A few responses …
Polycarp:
Thank you for explaining “sock puppet!” That makes sense. And thank you for trusting me :).
You said: "And, without beating that poor horse any more, we have seen that good people can differ in their opinion of what constitutes sin. (I hope you’ll give me at least that much credibility.) "
I will say this Poly … I believe you are very sincere and come to your belief from a kind heart. I think we might see each other the same way – sincere but deceived. What you or I believe on this issue won’t affect our personal walks with Christ, but it will certainly affect how we minister to people in our lives. I see you as missing an opportunity … you see me as going after an opportunity that you don’t think is there.
Here’s the thing … all believers are missing something. I’m sure there are areas of my walk where I think something is true but it’s not, or vice versa. To me, the only safeguard against that is being open to someone giving me a good scripture-based argument to make their case. People have done that with me before and I’ve changed me mind, and I’ve shared scriptural truth with others and they’ve changed their minds.
As an example, I remember being shocked about 13 years ago when I heard a preacher that I respect tremendously say from the pulpit, “God showed me that discouragement was a sin.” I didn’t see it, but I was open to the truth. The guy said he would show it scripturally and I just kept an open mind. Much to my surprise, he made a very good case scripturally for his point! I studied the scriptures and I would have to say his statement was biblically sound.
You said: "You see the Scripture as normative – the thing against which everything else is to be tested. I do not. . . . And we differ on where we find sin. "
You also said: “But that, FriendofGod and friend of mine, is unimportant.”
Poly, you are so gracious I wish I could just say “I agree” and move on. From the perspective of our having a personal relationship with Christ, it is, in a way “unimportant”. But from the perspective of our lives as a whole and the lives we might touch, it matters very, very much. I fear that you will shortchange yourself and your ministry if you hold onto this belief (and I realize you might feel the same about me).
Our main mission, I think you would agree Poly, is to reach out to those who are open to God. Look at it as being a skilled surgeon. If someone is sick with sin and needs God to heal them, and you as the surgeon misdiagnose them and give them a clean bill of health, you’ve actually damaged them. How sin is defined is very important. The standard we use is very important. Again, you and I might go to heaven regardless of what we believe on these things, but it can drastically affect our lives and ministries here on earth.
It affects our personal lives too. If I misdiagnose an action of mine as being okay with God when it’s actually sinful, I will suffer consequences and wonder why. I will not understand. If I’d known it was a sin, I could at least have made an effort to battle the temptation.
You later said: “But what a gay person hears in conservative Christian witness is that he must make that sort of radical shift, before he is saved.”
If that’s what people are hearing from me, I really have blown my message. God takes you AS YOU ARE, warts and all, no matter what your sins and background. Literally NO MATTER WHAT. You can be a prostitute, a mass murderer, or whatever, and God will be willing to take you.
You said: “Friend, you are not called to judge Esprix and others in his place. You have ably made your case that Scripture as you understand it shows the evidence of sin in his life.”
I don’t claim nor have I ever claimed to “judge” anyone. I merely am pointing out what God, the ultimate judge, has warned all of us about in His word. It’s the same message to me as it is to Esprix or anyone else. It’s not up to me to decide about people, it’s up to God – and God has made it clear where He stands in His word.
Finally Polycarp, you said: "So, Friend and everyone, I ask your forgiveness for being argumentative and witty when I could have brought peace. For showing my pride when I should have been showing God’s love. For dividing instead of uniting. "
Wow. I honestly didn’t see a need for you to apologize Poly but, as I heard a wise teacher say once, “If you need forgiveness, I will certainly extend it to you.” I find you to be very gracious and kind despite our disagreements.
Now, Daniel disagreed on my beliefs about the gay lifestyle and summarized with: "And I challenge you, Brother, to show where JC condemned any such sin, other than intolerance. "
Jesus didn’t, as far as I know, comment on homosexuality at all … but He didn’t comment on many areas of life. That doesn’t mean He didn’t have an opinion on them. And I’m afraid I must disagree too … I feel that Paul and the entire Bible, while written by men, was inspired by the Holy Spirit to hand the heart of God to mankind. The whole Bible expresses God’s heart, not just Jesus’ words only.
I appreciate your graciousness in your post even though we disagree.
Now to Ben …
Is there any point is us continuing this discussion? We are going round and round and it’s a very peripheral point anyway, and I think it’ll just turn into another C&L Parts I and II.
I am questioning my own wisdom here, but I will respond to a few of your points:
You said: "Is it that the women willingly, with full and free consent, married the soldiers who killed their families, or is it that you don’t think they were necessarily having sex after they got married? "
I don’t know is the main answer. I assume that it was probably forced marriage, and I assume of course that there was sex in the marriage. But you seem to assume that forced marriage = forced sex.
Plus, maybe my assumptions are wrong. Remember, these were real people. There are such things as soldiers in war that have hearts of gold. Ever seen the stories of some of the WWII vets? Many were godly men with good families.
The point is … no of course I’m not downplaying that this is a horrible war and the women are traumautized (sp?) as it is by their husbands being killed and themselves being captured. But the command was not to rape these women! If the command had been, “Take the women and do with them whatever you want”, then I’d say definately there would be rape implied strongly there. The first command was to “give them time to grieve”. Why in your right mind would you do this if you didn’t give a flip about them and wanted to rape them? Ever known a rapist who felt an ounce of compassion for his victim?
My main point, Ben, is … neither you nor I know the details of how that command was carried out. You are making dramatic assumptions that fit with your apparent worldview that God is a cruel tyrannical dictator.
Later you said: "You’ve missed my point. If your deity were to tell you to do something that he didn’t really want you to do, because he wanted to test your ability to think for yourself, how would you know what he expected of you? "
I don’t believe God does this. He tells you to do what He wants you to do. The only time I’ve ever known where God told someone to do something He really didn’t want them to do, it was to test their faith, not their ability to think for themselves. I don’t know of a place biblically where God did that, but if you know of one please point it out to me.
Later you said: “Were the Amalekite babies killed because they inherited the curse, and therefore had no free will, or do we all have free will, and 1-day-old Amalekite embryos chose a deep-seated evil which could only be dealt with by their destruction?”
Again, we’re dealing with theories here. My opinion and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee. No I believe that they had free will, but that their inclination toward evil might have become so strong as they grew older that they would be “too far gone” from the get-go.
You later said "What I asked was, why does your deity create people even when he knows that they will choose to reject him? "
Look lets face it … God took a risk in creating us. He created each person with free will, knowing that they would have the choice to accept or reject Him. And some believe He could see in the future and know that some would reject Him. Do those people deserve the chance to choose any less than those who chose for Christ? Should God say, “Okay, this person’s not gonna choose for me, therefore, zap, let’s get rid of him and not give him a choice!”
I’ll say it again: God creates people, period. They have free will. God could take away the free will of those who chose not to follow Him by somehow blocking their existance, but God isn’t that way. He gives you a choice.
Ben, as for your last set of statement about your feelings about God. This literally broke my heart for you even more. You have been fed a bundle of lies about God. I didn’t realize you felt this way toward God. Do you mind if I ask you a personal question? Do you mind if I ask why you believe God is so sadistic and perverted? I would really like to know.
Okay I’ll end this post and move on to Trisk and Esprix.
