "love".


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Jul 16, 2012)

Sin is sin.. by beliefe in God and that Jesus Christ is His Son, we are forgiven for our sins. Something is either sinful, or not sinful. Its not ok-ish because it doesn't EXACTLY/DIRECTLY hurt others.. adultery doesn't necisarrally hurt others all the time..that doesn't make it non-sinful.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2012)

Gluttony and being overweight are two very different things.

I was overweight for a very long time because I was a glutton.  Some folks are gluttons, but they are not overwieght.  Some folks are just overweight because they got dealt a bad hand when it comes to metabolism but they are not gluttons.

I would be very careful judging by appearances.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2012)

Israel said:


> Unrestricted self indulgence will always lead to abomination...



Israel summed it up best. No you can't look at someone and no what's in their heart. That's between them & God. 
It could easily be over indulging in work vs family time as one example. You could also spend too much time jogging & lifting weights as an over indulgence.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 17, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> There's nothing in your bible about gluttons?



I don't recall the Bible condemning gluttons.
If I don't recall it, obviously it must not be there.  

And I didn't say that I condemn drunkards.
The Bible does.  Not my place to condemn a person.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 17, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Gluttony is an acceptable sin, over-drinking is viewed as a terrible sin. Drinking alcohol isn't a sin.





hobbs27 said:


> This is the point I was making, Gluttony is acceptable to man. But to God?
> 
> http://www.gotquestions.org/gluttony-sin.html



I checked out the site.  I didn't find a scriptural reference that denounced gluttony as an actual sin.  I believe I recall some pharisees accusing Jesus of being a glutton on time.  I wonder if he actually was?

But maybe the point has been made.

If one Christian might tend to over ear from time to time, it must be recognized as permissible for a Christian to over drink and get drunk from time to time.
I assume that's the point to be made.  Right?


----------



## polkhunt (Jul 17, 2012)

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns against joining in with people who drink and eat too much. As for the post of an acceptable sin I have never even heard of such a thing as an acceptable sin. I believe God looks at a lie or murder the same way.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 17, 2012)

Jesus didn't turn the water into Gatorade or soy milk, he turned it into wine. If they were just thirsty, they already had water. They wanted wine at their party for the exact same reason we bring a cooler of beer or bottle of wine to a cookout nowadays. People haven't changed that much. The scripture is full of references to Jesus consuming alchohol. Was he a bad influence or stumbling block to others such as some say that anyone who consumes alchohol is? If so, the whole Christian religion is false. I just don't get how some people can condemn others for participating in an activity that Jesus did on a regular basis? My mom, who is a devout Baptist and rates drinking right up there with beastiality and mass murder in the sin scale, will try to argue that the wine they drunk back then wasn't alcoholic or intoxicating. Then, why are we cautioned by the scriptures to not drink the same wine to excess and become drunkards? Some people seem to have no concept that the vast majority of people who consume alcohol aren't "raging alcoholics," drunkards, and such as some on here will stereotype them.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> And what is acceptable is related to what the current preacher thinks. We had a preacher that said, you shouldn't shop or go to restaurants on Sunday. My family quit running to the store for bread. (we didn't go out to eat much anyway)
> We got a new preacher and started back shopping on Sunday. We had another preacher who preached about doing worldly things on Sunday so we stayed home and napped. Mom & Dad liked that better than us kids. That's probably where legalism comes into play. There is nothing wrong following the rules but the "rules" should not overshadow the true meaning of the New Covenant which is basically "love".



Moral relativism. Here is a list of sins that were presented to me while attending a legalistic Baptist church in my youth. 

Long hair on boys, short hair on girls, girls wearing pants, dancing, drinking, tobacco, tv in the house, mixed bathing(public swimming), facial hair, hunting or fishing on Sunday, missing a church service, not tithing, listening to any music other than "christian" music etc...

After a sermon on music, the youth group would have a bonfire so we could throw our records and tapes into the flames, in hopes of hearing demons scream. What pathetic religious nonsense.

I imagine that if I was to revisit that church, most of these things are now acceptable. This is what some preachers do, in order to bind their congregation, out of fear that they might live like they want to. If they would encourage folks to live like they want to, it would make it much easier to differentiate the sheep from the goats.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 17, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Long hair on boys, short hair on girls, girls wearing pants, dancing, drinking, tobacco, tv in the house, mixed bathing(public swimming), facial hair, hunting or fishing on Sunday, missing a church service, not tithing, listening to any music other than "christian" music etc...



Reminds me of an old saying "don't drink, smoke, cuss, or chew....or go out with girls that do."

When I was growing up, my parents wouldn't let us play sports in the yard on Sunday.  So we sat inside with our dad watching other people play sports on T.V. 



gemcgrew said:


> After a sermon on music, the youth group would have a bonfire so we could throw our records and tapes into the flames, in hopes of hearing demons scream. What pathetic religious nonsense.



I was the "black sheep" in my youth group.  I would be the only one who didn't run to the altar every Sunday to confess my sins, and I never participated in the group "sin purges" like you describe above.  They didn't like me very much.  In the end, I was the only one that didn't commit to a life on the mission field......the rest made the commitment, but nobody ever went.  The poor kids were set up for failure by their zealous religion.



gemcgrew said:


> This is what some preachers do, in order to bind their congregation, out of fear that they might live like they want to. If they would encourage folks to live like they want to, it would make it much easier to differentiate the sheep from the goats.



I think the congregation is as much to blame as the preacher.  The responsibility for raising kids, I believe, ultimately belongs to the parents.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 17, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> ...but legalism and forcing extra Biblical preferences on people is somehow okay in the name of "personal holiness."



I have heard some folks refer to these types of things as "stated values."  That way they can circumvent the lack of a Biblical mandate.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> When I was growing up, my parents wouldn't let us play sports in the yard on Sunday.  So we sat inside with our dad watching other people play sports on T.V.



Our T.V. stayed in the closet all week. Dad would only hook it up so that we could watch the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 17, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> If one Christian might tend to over ear from time to time, it must be recognized as permissible for a Christian to over drink and get drunk from time to time.
> I assume that's the point to be made.  Right?



Wrong.  The Bible specifically states one is not to be under the control of anything other than the Holy Spirit.  Also says to not be Drunk.  Therefore, getting drunk from time to time is a sin....but having a beer from time to time....not a sin.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 17, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Wrong.  The Bible specifically states one is not to be under the control of anything other than the Holy Spirit.  Also says to not be Drunk.  Therefore, getting drunk from time to time is a sin....but having a beer from time to time....not a sin.



I totally agree.  But some had brought drunkeness into the discussion, by way of gluttony, as a way of complicating the discussion.

Certainly drinking a beer is not a sin.  But whether or not one is allowed to drink a beer is not the point I raised many posts back.
There are very few ways to correlate drinking beer, the way it's drank in American society, with how and why Jesus and His apostles drank wine in the first century.

In our spiritual life in Christ, we don't live by what we can or cannot do.  We live by 'what is for the good of Christ and His church'.

Sometimes a beer is alright, sometimes it ain't.
That's all that I'm saying/said.

And, biblically, when is one drunk?  Only when they've been sited for DUI?  Only when their tongue swells and they drool?  Or is it the call of the Christian who's drinking to decide if he's drank too much?

Paul said that I have the freedom to eat anything I want to eat, but not if my freedom will create problems for someone else.

Paul said:  "Don't let your freedom become......"


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Certainly drinking a beer is not a sin.


It should be. That stuff is nasty!


Ronnie T said:


> But whether or not one is allowed to drink a beer is not the point I raised many posts back.


I understand. I would not have a drink around you, knowing how you feel about it. I would not want to cause you to sin by way of judging me. I think that is Paul's point in 14:21.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 17, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I totally agree.  But some had brought drunkeness into the discussion, by way of gluttony, as a way of complicating the discussion.
> 
> Certainly drinking a beer is not a sin.  But whether or not one is allowed to drink a beer is not the point I raised many posts back.
> There are very few ways to correlate drinking beer, the way it's drank in American society, with how and why Jesus and His apostles drank wine in the first century.
> ...



One is drunk when he is not in total control of him/herself.

Same goes for cigarettes, cigars, tabacco, tv, music anything.  All of those things can be controlling in your life.  If they control you...it is a sin.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 17, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> It should be. That stuff is nasty!
> 
> I understand. I would not have a drink around you, knowing how you feel about it. I would not want to cause you to sin by way of judging me. I think that is Paul's point in 14:21.



Actually, I would not be offended if you drank around me.  I would consider it perfectly alright.

I'm thinking more of the affect it could have on other people.  Like a young person who's dealing with alcoholism, or a Christian who's lost a family member to a drunk driver, etc.,  etc.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Actually, I would not be offended if you drank around me.  I would consider it perfectly alright.
> 
> I'm thinking more of the affect it could have on other people.  Like a young person who's dealing with alcoholism, or a Christian who's lost a family member to a drunk driver, etc.,  etc.



Understood.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 17, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I totally agree.  But some had brought drunkeness into the discussion, by way of gluttony, as a way of complicating the discussion.
> There are very few ways to correlate drinking beer, the way it's drank in American society, with how and why Jesus and His apostles drank wine in the first century.


Gluttony was brought up to show an acceptable sin. If you are skinny and go to a buffet and overeat, you have performed gluttony.
How is beer drinking in America different than wine drinking in the 1st century? Millions of people will have a couple of beers tonight. Millions of people will have a couple of six packs tonight. In the 1st century many had a few cups of wine at a time. Many had a crock or two of wine. Alcoholism is nothing new, Noah got drunk, Lot got drunk. People over indulge in food, drink, sex, & computer usage. Don't do away with everything because some can't control their desires. Hey, this over indulgence thing is proof of free-will!


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Hey, this over indulgence thing is proof of free-will!


Or perhaps that man builds his religion on the weakest aspect of his nature, his will.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 17, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Or perhaps that man builds his religion on the weakest aspect of his nature, his will.


I agree, too bad we have a will, huh? The weakest aspect of my nature is being a human animal. Animals also have a will. Most animals aren't as civilized as humans. Some animals are more civilized than some humans. Proof that all living creatures have a will.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 18, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Proof that all living creatures have a will.



So you don't believe the story of Jonah and the big fish? If you do, please explain to me which one of them had free will, without interference from God. Or perhaps explain to me how all the animals were exercising their free will in wanting to get on the ark.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 18, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> People over indulge in food, drink, sex, & computer usage. Don't do away with everything because some can't control their desires. Hey, this over indulgence thing is proof of free-will!


Exactly...Over indulgence in worldly pleasures such as the things you listed does nothing to lift up the Kingdom of God.I'm guilty as anyone else, which brings me back to my original thought.Isn't it somewhat hypocritical for someone overweight to tell others drinking is sinful?As I said its always the other guys sin that's worse.
 Gluttons and drunkards are guilty of the same sin , today's society accepts gluttony, but its not society that ultimately judges us.If God has blessed us with plenty I think we are doing better for his kingdom to share with those that lack instead of gorging on it and doing harm to the temple.That's just my opinion though, sorry of this takes the thread away from its intent.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 18, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> People over indulge in food, drink, sex, & computer usage. Don't do away with everything because some can't control their desires. Hey, this over indulgence thing is proof of free-will!


Exactly...Over indulgence in worldly pleasures such as the things you listed does nothing to lift up the Kingdom of God.I'm guilty as anyone else, which brings me back to my original thought.Isn't it somewhat hypocritical for someone overweight to tell others drinking is sinful?As I said its always the other guys sin that's worse.
 Gluttons and drunkards are guilty of the same sin , today's society accepts gluttony, but its not society that ultimately judges us.If God has blessed us with plenty I think we are doing better for his kingdom to share with those that lack instead of gorging on it and doing harm to the temple.That's just my opinion though, sorry of this takes the thread away from its intent.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 18, 2012)

I practiced gluttony las night at a BBQ for my kid's little league team 

It's all perspective when it comes to some of these things.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Actually, I would not be offended if you drank around me. I would consider it perfectly alright.
> 
> I'm thinking more of the affect it could have on other people. Like a young person who's dealing with alcoholism, or a Christian who's lost a family member to a drunk driver, etc., etc.


 
Well said. Would to God the body of Christ continues this attitude toward one another, to rightly esteem others weak in the faith.  Simply stated, look b4 U leap!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 18, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> So you don't believe the story of Jonah and the big fish? If you do, please explain to me which one of them had free will, without interference from God. Or perhaps explain to me how all the animals were exercising their free will in wanting to get on the ark.



God is still in control and can take over our will if he needs to. I quess we only have limited free will. I shouldn't have used my free will to mention "free will" with you. Ha, ha, ha.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 18, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Exactly...Over indulgence in worldly pleasures such as the things you listed does nothing to lift up the Kingdom of God.I'm guilty as anyone else, which brings me back to my original thought.Isn't it somewhat hypocritical for someone overweight to tell others drinking is sinful?As I said its always the other guys sin that's worse.
> Gluttons and drunkards are guilty of the same sin , today's society accepts gluttony, but its not society that ultimately judges us.If God has blessed us with plenty I think we are doing better for his kingdom to share with those that lack instead of gorging on it and doing harm to the temple.That's just my opinion though, sorry of this takes the thread away from its intent.



Not only is it hypocritical, it's incorrect.  Drinking, in and of itself is not a sin.
But, wouldn't it be a bit self-serving for someone to ignore good, sound advice just because the person delivering the advice wasn't sinless??


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Not only is it hypocritical, it's incorrect.  Drinking, in and of itself is not a sin.
> But, wouldn't it be a bit self-serving for someone to ignore good, sound advice just because the person delivering the advice wasn't sinless??



That is true, look at the good advice people get from doctors who are overweight, drink, smoke, and work long hours.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 18, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Not only is it hypocritical, it's incorrect.  Drinking, in and of itself is not a sin.
> But, wouldn't it be a bit self-serving for someone to ignore good, sound advice just because the person delivering the advice wasn't sinless??



I agree with all this.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 18, 2012)

I'm convinced that it's one of the most difficult things for Christians today.  Taking criticism, even loving criticism, from another person.  Self included.


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 19, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Not only is it hypocritical, it's incorrect.  Drinking, in and of itself is not a sin.
> But, wouldn't it be a bit self-serving for someone to ignore good, sound advice just because the person delivering the advice wasn't sinless??



I agree Ronnie, We seem to agree on
most things, I wonder why. Ha Ha

Over the years I have found that advice 
is usually worth exactly what a person
pays for it. That is the reason that I do
not give advice very often. I am a very
outspoken person but I refrain from 
giving advice except when ask and then
very seldom.

Most of the time people are just looking
for someone to agree with them or they
are looking for some justification for
their trangressions.

A person can make anything, and I do 
mean anything wrong. When we condemn
someone or advise someone we need to
do it in love, not act like we are glad we
caught them.

Is any sin acceptable? Acceptable to who?
Sometime it is much harder to please our
friends and family than it is to please God.
Sometimes Christians can be the most
brutal people in the world. We love to
reach over our shoulders and pat ourselve
on the back then look over our friends
and condemn them.

I, myself have little room to condemn other
people, my front porch needs sweeping
just as bad as my neighbors. I don't feel
the need to reach around myself and smirk
at other people.

We need to search our own hearts, clean
our own house and not worry so much
about other people.

One time an overweight preacher sat at
our table and ate over half a chicken and 
it looked like a peck of potatoes and all the
while he was condemning smoking and
anyone that smoked knowing my dad was
sitting there (a smoker)  and not a Christian. 
Needlessto say Bro. Davis had little effect of my
Dad from that time forward.

We should never compremise the gospel but
we need to be careful with our condemnation.
When we do condemn do it with love.

IF YOU TELL ME I AM GOING TO HADES
YOU BETTER HAVE A TEAR IN YOUR EYE.

Its been my experience that most people
know when they are sinning, they don't
need me to chime in.

Just my opinion.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 19, 2012)

Very well said deacon.We must be obedient to the Lord, but too many times we Christians want to help God, as if He isn't capable of drawing people to Him, or chastising His own.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 19, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Very well said deacon.We must be obedient to the Lord, but too many times we Christians want to help God, as if He isn't capable of drawing people to Him, or chastising His own.


Agreed.
But I guess the word 'condemn' is not what I would use in terms of correction of a brother. Even my accountability partners are not there to condemn (Rom8:1), but share their heart with mine, and carefully uncover things and assist me in finding the reasons behind what I did or said, and help uncover them old false beliefs (or old "tapes").  

So, I like "righteous appeal" better.  

But seriously, if your life is open to that, (and you'll know when a word or appeal is given in love or not ) you're better off for it, and you'll appreciate those close brethren for it.

Hats off to those who helped lift blinders and correct my wayward-ness, yep... right here on the board!


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 20, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Agreed.
> But I guess the word 'condemn' is not what I would use in terms of correction of a brother. Even my accountability partners are not there to condemn (Rom8:1), but share their heart with mine, and carefully uncover things and assist me in finding the reasons behind what I did or said, and help uncover them old false beliefs (or old "tapes").
> 
> So, I like "righteous appeal" better.
> ...



I agree with you completely but I was not speaking of those who use "righteous appeal" as you put it, I was referring to those who jump at the chance to look cross eyed at other people and call it, constructive criticism, which I doubt even exist.

For those who approach sin and sinners with love, they need to be respected as men of God. To many times we condemn others to he11 and act like we are glad they are going. Thats wrong.
But I agree with you I wish we all would be more tactful in our approach to others when it comes to transgressions. Sometimes we look for perfection in others when our own lives are soiled more than theirs. Just check back over some of the recent post. Brutal

God bless you for your kind heart.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 20, 2012)

thedeacon said:


> I agree with you completely but I was not speaking of those who use "righteous appeal" as you put it, I was referring to those who jump at the chance to look cross eyed at other people and call it, constructive criticism, which I doubt even exist.
> 
> For those who approach sin and sinners with love, they need to be respected as men of God. To many times we condemn others to he11 and act like we are glad they are going. Thats wrong.
> 
> ...



Absolutely.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 21, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> If anyone needs a preacher to preach about sins, then he is void of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit convicts me at the momment. I don't need to wait until sunday morning



Me neither, I'm instantly convicted and I apologize to whoever and also repent. 
Course I'm being convicted all day, because I'm always doing or saying something I shouldn't. Thank you God for your mercy and grace towards my weaknesses, because I'm loaded with weakness.


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 21, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Me neither, I'm instantly convicted and I apologize to whoever and also repent.
> Course I'm being convicted all day, because I'm always doing or saying something I shouldn't. Thank you God for your mercy and grace towards my weaknesses, because I'm loaded with weakness.




The reason I am so ugly is because I walk around half the time with a size 10 boot in my mouth.


----------

