# Gays, church and christianity



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

I didn't want to get involved in a thread up above so I'll bring it up here.
Someone asked if gays were born gay and the thread is off and running.....
What I would like some opinions on is If your a devout Christian and follow the Bible and teachings and attend Church regularly is being Gay the deal breaker? Is it all the believing and accepting and attending all for nothing because a person is gay and that right off the bat negates the rest?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I didn't want to get involved in a thread up above so I'll bring it up here.
> Someone asked if gays were born gay and the thread is off and running.....
> What I would like some opinions on is If your a devout Christian and follow the Bible and teachings and attend Church regularly is being Gay the deal breaker?


There is no deal breaker, other than not accepting.



> Is it all the believing and accepting and attending all for nothing because a person is gay and that right off the bat negates the rest?



No.


----------



## fulldraw74 (Mar 20, 2013)

Homosexuality is a sin no greater than any other type of sin. Every member of every church has sinned at some point in life. Church is where all sinners need to start, including homosexuals. God will change a persons heart and make them turn from their sinful ways. The desire to sin will still be there but we make a conscious effort to live right. Its all about a change of heart. Refusing to turn from your sinful ways and attempting to make the sins commited acceptable is what sentences one to - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - IMO....


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 20, 2013)

fulldraw74 said:


> Homosexuality is a sin no greater than any other type of sin. Every member of every church has sinned at some point in life. Church is where all sinners need to start, including homosexuals. God will change a persons heart and make them turn from their sinful ways. The desire to sin will still be their but we make a conscious effort to live right. Its all about a change of heart. Refusing to turn from your sinful ways and attempting to make the sins commited acceptable is what sentences one to hel! IMO....



Yup.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 20, 2013)

The first thread I started on this forum was about gays in church.  It was a good time, for sure.  

Anyway, attendance has nothing to do with anything, really beyond personal growth.  

Gayness is no more a deal breaker than hunter over a corn-pile is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

I understand the concept of "sin". I understand that we are all guilty at some point. Is it acceptable to continually sin and not be held accountable in the eyes of God as long as a person is a true believer?
Is sin, sin across the board or are there levels of sin? Is it a believers duty to try to better ones self once they sin and try their best to not do it again? OR in the case of Catholicism does a gay person go into the confessional and say " I was gay again every second for another week" get their Hail Mary's over with and then start over?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I understand that we are all guilty at some point. Is it acceptable to continually sin and not be held accountable in the eyes of God as long as a person is a true believer?



Now that is digging into doctrinal issues.  The once saved always saved folks v. those who don't believe that.

If osas is correct, you could believe, and then go get gay for the rest of your life, and the outcome would be the same.

Then....there are the predes folks who believe it doesn't matter much because you are chosen regardless of your situation....gay or not.

Then, the folks who think you can lose your salvation will think you can get gay, and repent at your deathbed, and go to heaven.

My point is that to each belief system, gayness does not condemn the individual specifically....no more than hunting over a pile of corn will.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Is it acceptable to continually sin and not be held accountable in the eyes of God as long as a person is a true believer?



Continual sin without repentance is not the fruit of a true believer.

Repentance meaning to "turn away."




			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> Is sin, sin across the board or are there levels of sin? Is it a believers duty to try to better ones self once they sin and try their best to not do it again?



What do you mean as far as "levels?"  

At the end of the day, "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" so all are guilty...all deserve Hel!.

And yes, we should all be growing in our faith...growing in the likeness of God.  Christians will be known by their "fruit."  If you're known for your sin, I'd have a tough time believing you're a Christian.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

I'm not getting the hunting over a pile of corn thing.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Now that is digging into doctrinal issues.  The once saved always saved folks v. those who don't believe that.
> 
> If osas is correct, you could believe, and then go get gay for the rest of your life, and the outcome would be the same.
> 
> ...



No...this is not a proper view of OSAS.

No....this is not a proper view of predestination either.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Continual sin without repentance is not the fruit of a true believer.
> 
> Repentance meaning to "turn away."


That is how I had always understood it.
But being gay is a sin according to the majority so if someone is gay every day are they truly a believer if they continually repeat the same sin?






rjcruiser said:


> What do you mean as far as "levels?"


Is taking the Lords name in vain the same as theft the same as adultery the same as being gay etc? Is one sin the same as another...is each equally as bad as the other?



rjcruiser said:


> At the end of the day, "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" so all are guilty...all deserve Hel!.
> 
> And yes, we should all be growing in our faith...growing in the likeness of God.  Christians will be known by their "fruit."  If you're known for your sin, I'd have a tough time believing you're a Christian.



So if gay is a sin and your known for being gay your entire life, your not really a Christian?
Same as the guy who sits front pew every Sunday but has been sleeping with half the congregation and many married women and single women despite him being married himself. Repeat offenders are not real Christians and do not really count? Who decides that?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> But being gay is a sin according to the majority so if someone is gay every day are they truly a believer if they continually repeat the same sin?



Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?




bullethead said:


> Is taking the Lords name in vain the same as theft the same as adultery the same as being gay etc? Is one sin the same as another...is each equally as bad as the other?


Equally as bad in who's eyes?  God's?  If so, then sin is sin.  Now...sin has consequences and the consequences vary greatly.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> So if gay is a sin and your known for being gay your entire life, your not really a Christian?



See Romans 6 above.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> Same as the guy who sits front pew every Sunday but has been sleeping with half the congregation and many married women and single women despite him being married himself.



See Romans 6 above.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> Repeat offenders are not real Christians and do not really count?



See Romans 6 above.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> Who decides that?



Who decides what?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Romans 6:1-2
> What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
> 
> 
> ...


According to the Bible then, Romans 6 above excludes Gays from being true Christians because of their continual ways.



rjcruiser said:


> Who decides what?


Romans 6 answered it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

string, based on your answers above, how do they go along with Romans 6?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, based on your answers above, how do they go along with Romans 6?



I'm not really sure what you're asking.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

Well you stated there was no deal breaker but it seems like the Romans verse states that you can't continually sin and have grace abound.
If being gay is a sin and most gay people just don't stop being gay is it a deal breaker?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Well you stated there was no deal breaker but it seems like the Romans verse states that you can't continually sin and have grace abound.
> If being gay is a sin and most gay people just don't stop being gay is it a deal breaker?



I qualified my statement by saying "other than not accepting", by accepting, a person tries to live out Romans 6, meaning they try not to continue in their sin.

BUT, I think there are gay people in heaven, just like I think there are murderers,theives, and every other kind of sinner there too, but they are all there because of grace and forgiveness.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I qualified my statement by saying "other than not accepting", by accepting, a person tries to live out Romans 6, meaning they try not to continue in their sin.
> 
> BUT, I think there are gay people in heaven, just like I think there are murderers,theives, and every other kind of sinner there too, but they are all there because of grace and forgiveness.



Kind of a have it all ways sort of thing.

On one hand you can have grace but you need to accept. If you accept you then must stop "doing what your doing" to cause sin so you can be forgiven.
But on the other hand,Once forgiven going back to your sinning ways erases the initial grace.

How can a person STILL be gay, murderer and thieve or another sinner and still be in heaven because of grace and forgiveness? Wouldn't they have had to cease doing those things in order to qualify?

Is it they can't get into heaven by continually sinning but once they stop enough to get into heaven they can be who they and what they have always been?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

For the record I am not grilling anyone specific, I just try to figure out who believes what and how they justify those beliefs.
Often I see many different explanations that all stem from the same Verse.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How can a person STILL be gay, murderer and thieve or another sinner and still be in heaven because of grace and forgiveness? Wouldn't they have had to cease doing those things in order to qualify?


There are no sinners in heaven. For there to be a sinner in heaven, there would have to be a record of sin. My sins were imputed to Christ, paid for by Christ and expunged from the book of God's justice.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;"

"For he hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2013)

If our sins are imputed to Christ then why not the sin of gayness verses my sins of cheating?
If we all sin everyday and repent what's the difference? Is it ok to sin if we change sins to keep the repeating thing down? I'll lie today, cheat tomorrow, lust the next day and repent and i'm going to heaven but if I lie everyday i'm a repeat offender and i'm going to he!!?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 20, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> No...this is not a proper view of OSAS.
> 
> No....this is not a proper view of predestination either.



Simplified for those who ddon't really care anyway.

OSAS....you don't lose it. 

Predes....you don't choose it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'm not getting the hunting over a pile of corn thing.



It's breaking the law (not Biblical law).  A sin if we, as Christians, are intended to follow the law.

Fwiw, I have known quite a few Christians who would verbally condemn gay folks, then shoot deer over corn, across property lines, etc. and thank the good Lord for their blessings.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It's breaking the law (not Biblical law).  A sin if we, as Christians, are intended to follow the law.
> 
> Fwiw, I have known quite a few Christians who would verbally condemn gay folks, then shoot deer over corn, across property lines, etc. and thank the good Lord for their blessings.



I know some that verbally condemn gays yet have extramarital affairs...but that's different.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Simplified for those who ddon't really care anyway.
> 
> OSAS....you don't lose it.
> 
> Predes....you don't choose it.



Might be simplified...but it's not an accurate simplification.

btw...I see month end is over 



JB0704 said:


> Fwiw, I have known quite a few Christians who would verbally condemn gay folks, then shoot deer over corn, across property lines, etc. and thank the good Lord for their blessings.



Hmm....must've been reading in the Bear Hunting forum


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 20, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Might be simplified...but it's not an accurate simplification.



I'm all ears....  



rjcruiser said:


> btw...I see month end is over



Last rec just submitted 



rjcruiser said:


> Hmm....must've been reading in the Bear Hunting forum



Yea, that was in the deer hunting section as well.  But, I have seen this type of junk in person.  People are wierd.  Everybody is a sinner except the one in the mirror.

Let's just say I didn't grow up hunting with folks who took game laws real serious.....but, they were real serious about Church.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 20, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> I know some that verbally condemn gays yet have extramarital affairs...but that's different.



That's just sad.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Kind of a have it all ways sort of thing.
> 
> On one hand you can have grace but you need to accept. If you accept you then must stop "doing what your doing" to cause sin so you can be forgiven.
> But on the other hand,Once forgiven going back to your sinning ways erases the initial grace.


No, you're forgiven, which includes the Holy Spirit which convicts you to sin no more.



> How can a person STILL be gay, murderer and thieve or another sinner and still be in heaven because of grace and forgiveness? Wouldn't they have had to cease doing those things in order to qualify?


Those particular people are no longer looked at as sinners, but God's children.



> Is it they can't get into heaven by continually sinning but once they stop enough to get into heaven they can be who they and what they have always been?


There is no "stopping enough to get into heaven", Christ's blood gets one into heaven, and an included conviction to move away from past sins.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I'm all ears....



OSAS people do not live in sin.  

See II Cor 5:17 for reference.

Also, people living in sin would not be predestined...unless it was pre-conversion.  Post conversion...well...see Rom 6 and many other passages noting a change will follow a conversion (whether it was done by free-will or not).


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It's breaking the law (not Biblical law).  A sin if we, as Christians, are intended to follow the law.
> 
> Fwiw, I have known quite a few Christians who would verbally condemn gay folks, then shoot deer over corn, across property lines, etc. and thank the good Lord for their blessings.



Oh, ok.
I see what you mean and hunting over corn is not legal here in Pa, but it is legal in other states. I wasn't sure if or how you were tying it into the Bible/religion. But I get the point now.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 20, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> OSAS people do not live in sin.



But, they still sin.  So, under OSAS, a person could get gay from time to time, feel convicted, confess, and still get to heaven.....along with his poacher buddies. 




rjcruiser said:


> Also, people living in sin would not be predestined...unless it was pre-conversion.  Post conversion...well...see Rom 6 and many other passages noting a change will follow a conversion (whether it was done by free-will or not).



Post conversion folks still sin.  Yes, there is a change (note "conviction"), however, his will cannot over-ride God's....so his ticket is punched.

So, under predes, same scenario as OSAS.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No, you're forgiven, which includes the Holy Spirit which convicts you to sin no more.


Not sure why they would still be gay etc in heaven then. But I understand you are giving me what you think to be true.




stringmusic said:


> Those particular people are no longer looked at as sinners, but God's children.


Still..might just be wise to lock up the cloud when you leave or someone might steal your(in the general sense) boyfriend and kill him LOLOLOL




stringmusic said:


> There is no "stopping enough to get into heaven", Christ's blood gets one into heaven, and an included conviction to move away from past sins.


If one wants to act like a nit-wit and sin repeatedly it is a-ok as long as they accept Christ. Once they accept him as savior all is forgiven up to that moment and every sin after.
I can see why people go for this.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Not sure why they would still be gay etc in heaven then. But I understand you are giving me what you think to be true.


They wouldn't still be gay, or murderers or theives etc, etc.




> If one wants to act like a nit-wit and sin repeatedly it is a-ok as long as they accept Christ. Once they accept him as savior all is forgiven up to that moment and every sin after.
> I can see why people go for this.



It doesn't work like that. It is no a-ok to continue to *want* to sin. 

The explanation you given here is why it is written in Mathew 7 "Not all who say to me Lord, Lord, will enter the kindom of heaven"

I call it "playing the game"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2013)

I thought the reason Jesus came was to die for our sins because we could not quit sinning no matter how hard we try. I'm a Christian and i still sin. The Holy Spirit guides me in the right direction, but I still sin.
Jesus came because we could not follow the Law. 
I guess what I'm asking is, what is the difference between following the Law and present day sinning? If we are saved by grace & faith then are we truly saved? We don't have to live under the Law because we can't but now you must quit sinning. It just sounds like the same thing. We went from calling it the Law which is taboo to some Christians, to calling it Sin.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> They wouldn't still be gay, or murderers or theives etc, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many gays stop being gay because of Jesus?
You can stop stealing ,cheating, committing adultery etc, but if you've found Jesus and accepted him till the day you die yet still lust after and sleep with members of the same sex, your still gay. According to the Bible Gay=Sin.
If gay is a sin and it cannot be stopped because it is "who they are" and is their lifestyle is it acceptable as long as Jesus is #1 in their lives and then at death your gayness is erased????


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There is no deal breaker, other than not accepting.
> 
> 
> 
> No.



I agree.  Nobody is sinless.
Should we continue in sin, using grace as a cover, of course not...but we all still sin in one way or another.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 20, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought the reason Jesus came was to die for our sins because we could not quit sinning no matter how hard we try. I'm a Christian and i still sin. The Holy Spirit guides me in the right direction, but I still sin.
> Jesus came because we could not follow the Law.
> I guess what I'm asking is, what is the difference between following the Law and present day sinning? If we are saved by grace & faith then are we truly saved? We don't have to live under the Law because we can't but now you must quit sinning. It just sounds like the same thing. We went from calling it the Law which is taboo to some Christians, to calling it Sin.



Dat's right..


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How many gays stop being gay because of Jesus?
> You can stop stealing ,cheating, committing adultery etc, but if you've found Jesus and accepted him till the day you die yet still lust after and sleep with members of the same sex, your still gay. According to the Bible Gay=Sin.
> If gay is a sin and it cannot be stopped because it is "who they are" and is their lifestyle is it acceptable as long as Jesus is #1 in their lives and then at death your gayness is erased????



I believe,' in Christ we can do all things', and I am a changed person, so I know that's true. But  still, I am guilty of some of my old ways sometimes.  I believe we will still be judged for our 'works', good or bad...(Lordy I hate the thought of that).  I believe a gay person could change, but if not, I believe their sin is covered just the same as mine or anyone else's...it's under the blood.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 21, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> I agree.  Nobody is sinless.
> Should we continue in sin, using grace as a cover, of course not...but we all still sin in one way or another.



I disagree I am sinless.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I disagree I am sinless.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 21, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> I know some that verbally condemn gays yet have extramarital affairs...but that's different.





JB0704 said:


> That's just sad.



Just to clarify.  Above where I said, "but that's different," I meant the people doing that view it differently.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 21, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I disagree I am sinless.



Good job on that! Wish I could say the same!


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 21, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> Just to clarify.  Above where I said, "but that's different," I meant the people doing that view it differently.



I understood.  I think those folks are sad.


----------



## Four (Mar 21, 2013)

Would someone please point to the biblical references against homosexuality? (im not doubting it exists, just dont want to look it up myself)


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2013)

Four said:


> Would someone please point to the biblical references against homosexuality? (im not doubting it exists, just dont want to look it up myself)



Here's one....

Romans 26 & 27



> 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


----------



## Four (Mar 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Here's one....
> 
> Romans 26 & 27



What chapter?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2013)

Four said:


> What chapter?



Sorry 

Chapter 1


----------



## Four (Mar 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Sorry
> 
> Chapter 1



Thanks!

This might be slightly off topic (yea that never happens here...)

**warning, im speaking about certain things that i don't believe are true but it makes it easier to discuss**

Buuut, that was "written" by paul.. yeS? or under pauls name, and isn't accredited to jesus, right? 

Which brings me to my next point... how seriously, or not seriously are the things jesus said vs. other people in the NT? It isn't straight out called SIN int hat passage, it's just like "yea, don't do that, sicko" from a guy named paul.

For instance, most christians don't take 1 Timm 2:11-15 very seriously... maybe because its not actually jesus saying it?

Also on the same note, is anything the bible says not to do considered a sin? so if it just casually says "dont lose hope" does that mean being hopeless is a sin?

sorry for the odd/unrelated rantings, just typing out loud


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2013)

Four said:


> Thanks!
> 
> This might be slightly off topic (yea that never happens here...)
> 
> ...



I'll get back with you tomorrow on these questions, I'm about to leave work.

Good questions though!


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 21, 2013)

Four said:


> Buuut, that was "written" by paul.. yeS? or under pauls name, and isn't accredited to jesus, right?
> 
> Which brings me to my next point... how seriously, or not seriously are the things jesus said vs. other people in the NT? It isn't straight out called SIN int hat passage, it's just like "yea, don't do that, sicko" from a guy named paul.



Who do you think you are?  Lowjack?




Four said:


> For instance, most christians don't take 1 Timm 2:11-15 very seriously... maybe because its not actually jesus saying it?



I'd say most Christians take that very seriously.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

Four said:


> For instance, most christians don't take 1 Timm 2:11-15 very seriously... maybe because its not actually jesus saying it?



Many do. My daughter basically tells her husband how she looks at things and/or she gives her opinion on decision making.  And then she let's him make most all the important decisions and she won't continue to argue with him, but tells him it's on his head if he's wrong... So that pushes him to be in prayer or think more about it, which is good.
He's kinda like Bishop...sinless...always hits the mark...

I do have a slight problem with that verse about being submissive to your husband....what if he's a drug dealer? I can't quite make out where the husband has to be a Christian...even though I 'imagine' it may imply that...
anybody on that one?


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Many do. My daughter basically tells her husband how she looks at things and/or she gives her opinion on decision making.  And then she let's him make most all the important decisions and she won't continue to argue with him, but tells him it's on his head if he's wrong... So that pushes him to be in prayer or think more about it, which is good.
> He's kinda like Bishop...sinless...always hits the mark...
> 
> I do have a slight problem with that verse about being submissive to your husband....what if he's a drug dealer? I can't quite make out where the husband has to be a Christian...even though I 'imagine' it may imply that...
> anybody on that one?



The whole thing sounds completely bigoted to me... 



> I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.



So its a sin to wear gold, complicated hairstyles, pearly, or expensive cloths.....



> 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;* she must be quiet.*


*

So all female schoolteachers are sinners, along with female doctors, lawyers, politicians, police, managers, etc?*


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> Thanks!
> 
> This might be slightly off topic (yea that never happens here...)
> 
> ...


Paul was writing from guidance of the Holy Spirit, basically, God speaking through him, so his words and the words of Christ are not fighting each other, they are working together.



> For instance, most christians don't take 1 Timm 2:11-15 very seriously... maybe because its not actually jesus saying it?
> 
> Also on the same note, is anything the bible says not to do considered a sin? so if it just casually says "dont lose hope" does that mean being hopeless is a sin?
> 
> sorry for the odd/unrelated rantings, just typing out loud



I think discernment through the Holy Spirit comes into play here. In the particular example you gave, "don't lose hope" is not an unnatural act, though hopelessness would be a sin.

 Usually in the bible, "don't lose hope" is encouragement that God is always with us and to keep our faith strong, but in a sense, you could still call it a sin if you lose hope(hopelessness), because essentially, you're turning away from God by doing so.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Paul was writing from guidance of the Holy Spirit, basically, God speaking through him, so his words and the words of Christ are not fighting each other, they are working together.




So basically the word of jesus isn't any more important than anyone else writings, because even the non-jesus quotes are inspired by god? (the holy spirit version)

Also, this means that all sin are equal, there are no sins worse than others, because they're all gods rules.



stringmusic said:


> I think discernment through the Holy Spirit comes into play here. In the particular example you gave, "don't lose hope" is not an unnatural act, though hopelessness would be a sin.
> 
> Usually in the bible, "don't lose hope" is encouragement that God is always with us and to keep our faith strong, but in a sense, you could still call it a sin if you lose hope(hopelessness), because essentially, you're turning away from God by doing so.



So in short, try to read between the lines, but at the end of the day, yes, any time you're not doing something the bible says to do, or doing something the bible says not to do, even if casually mentioned, you're sinning.

So that's were some people are coming from (mtnwoman for instance) when they say they still sin all the time?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> So basically the word of jesus isn't any more important than anyone else writings, because even the non-jesus quotes are inspired by god? (the holy spirit version)
> 
> Also, this means that all sin are equal, there are no sins worse than others, because they're all gods rules.


I wouldn't classify the words of Jesus as "no more important", but the writtings of the Bible are all inspired from one source.



> So in short, try to read between the lines, but at the end of the day, yes, any time you're not doing something the bible says to do, or doing something the bible says not to do, even if casually mentioned, you're sinning.
> 
> So that's were some people are coming from (mtnwoman for instance) when they say they still sin all the time?



Pretty much.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Pretty much.



Defiantly makes it come off as giving the disease and selling the cure as someone not involved.

edit: not to end on a snarky note, thanks for the clarifications


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> Defiantly makes it come off as giving the disease and selling the cure as someone not involved.


Well, it kind of is that way, except we gave ourselves the disease.

(whole 'nother can of worms)



> edit: not to end on a snarky note, thanks for the clarifications



It's all good, your questions always make me think.


----------



## jrickman (Mar 22, 2013)

I have learned from experience that the verses addressing what women should and should not do are best left to interpretation and application by the women themselves. Bad things come when men use those verses to "put women in their place."


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

jrickman said:


> I have learned from experience that the verses addressing what women should and should not do are best left to interpretation and application by the women themselves. Bad things come when men use those verses to "put women in their place."



  Personal interpretation?

Bad things will always happen when men try to "put women in their place" because that is not the intent of the passage.

Women are to submit to their husbands.  If they don't, they are in sin.

However, the husband is supposed to love his wife as Christ loved the Church.  If he doesn't, he is in sin.

As a man, I find that to be a way way way more difficult task....and if I'm laying my life down for my wife, loving her in the sacrificial manner that Christ loved the Church, washing her feet as Christ washed the feet of the disciples.....she'll have no problem submitting to the decisions that I make as a husband.


That is one of the causes that the submission thing has gotten way out of hand.  Just like in the garden...had Adam been doing his job as a husband, Eve would've never been tempted to sin.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Personal interpretation?
> 
> Bad things will always happen when men try to "put women in their place" because that is not the intent of the passage.
> 
> ...



Christ loved the church? the christian church didn't exist 
 at the time of his death, right?



rjcruiser said:


> As a man, I find that to be a way way way more difficult task....and if I'm laying my life down for my wife, loving her in the sacrificial manner that Christ loved the Church, washing her feet as Christ washed the feet of the disciples.....she'll have no problem submitting to the decisions that I make as a husband.
> 
> That is one of the causes that the submission thing has gotten way out of hand.  Just like in the garden...had Adam been doing his job as a husband, Eve would've never been tempted to sin.



So this isnt really directed at you, because i don't pretend to know you're political stances, etc. but seems a big part of the religious right's platform is keeping homosexuals from marriage. Given 1 Tim 1:10-12, would those same people be for banning women from holding positions of authority over men?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> So this isnt really directed at you, because i don't pretend to know you're political stances, etc. but seems a big part of the religious right's platform is keeping homosexuals from marriage. Given 1 Tim 1:10-12, would those same people be for banning women from holding positions of authority over men?



I think that particlur verse is about spiritual teaching, not necessarily that you can't have a women boss or take a class taught by a women.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> Christ loved the church? the christian church didn't exist
> at the time of his death, right?



The Christian Church did exist at the time of His death.  Sure...maybe they didn't have FBC Jerusalem, or FBC Galilee....but there were Christians...and they made up the Church at that time.  Christ died for the Church.




			
				Four said:
			
		

> So this isnt really directed at you, because i don't pretend to know you're political stances, etc. but seems a big part of the religious right's platform is keeping homosexuals from marriage.



Nope.  I think the fact that God condemned homosexuality throughout scriptures is the key.  It starts in Gen with the creation of Adam and Eve.  Man was alone and needed a partner.  God created woman to fulfill that need.

I wrote this in the PF in regards to the destruction of the family and how it relates to kids in same sex households.  I think it might shed a little more on my position here.



			
				rjcruiser said:
			
		

> The problem with society is that the roles of men/women have been redefined over the last 40-50 years. Slowly but surely, the family (man/woman in their familial role...Man being the father/provider/disciplinarian and woman being the mother/nurturer/comforter) has been redefined. Men the same as women...women the same men. And I don't mean on a value standpoint....but on a role standpoint. Men and women are not the same. They are equal...but have totally different roles within the family.
> 
> There are many reasons for this (moms working outside the home, dads not accepting responsibility for family, lack of importance of marriage/high volume of divorce etc etc), but it has eroded the development of children. Over time, you have these children growing up and becoming parents themselves...yet they have no idea how to operate as parents as they had no proper example from their childhood.
> 
> ...





			
				four said:
			
		

> Given 1 Tim 1:10-12, would those same people be for banning women from holding positions of authority over men?



???  Can you check your reference?  Not sure if you got it right or not, but 1 Tim 1:10-12 doesn't talk of the role of women....just want to make sure I'm answering what your asking.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> ???  Can you check your reference?  Not sure if you got it right or not, but 1 Tim 1:10-12 doesn't talk of the role of women....just want to make sure I'm answering what your asking.



I think he's talking about 1 Timothy 2 11 & 12


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I think he's talking about 1 Timothy 2 11 & 12



Ah..well...then...in answering his question, in the Church, yes.  That is why you don't have women pastors/elders.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Ah..well...then...in answering his question, in the Church, yes.  That is why you don't have women pastors/elders.



Yea, I didn't reference the verse, but chapter 2 11 & 12 is what I was answering in post #61.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Ah..well...then...in answering his question, in the Church, yes.  That is why you don't have women pastors/elders.



Is that just for the Church and can a woman have authority over a man in a business or government position? You know it's weird, but i've never had a female boss.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is that just for the Church and can a woman have authority over a man in a business or government position?



Also, what about dressing modesty, and not wearing gold or pearls. are they only not allowed to dress up and wear jewelry at church?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> Also, what about dressing modesty, and not wearing gold or pearls. are they only not allowed to dress up and wear jewelry at church?



Apostolic Pentecostals pretty much follow those beliefs all the time but I see your point and that was my question too. Maybe it has something to do with Old Law/New Covenant beliefs and we don't fall under the law of no women preachers/bosses any longer.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is that just for the Church and can a woman have authority over a man in a business or government position? You know it's weird, but i've never had a female boss.



Just the church.  When looking at the chapter in whole and other scriptures (specifically Titus), I think it is pretty easy to see.



Four said:


> Also, what about dressing modesty, and not wearing gold or pearls. are they only not allowed to dress up and wear jewelry at church?



Modesty is something that is taught.  As far as gold/pearls...context simplifies that argument.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

It looked like several people already established that the submissiveness extends outside the church into the marriage.... why does it stop there?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> It looked like several people already established that the submissiveness extends outside the church into the marriage.... why does it stop there?



Because those are the two areas that are talked about in scripture.

Some might take it further, but they don't have the chapter and verse to back it up.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There is no "stopping enough to get into heaven", Christ's blood gets one into heaven, and an included conviction to move away from past sins.



So being homosexual is ok, as long as you know it's a sin and ask forgiveness for it?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So being homosexual is ok, as long as you know it's a sin and ask forgiveness for it?


No, being homosexual is a sin.....


stringmusic said:


> There is no "stopping enough to get into heaven", Christ's blood gets one into heaven, and an included conviction to move away from past sins.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

Seems it would be 100% more honest and forthright to simply state the homosexual lifestyle is not "politically correct" for membership in a particular church or group.  When it is conveniently labeled as a "sin" it is to be viewed the same as gluttony, damaging ones body with harmful chemicals and alcohol, coveting, lusting, cheating, stealing, lying, laziness and a myriad list of other "sins" which the membership AND LEADERSHIP does on any given day.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

So if a women has a heart attack wearing pearls or a fancy haircut in church and dies, she goes to he11.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> So if a women has a heart attack wearing pearls or a fancy haircut in church and dies, she goes to he11.



What do you think the answer to that question is?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> Seems it would be 100% more honest and forthright to simply state the homosexual lifestyle is not "politically correct" for membership in a particular church or group.  When it is conveniently labeled as a "sin" it is to be viewed the same as gluttony, damaging ones body with harmful chemicals and alcohol, coveting, lusting, cheating, stealing, lying, laziness and a myriad list of other "sins" which the membership AND LEADERSHIP does on any given day.



Who is saying that your laundry list of sins is "okay"?

They're not.  The Lord sees them as sin...whether it is a little white lie or it is a murder.  Sin is sin.



Four said:


> So if a women has a heart attack wearing pearls or a fancy haircut in church and dies, she goes to he11.



No...she goes to purgatory.  But everything else....yup...you got it.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> What do you think the answer to that question is?



I think there is no he11 and there is no sin.

I think that  the answer depends on who you ask.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

The key to making any sense of this conversation is understanding from a biblical standpoint the difference between someone who is living a lifestyle of continued, unrepentant sin and someone who realizes that they are a sinner in need of a savior and is willing to make proactive lifestyle changes to grow in Christian maturity to the point that they no longer practice a sinful lifestyle.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Who is saying that your laundry list of sins is "okay"?
> 
> They're not.  The Lord sees them as sin...whether it is a little white lie or it is a murder.  Sin is sin.



But most of those "sins" hardly solicit a response at all from mainstream Christians, and rarely is seen the urge to paint a sign and walk a picket in protest of those "sins" as the anti-homesexual agenda.
Why is that?


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> I think there is no he11 and there is no sin.
> 
> I think that  the answer depends on who you ask.



Then why did you ask the question and what's the point of me giving you what I see as a thoughtful and honest answer?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> The key to making any sense of this conversation is understanding from a biblical standpoint the difference between someone who is living a lifestyle of continued, unrepentant sin and someone who realizes that they are a sinner in need of a savior and is willing to make proactive lifestyle changes to grow in Christian maturity to the point that they no longer practice a sinful lifestyle.





Very well put.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> But most of those "sins" hardly solicit a response at all from mainstream Christians, and rarely is seen the urge to paint a sign and walk a picket in protest of those "sins" as the anti-homesexual agenda.
> Why is that?



What you are referring to is at the heart of what I was trying to do with my "I'm sorry thread." 

I am sorry that there are some who misrepresent Christ in such a way that "the world" sees Christians as bigoted people who are "against" everything. 

That is not what Christ was about and not what I believe Christ's disciples are to be about. 

I would submit that people who act in such a way may not even know the savior they claim to be picketing for, but that's another thread topic I suppose?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

There is much flexibility in that "understanding from a Biblical standpoint" out there.  Some churches don't discriminate based on sexual orientation just like many don't discriminate against members who stand out front puffin' cigarettes and cigars while discussing how much they made on the over/under on yesterday's UGA vs. Alabama game.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> But most of those "sins" hardly solicit a response at all from mainstream Christians, and rarely is seen the urge to paint a sign and walk a picket in protest of those "sins" as the anti-homesexual agenda.
> Why is that?



Hmm...well...I guess there's a huge problem with "mainstream Christians" then....isn't there?   But really, how do you determine gluttony?  Just because someone is overweight doesn't mean their gluttonous.

As far as picketing/protesting those sins...I think that the Homosexual sin is one that is so obvious and blatant.  It is out in the open.  Other sins...well...people try to hide and cover.  So...it is hard to picket lying, it is hard to picket laziness, it is hard to picket lusting, it is hard to picket cheating.  But today...it is as if being LGBT is something special....something that is almost treated even more specially.  And it goes against so much of what is right.  Like elfii has described so eloquently in the PF, it destroys the fabric of civilization.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> But most of those "sins" hardly solicit a response at all from mainstream Christians, and rarely is seen the urge to paint a sign and walk a picket in protest of those "sins" as the anti-homesexual agenda.
> Why is that?



Right... homosexuality is the same as any sin any of the picketers do yet they have to picket about it... It's being made more "legal" well plenty of sin is legal.... 

So what I see here is that any homosexual who isn't willing to admit that their homosexuality, their own lifestyle is itself a sin, isn't actually asking for forgiveness or truly a christian at all. So they won't be in heaven? Or may they get the chance to admit that when they "see the light" of their ways at the pearly gates?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> What you are referring to is at the heart of what I was trying to do with my "I'm sorry thread."
> 
> I am sorry that there are some who misrepresent Christ in such a way that "the world" sees Christians as bigoted people who are "against" everything.
> 
> ...



I saw that clearly, and appreciated your point of view.

I still stand by my statement that no person can blame others as the reason for their disbelief, nor should they blindly believe something just because someone else does.  Individual choice and responsibility.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Hmm...well...I guess there's a huge problem with "mainstream Christians" then....isn't there?   But really, how do you determine gluttony?  Just because someone is overweight doesn't mean their gluttonous.
> 
> As far as picketing/protesting those sins...I think that the Homosexual sin is one that is so obvious and blatant.  It is out in the open.  Other sins...well...people try to hide and cover.  So...it is hard to picket lying, it is hard to picket laziness, it is hard to picket lusting, it is hard to picket cheating.  But today...it is as if being LGBT is something special....something that is almost treated even more specially.  And it goes against so much of what is right.  Like elfii has described so eloquently in the PF, it destroys the fabric of civilization.



I've had a homosexual man tell me he wasn't homosexual... he just liked have xes with men... Potato, potato... really....


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> There is much flexibility in that "understanding from a Biblical standpoint" out there.  Some churches don't discriminate based on sexual orientation just like many don't discriminate against members who stand out front puffin' cigarettes and cigars while discussing how much they made on the over/under on yesterday's UGA vs. Alabama game.



I disagree. 

There is no flexibility in the bible, just people who are willing to flex the bible to make it say what they want it to say in order to fit their desires or their agenda. 

It says what it says, and for the most part is abundantly clear when it says it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> I saw that clearly, and appreciated your point of view.
> 
> I still stand by my statement that no person can blame others as the reason for their disbelief, nor should they blindly believe something just because someone else does.  Individual choice and responsibility.



I also agree with this 110%


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> There is much flexibility in that "understanding from a Biblical standpoint" out there.  Some churches don't discriminate based on sexual orientation just like many don't discriminate against members who stand out front puffin' cigarettes and cigars while discussing how much they made on the over/under on yesterday's UGA vs. Alabama game.



I'll take this one....because I enjoy a glass of wine, a cigar, a beer from time to time.  Never puffed a cigarette....but I'll go as far as to include them as well.

If you can do any of the above in moderation....without being addicted to it...then there is no sin.  That being said, if you are addicted to something...anything (including the internet and this forum), then you are allowing something to control your mind/body other than the Holy Spirit and it is a sin.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> No...she goes to purgatory.  But everything else....yup...you got it.



Interesting, so are you catholic? I assume  most here are varying flavors of protestant, which generally doesn't believe in purgatory.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> Interesting, so are you catholic? I assume  most here are varying flavors of protestant, which generally doesn't believe in purgatory.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> Then why did you ask the question and what's the point of me giving you what I see as a thoughtful and honest answer?



I ask because it all seems so silly, its hard to believe that people take serious certain rules like we were talking about... All Christians take certain sin more seriously than others, but the bible doesn't really make the same distinction (From what i can see) So it looks like people just admit X, Y, Z silly thing is sin, but dont really pay attention to it much because it doesn't fit with the current culture, or its so obviously silly.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


>



hmm... mormon?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Hmm...well...I guess there's a huge problem with "mainstream Christians" then....isn't there?   But really, how do you determine gluttony?  Just because someone is overweight doesn't mean their gluttonous.
> 
> As far as picketing/protesting those sins...I think that the Homosexual sin is one that is so obvious and blatant.  It is out in the open.  Other sins...well...people try to hide and cover.  So...it is hard to picket lying, it is hard to picket laziness, it is hard to picket lusting, it is hard to picket cheating.  But today...it is as if being LGBT is something special....something that is almost treated even more specially.  And it goes against so much of what is right.  Like elfii has described so eloquently in the PF, it destroys the fabric of civilization.



Not everyone sees "obvious and blatant" the same, nor do they interpret and define those "sins" exactly alike.  Why won't those who hold their religious beliefs based on FAITH simply stop participating in creating battles, worry over their own convictions and moral compass and LET THE HOLY SPIRIT do what their belief system teaches?  Is it because they do not TRUST the HOLY SPIRIT to do what their Bible tells them it will do?

Must be easier to accept a 365lb Reverend who smokes Camels I guess.  Or to let the biggest and most complained about auto dealership owner handle the church treasury.  Keep them "gays" away from me and my family!

Don't worry.  Such does not keep me from the church.  I continue my own search daily not influenced by what I perceive as inequitable.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> hmm... mormon?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> I ask because it all seems so silly, its hard to believe that people take serious certain rules like we were talking about... All Christians take certain sin more seriously than others, but the bible doesn't really make the same distinction (From what i can see) So it looks like people just admit X, Y, Z silly thing is sin, but dont really pay attention to it much because it doesn't fit with the current culture, or its so obviously silly.



I understand you think it's silly...but if you actually read the posts that people have written, you'd find that your statement above just doesn't make sense.  No one is saying that certain sin is more serious than other sin.



Four said:


> hmm... mormon?





Either your reading comprehension skills are extremely lacking or you are being very disingenuous.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> There is no flexibility in the bible, just people who are willing to flex the bible to make it say what they want it to say in order to fit their desires or their agenda.
> 
> It says what it says, and for the most part is abundantly clear when it says it.



For some, I'm sure that can be the case.
But history has proven the Bible has been interpreted in so many fashons not even the most educated and knowledgeable can agree on all interpretations.  Not Southern Baptists, not Methodists, not Roman Catholics, not Holiness...


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 22, 2013)

I know more than one person who has lived their entire lives with those homosexual tendencies, but have remained single and have never had sex, with anyone, in their entire life.  (One is a music director at a rather large Methodist church) They believed in God, and accepted God’s will in regard to same-sex relations.
At least one who has left that life behind him because he accepts God’s will.  No excuses from this man, but a changing of his life.

There need to be more heterosexual Christians with their kind of discipleship.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> I understand you think it's silly...but if you actually read the posts that people have written, you'd find that your statement above just doesn't make sense.  No one is saying that certain sin is more serious than other sin.



I can't hear what they're saying over the sounds of there actions.

Regardless, i have my answer about things.

1. Is the red text more important than the others? 

No, all of it is divinely inspired.

2. Is all sin equal?

Yes, all sin is equal, and forgivable, and if you die before you give it up and ask for forgiveness you got to he11 (or purgatory?)




rjcruiser said:


> Either your reading comprehension skills are extremely lacking or you are being very disingenuous.



Lets go with reading comprehension.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

You know Four, I would like to take time and explain things that I believe would help you to understand the bigger picture, and were we closer and able to sit down over our drink of choice with a bible and a notepad and have open honest dialogue I would be more than happy to do this very thing. 

At least then I could look you in the eye and determine the sincerity of your questioning and you could see my attitude and the seriousness and desire I have to provide understanding. 

I am afraid though that you're coming at these discussion with only the intention to prove how "silly" and "ignorant" we Christians are, and I would rather spend my time seriously engaging with someone who really just wants to understand. 

Am I wrong?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> I understand you think it's silly...but if you actually read the posts that people have written, you'd find that your statement above just doesn't make sense.  No one is saying that certain sin is more serious than other sin.



Yep! But I would qualify this statement by saying that no sin is more serious than another *to God*.

Just throwing that out there because that assertion could be taken down a wormhole. Obviously, child molestation is more serious than telling a white lie, but in the eyes of God, you've missed the mark of perfection either way.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> I know more than one person who has lived their entire lives with those homosexual tendencies, but have remained single and have never had sex, with anyone, in their entire life.  (One is a music director at a rather large Methodist church) They believed in God, and accepted God’s will in regard to same-sex relations.
> At least one who has left that life behind him because he accepts God’s will.  No excuses from this man, but a changing of his life.
> 
> There need to be more heterosexual Christians with their kind of discipleship.



I find that incredibly sad...


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> I'll take this one....because I enjoy a glass of wine, a cigar, a beer from time to time.  Never puffed a cigarette....but I'll go as far as to include them as well.
> 
> If you can do any of the above in moderation....without being addicted to it...then there is no sin.  That being said, if you are addicted to something...anything (including the internet and this forum), then you are allowing something to control your mind/body other than the Holy Spirit and it is a sin.



You jumped both cleats out of the batter's box to drive that slow pitch Blue Dot I layed across the plate!


Moderation.  Heard it all my life.
There's a topic for individual interpretation!  Sometimes a little is simply too much.  Othertimes it is "all you can eat" awesomeness and not a sin!
"Tee-totallers" and Moderates will disagree.  The Anglican Church does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, yet they can get their message of Christ to their congregation.  Is it real?  Is the Holy Spirit real?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> Not everyone sees "obvious and blatant" the same, nor do they interpret and define those "sins" exactly alike.  Why won't those who hold their religious beliefs based on FAITH simply stop participating in creating battles, worry over their own convictions and moral compass and LET THE HOLY SPIRIT do what their belief system teaches?  Is it because they do not TRUST the HOLY SPIRIT to do what their Bible tells them it will do?



You are right in that not everyone sees "obvious and blatant" the same.  And I've seen pastors get caught up in sin before too (not homosexuality, but adultery) and it is devastating to their families and their congregations.

That being said, the Bible tells us to evangelize the lost.  It tells us to share the gospel.  So, even though God is in control of all things, I'm commanded to live my life as a testimony to others.  I will not sit on the sidelines and watch laws get passed that I don't agree with.  I will actively participate in a way that our government allows.

How is that not "Trusting the Holy Spirit?"



			
				WTM45 said:
			
		

> Must be easier to accept a 365lb Reverend who smokes Camels I guess.  Or to let the biggest and most complained about auto dealership owner handle the church treasury.  Keep them "gays" away from me and my family!



Never known a 365lb Reverend who smoked camels...do you?

As far as the dealership owner being the church treasurer...well...I guess I could see that happening.  Sad, but sometimes people are put in positions they shouldn't be....but I will say, most churches these days are viewed as a social club...rather than a place of Worship.



			
				WTM45 said:
			
		

> Don't worry.  Such does not keep me from the church.  I continue my own search daily not influenced by what I perceive as inequitable.



Awesome.  I will pray that someday soon, you will find the truth.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Mar 22, 2013)

What any practicing CHRISTIAN says, or believes pales compared to the WORD of GOD. Read I Corinthians 6:9-11, and you'll find the answer(s) sought. The word effeminate is particularly on point.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> I can't hear what they're saying over the sounds of there actions.
> 
> Regardless, i have my answer about things.
> 
> ...



That is kind of a leading question though, like the whole beating wife scenario.

It's not the Jesus' words are more or less important, every word in the Bible is important.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> For some, I'm sure that can be the case.
> But history has proven the Bible has been interpreted in so many fashons not even the most educated and knowledgeable can agree on all interpretations.  Not Southern Baptists, not Methodists, not Roman Catholics, not Holiness...



I understand that, but that's the people's problem and not the bible itself. Right?


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That is kind of a leading question though, like the whole beating wife scenario.
> 
> It's not the Jesus' words are more or less important, every word in the Bible is important.



Hmm, i dont get the leading question, you answered it almost the same as i did, just a little different wording.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> Hmm, i dont get the leading question, you answered it almost the same as i did, just a little different wording.



The question just comes across as if one *is* more important than the other. Like asking the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Jesus is God incarnate, His words were written down, every other word is the bible is Holy Spirit filled, like I said before, it's all important.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> You know Four, I would like to take time and explain things that I believe would help you to understand the bigger picture, and were we closer and able to sit down over our drink of choice with a bible and a notepad and have open honest dialogue I would be more than happy to do this very thing.
> 
> At least then I could look you in the eye and determine the sincerity of your questioning and you could see my attitude and the seriousness and desire I have to provide understanding.
> 
> ...



Admittedly, I come asking these questions as a secular person interested in the culture, and psychology of religious people and religious customs.. So now i'm asking you questions because I'm questioning my faith, or searching for answers in my life, looking towards a deity or anything.

I'm simply asking questions that confused me. Now they're answered by a few on this board, and i have a decent understanding from there standpoint, but i have to remember that this is a very small sample size of self professed Christians. But i still find it interesting and informative.

So, yes i have a desire to understand, but not from a religious standpoint, more from a cultural or academic standpoint. 

Also, when i point out things i find silly in the NT, its to see how individuals justify them, or incorporate them into there lives. More than half that i show that timothy passage to don't believe its even in the NT until shown, and then get embarrassed.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

Michael F. Gray said:


> What any practicing CHRISTIAN says, or believes pales compared to the WORD of GOD. Read I Corinthians 6:9-11, and you'll find the answer(s) sought. The word effeminate is particularly on point.



You are the king of drive by scripture. 

Just to clarify 



> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.



Neat to know that it encompasses the passive homosexual acts....


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

As an analogy, it seems sometimes to me there are those who only want to discuss the "sale" to others who are "creditworthy, pre-approved" and have the DESIRE to purchase or participate.

I do admit I am not listening closely when the JW's are standing at my front door proselytizing.  I too look for the easiest way to end the conversation respectfully and go about my day after the interruption.

I have accepted everyone will not see things my way.  I have accepted I can not understand or see things the way all others do.  I have accepted we have to get along on this globe, and it seems much easier if I simply let things take care of themselves.
I do not judge folks for their sexual orientation any more than I judge them for their religion or their voter registration status.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> You jumped both cleats out of the batter's box to drive that slow pitch Blue Dot I layed across the plate!
> 
> 
> Moderation.  Heard it all my life.
> ...




 

But...I never said moderation, did I?  One can never sin in moderation and it be alright.


I will add a personal story to this.  I grew up in a church where there was never an alter call.  The gospel message wasn't laid out in a 3 step program the last 5 minutes of every message.  There were no fancy powerpoint slides...no overhead projectors...no movie clips to be relevant.  I grew up in a church where the Bible was exposited verse by verse...chapter by chapter...book by book.  When it came to a chapter like Galations 5, the pastor went through the works of the flesh and then went through the fruit of the spirit.

That church thrived.  It continues to thrive.  People are saved every day from the Word of God.  They are convicted by their sin...they are pointed to the cross...they are growing in their sanctification.  I was very priviledged to sit under that teaching.

When one preaches the Bible, it will convict.  There is no way to sit under the preaching of the Bible and not be convicted by one's sin.  The person will either come to Christ or leave from being uncomfortable.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The question just comes across as if one *is* more important than the other. Like asking the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
> 
> Jesus is God incarnate, His words were written down, every other word is the bible is Holy Spirit filled, like I said before, it's all important.



I think that's purely how your reading into it, it doesnt come across that one IS more important, the question is ASKING if one is more important......

The question is asked because i know christians in my personal life that ignore entire sections of the NT, calling some of them garbage, but only read the red text.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> When one preaches the Bible, it will convict.  There is no way to sit under the preaching of the Bible and not be convicted by one's sin.  The person will either come to Christ or leave from being uncomfortable.



I lost you here..

Besides maybe being embarrassed if you called me fat... i cant think of any sin i commit that i have any personal or emotional problems with...


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> Admittedly, I come asking these questions as a secular person interested in the culture, and psychology of religious people and religious customs.. So now i'm asking you questions because I'm questioning my faith, or searching for answers in my life, looking towards a deity or anything.
> 
> I'm simply asking questions that confused me. Now they're answered by a few on this board, and i have a decent understanding from there standpoint, but i have to remember that this is a very small sample size of self professed Christians. But i still find it interesting and informative.
> 
> ...



Why do you ask questions of people who "claim" to be christians?  Why don't you satisfy your own curiousity by reading and studying the Bible itself?

Or...is it that you'd rather just take someone's word for it rather than have to put in the time/effort to study?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I understand that, but that's the people's problem and not the bible itself. Right?



I think a lot about that.  Always have.  Always will.  It is a question that can only be answered honestly through faith in believing the Bible is actually the Word of God.
I have less of that now than when I started my journey.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> I lost you here..
> 
> Besides maybe being embarrassed if you called me fat... i cant think of any sin i commit that i have any personal or emotional problems with...



Don't you mean, You lost me here?


But..it's alright.  I figure I lost you a long time ago based on your reading comprehension.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> But...I never said *moderation*, did I?  One can never sin in moderation and it be alright.



Post #91, your own words.  I quoted it.

Am I not the one confused a little?  I think I am!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> I think that's purely how your reading into it, it doesnt come across that one IS more important, the question is ASKING if one is more important......
> 
> The question is asked because i know christians in my personal life that ignore entire sections of the NT, calling some of them garbage, but only read the red text.


Gotcha 

I tried to word my last post to come off as, "that is the way I was reading it", on secone thought, maybe I should have just said "that is the way I am reading it". 

I read it that way most likely because the question was coming from the atheistic prospective.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Why do you ask questions of people who "claim" to be christians?  Why don't you satisfy your own curiousity by reading and studying the Bible itself?
> 
> Or...is it that you'd rather just take someone's word for it rather than have to put in the time/effort to study?



I've read most of the bible, I just find I find the people are more interesting than the book.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Gotcha
> 
> I tried to word my last post to come off as, "that is the way I was reading it", on secone thought, maybe I should have just said "that is the way I am reading it".
> 
> I read it that way most likely because the question was coming from the atheistic prospective.



Makes sense, you're naturally going to be more skeptical or defensive about something said by a person you know holds views 180* from your own.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> Post #91, your own words.  I quoted it.
> 
> Am I not the one confused a little?  I think I am!



  Dang...where's that edit button so I can go change it and make myself not look stoopid

Okay...so I put moderation.

That being said...sin in moderation is still sin and is wrong.  Being addicted to anything is a sin.  I don't know if I know anyone who can just smoke one cigarette...but I'm sure there are a few out there....but i think that is why most view it as a sin....because people are addicted and over time, it ruins the body.




Four said:


> I've read most of the bible, I just find I find the people are more interesting than the book.



Ahh...I understand....and that shows your motives for asking these questions.

Lack of comprehension is not it at all....but rather, you are both an arrogant and disingenuous person trying to stir up controversy to get a little giggle and entertainment.  I genuinely feel sorry for you.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

Oh come on.  You are better than that, rj.  Four is correct in that how people think and believe is much more interesting than any "textbook" or academic interpretation of the Bible.  Goes back to the point raised by Mr. Harris to me regarding interpretation.  It is quite interesting how interpretations vary and how folks defend their stances.

Gotta head out.  Gonna meet for beers and talk religion/politics/hunting/fishing with the boys, one of them (The Reverend) has lost some weight but still hits the wings harder than the rest of us between his visits outside to address a "low nicotine light!"

And, if the wife arrives while the waitress is standing at our table laughing with us I will get my daily slap to the back of the head!


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> Oh come on.  You are better than that, rj.  Four is correct in that how people think and believe is much more interesting than any textbook interpretation of the Bible.



I agree with him....people can be very interesting.

However, he states that his intentions are for learning....then states that he enjoys seeing people crash and burn because it is more interesting.

I don't care what he does...really, I don't.  Just don't try and pull the wool over the eyes of the "religious."  It's arrogant and demeaning at best.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2013)

I can assure you I have no such negative intentions.
I'd like to sit around the campfire and talk with everyone here!

Not being sacreligious, but I do hope there are fire pits and lawn chairs in EVERY backyard in Heaven.  And no snow and below freezing temps.  That is of the devil.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> I can assure you I have no such negative intentions.
> I'd like to sit around the campfire and talk with everyone here!
> 
> Not being sacreligious, but I do hope there are fire pits and lawn chairs in EVERY backyard in Heaven.  And no snow and below freezing temps.  That is of the devil.



You hush that talk! 

I am savoring these last few days of cold weather before it gets to hot for the bugs to move around outside.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 22, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> I can assure you I have no such negative intentions.
> I'd like to sit around the campfire and talk with everyone here!
> 
> Not being sacreligious, but I do hope there are fire pits and lawn chairs in EVERY backyard in Heaven.  And no snow and below freezing temps.  That is of the devil.



I know...WTM...never thought you to be anything but genuine.  As I've stated before, you're always welcome at my campfire....enjoy a beer together....a fine cigar together...and just shoot the breeze....or talk religion/politics if you're up for it.  I know there are others on here that I disagree with as well....but I feel the same about.  It is just when people are disingenuous and have alterior motives, it takes the fun out of the debate.  

And as far as heaven...it will be glorious...better than we can ever imagine. 
edit to add:  I'm guessing Heaven will have snow...but it won't be cold.  Only the good parts.  And String...there will be bugs...but they won't bite or bother.  Nothing but the good in everything will be in Heaven.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You hush that talk!
> 
> I am savoring these last few days of cold weather before it gets to hot for the bugs to move around outside.



and before the electric bill skyrockets


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2013)

Interesting civil conversation going on here. I want to join in. I too find it interesting to learn everyone's beliefs. My immediate family all have varying views & beliefs and we all went to the same Baptist Church and all used just the King James Bible. In fact we didn't even know there was different versions. In my extended family we have gays, adulterers, smokers, dippers, gluttons, racist, prideful, not very meek, drinkers, rock musicians, income tax cheaters, insurance company cheaters, & government program cheaters.
I'd hate to see what a non-Christian  family looks like. I personally have no way of knowing what's in the hearts of all these family members, hopefully they are repenting daily.

p.s. I forgot to add my addiction; COFFEE. I love the stuff, I can't live without it. I can't start my day without it. I'm trying to cut back and drink more hot tea.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2013)

I think Christian's staunch stand against homosexuality is based on society's stand on homosexuality. I hate to say it but I believe Christianity changes with society. God nor the Bible changes, but people do. Look how Christians view blacks & women compared to the fifties. Elvis' dancing was of the devil, chaperone a middle school dance if you want to be appalled. I will conclude in that Gays will be accepted by society soon. My children don't look at Gays the way we do. I don't look at blacks the way my parents do. I don't look at women preachers or loan officers the way everyone used too. It might not be Biblical but it will happen and our grand children and great grand children will think our views will be as weird as black's only water fountains.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

Four said:


> The whole thing sounds completely bigoted to me...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh? 
Huh?
and Huh?

Where did I mention any of that?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Bad things will always happen when men try to "put women in their place" because that is not the intent of the passage.
> 
> Women are to submit to their husbands.  If they don't, they are in sin.
> 
> ...



Amen!!!

If a man truly loves the woman as God commanded then he will always respect her opinion on things and not try to dominate, torment and torture her. I just don't think that is too hard to comprehend. 

I think the man in the family should be responsible for making the right decisions and should be held accountable  for places/things he leads his wife and children into. Some men don't want to be the 'head of the household'...I agree being head of household is a hard job.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2013)

I would agree the role of men in the Bible is harder. I don't understand the role of women in those verses but I would have to say the under authority is more than just the Church. Adam was formed first then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
I don't like those verses any more than the Gay verses but they are in the Bible. I sure wish that Paul fellow was still alive. I need some clarification. 
Clarke's commentary:
Women are precluded from all public offices; therefore they cannot be judges, nor execute the function of magistrates; they cannot sue, plead, nor act in any case, as proxies." 

Gill's exposition: 
nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2013)

Barne's notes:
And Adam was not deceived - This is the second reason why the woman should occupy a subordinate rank in all things. It is, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead. 

Clarke's commentary:
Adam received the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of this she was subjected to the domination of her husband

Artfuldodger's commentary:
It makes no difference to me who was deceived. They were both equally wrong. Adam knew better just as Eve. It just so happened Eve did the transgression. Why did the serpent approach Eve? I would probably be more vulnerable than my wife would to the serpent but that's just me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2013)

Biblical women with spiritual authority:

 the Bible contains several accounts where God bypassed husbands and male guardians and spoke  to women directly with messages of vital significance.  Where God did not speak personally, he sent angels.  This article will look at a few of these women whom God entrusted with spiritual authority – Bible women who acted without the permission or protection of men.

http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/bible-women-with-spiritual-authority/


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Barne's notes:
> And Adam was not deceived - This is the second reason why the woman should occupy a subordinate rank in all things. It is, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead.
> 
> Clarke's commentary:
> ...



Eve was deceived....Adam wasn't because he knew he was doing wrong. He shoulda stepped up to the plate and 'led her' down the right path instead of being....well you know. Adam did the transgression (also?), he knew he was disobeying God.

eta...as I read your post again...I see that clark said that...duh.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Eve was deceived....Adam wasn't because he knew he was doing wrong. He shoulda stepped up to the plate and 'led her' down the right path instead of being....well you know. Adam did the transgression (also?), he knew he was disobeying God.
> 
> eta...as I read your post again...I see that clark said that...duh.



I'm glad you are a forum member as I don't think we have to many womens posting in the religious forums. 
Maybe Adam's problem was what we discussed earlier. He was being effeminate, by not making the right decision.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> He was being effeminate, by not making the right decision.


Art, I ask for clarity. How are you using the word "effeminate" here?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Art, I ask for clarity. How are you using the word "effeminate" here?



Malakos: dissolute, cowardly, lazy, weak, unstable, easily influenced – all qualities that were seen as feminine.

Adam wasn't acting like the male leader that he should have been. 
Some people believe Satan tempted woman instead of man because he knew she would be more vulnerable being feminine.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2013)

Faith is one thing, but Religion corrupts.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Malakos: dissolute, cowardly, lazy, weak, unstable, easily influenced – all qualities that were seen as feminine.
> 
> Adam wasn't acting like the male leader that he should have been.
> Some people believe Satan tempted woman instead of man because he knew she would be more vulnerable being feminine.



Many men won't turn down sex, ya know?  I think with sex many women can get what they want from a man. Just my opinion. I'm not saying men will cheat, I'm just saying it's the right tool to use.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Faith is one thing, but Religion corrupts.



I can agree with that. There are many things that religion doesn't corrupt,too, but I get your point.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2013)

Maybe Satan new if he could convince Eve, she would have a better chance convincing Adam than he would.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe Satan new if he could convince Eve, she would have a better chance convincing Adam than he would.



I agree....satan knows our weak points and where to throw that dart, too. Just like Christ in Gethsemine.
satan knows my weaknesses and that's what he tempts me with...he's never tempted me to rob a bank, or to murder someone out of anger, but he knows my weak points and targets those. I fall short in the same areas over and over and over again....I rebuke satan (thoughts/temptations) in the name of Jesus every day, and they are the same thoughts all the time. Many have gone away, but still some of them linger. And I'm tempted, deceived, tricked and tripped up by him on a daily basis....gotta go tend my garden..ya know?


----------



## panfried0419 (Mar 23, 2013)

Once again artfuldodger hitting every nail on the head. Love reading your posts.


----------

