punha, I’ve also been in contact with the person in question, although I’ve broken off to focus on some rather nasty personal stuff happening to a good friend recently. I would say she’d see it as an analogy to someone who refuses to support a known, active drug addict. The first person may say, “If you do not stop using drugs and get yourself into a treatment program, I will not allow you to remain in my home.” The addict may see that action as unspeakably cruel and callous, but it may be what the other person sees as the only practical, responsible alternative, thinking something along the lines of, “So you hate my guts for doing this to you. Whether you like it or not, it is for your own good, and allowing you to continue what you’re doing will cause you greater harm.” If you point out that the people she’s preaching at don’t see their actions as harmful, I’ll point out that drug addicts don’t see their actions as harmful.
Yes, it stinks. This is the first time I’ve played with this analogy, and I find its ramifications a bit chilling. I do not believe that by being the sort of Christian I am, I am enabling people to continue in their current state of sin (using “enabling” in the current pop psychology sense), especially since I can be quite firm and judgemental in what I believe are appropriate circumstances. I suspect Pilate had a good point when he asked, “What is Truth?”
I think there is far more to this statement than most would admit. Jesus and Paul both told them how much they’d be reviled and prosecuted for their beliefs. So any resistence they get only serves to strengthen their sense of doing the right thing. The problem, of course, is that disagreement, debate and even invective are not the same as real persecution. And history teaches us that the Christians have been every bit as proficient at persecuting others for much longer stretches of time as their persecutors were before during the relatively brief period from Nero to Constantine. Even during that period, persecution was neither universal nor consistent throughout the Empire.
In effect, they need to feel persecuted in order to fulfill the prophecies that they would be. Nevermind the fact that most Christians face no persecution, even little disapprobation, of any kind.
You do have to admit, it makes some of the petty regulations of the Torah make a lot more sense!“We don’t have to have a reasonfor it; it’s our policy!”
Seriously, the idea that the God of the Old Testament is not the Chief Honcho of the Universe was a staple of a couple of forms of Gnosticism. In one of them, quite contrary to Jesus’ identification of His Father with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, He (Jesus) is portrayed as bringing the truth about the Father – who is the Boss of the O.T. deity, against whom the latter has rebelled and is running his own scam.
So I guess this is why nobody ever got paid vacation time in the OT? Hell, Noah et al. didn’t get hazard pay or overtime or ANYTHING for building/operating that big-ass boat!
Svt4Him , because I was insulting publicly I will say this publicly.
I am sorry for the tone I have taken with you. I was wrong. I don’t agree with your outlook as expressed here, but that is no reason for me to be mean. I do try to live as a Christian and that should preclude returning bad for bad. Pride is a sin too, and I have been full of it. Again, I am sorry.
Given that the ten commandments do not once mention sexual acts between non-married people, how is it possible that having “had sex outside of marriage (or desired to)” is a violation of same?- The Bible must be taken as a whole. For instance, Jesus said “You know it is written…but I say” and not only that, but when Jesus was tempted, He didn’t quote the ten commandments, but the verses He quoted had just as much weight.
What is the point of witnessing in this fashion to people one knows will be predominantly Christian (given the area, as both Homebrew and Svt4him have mentioned)? They already know about the ten commandments and unless one has specific information to the contrary, one should assume they have their own plan for being saved. So … why go witnessing there?- Is everyone Christian? No. Not only that, but some people really did need some others to talk to. But by this line of reasoning, one would never have witnessed in Jesus’ day, yet Jesus did. He went to the sick, but there were religious people there as well.
Why go witnessing in areas where you know the people are already Christian … unless you don’t think Mormons are Christian, or JWs are Christian, etc.? That strikes me as being more than a little haughty, not to mention proud … which is one quality I believe you mentioned speaking out against, Svt4him.- you again are using my one statement as implying something that I didn’t mean to say. I was wrong to say it, I should have worded it different, but if you keep getting stuck on the fact that I misused the term Homosexual Church, there’s not a lot I can do to change that. You say I lied about it, I think I have addressed that. I was wrong to say we met with the homosexual church. First off, because I don’t think the church met on Friday nights, and secondly because we were at the same location, nowhere near the church. Now take everything I’ve said apart from the lack of clarity regarding the meeting, and you’ll see it’s been consistent. But I must say that those meetings required me to study a heck of a lot. Now to address the issue of Mormonism or JW’s, I think you’re saying that if I think I have truth, then I’m proud? That’s not correct. Having truth doesn’t mean I’ve done anything great, nor does it mean that I created the truth. Pride would say I’m better than you because I have truth, and that’s not the same. Where JW’s and LDS came in, is in the fact that they all believe in the Bible, to a point, yet all have different views of God. You may think that means they all are right, or none are right, but Paul addressed that when he said in Galatians I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
Were you in front of, or near, the Cathedral of Hope witnessing, or not?- No. Didn’t I cover this before?
If so, why did you feel it important to witness there?- I was not there. But someone asked why witness at all? Romans 10- 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
What would you tell a gay Christian? (There are a few here, so your time writing your answer won’t be wasted.)- Honestly, I wouldn’t tell then anything different than what I’ve said. I have no authority to speak into anyone who’s here’s lives, so I wouldn’t try to. If you asked me a question, I could answer, or if you said something wrong, I may argue, but I won’t try and persuade. I’d also add though that the majority of the New Testament is written to Christians to correct errors, so to say a Christian can’t be in error is incorrect.
Construe John 14:6. Why did Jesus say it? What does it mean?- 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jesus is the only way to the Father, as Jesus became a curse for us that we don’t have to suffer the curse of the law. So it means that if we are in Christ, born from above, however you want to describe it, then we are free from the curse of the law, and can be in the presence of a Holy God.
What is the heart and core of the Christian message, IYHO?- God created, man rebelled. Because of it, man deserves the payment for sin, but God is love, so He created a way for us to be forgiven. If we repent and believe, we get mercy instead of judgment which we deserve. That said, the message of the OT is God blessed, people turned away, bad things happened, people repented, God restored, and it started again. So to say one message is a bit hard to define, as different people need to know about different aspects. But that’s a good question.
What is your opinion of “ex gay ministries”?- Like what?
I would think that saying something like "your witness of God is serving only to drive me away from Him- If anyone said that, I would stop talking to them. Actually, I’d hope to not start talking to them about God in the first place, but we all make mistakes. I never would pursue anyone who didn’t want to talk about God, nor would I ignore anyone because of it. It’s like picking apples off my tree, when they’re ready to come off, they’ll come off. I wouldn’t want to pull it off before it’s ready, because you just ruin it.
But, Svt4Him, you still haven’t explained WHY you said you went to meet the “homosexual church” when, in fact, you didn’t? You didn’t “misuse” the term. You stated something that was not true.
I contend that it was deliberate, also. You replied to the OP to provide a counter-case in which you could show that Gay Christians did not behave better than straight ones. You set the story up as if you were near a predominately homoseuxal congregation and one of the members “threatened” you. You purposefully created this presentation of the story.
If I, and a few others, did not know the area, nobody would have called you on the misrepresentation. Since I did so, you’ve dodged and ducked; but never explained why you misstated a pertinent fact in your story. I’ll speculate that it’s because the story is relevant as a counter-example to the OP only if the transgressor is a Gay Christian. The only way to make that implication is if he made the “threat” while you were there to “meet the homosexual church”.
Wasn’t there a commandment about bearing false witness? I charge you with deliberately do that in this thread.
You certainly may, whether it’s true or not, is debatable. Now that said, there were some people who where homosexual Christians who were not very nice to us, and there were some who were. That was the point of my story. Is everyone we met a homosexual Christian in Cedar Springs? No, and if you know the area, I’d hope I wouldn’t have to explain that. As for no one knowing the area, I was pretty specific about the location, so I don’t know how I was trying to hide it. Now I’ll also say though, that there were some super nice people there, so in reference to the OP, I don’t think that’s an accurate statement. I think I’ve said we were there on Friday night, and if ever that was taken to mean we were there during a church service, then I’d ask if there are church services on Friday. But you’ve built the whole case around my one sentence, and I don’t think that’s entirely fair. So again, we never went to the church, we went on a Friday night, we were at the corner by a bar, and that was where we pretty much stayed.
As for the ‘member’ who threatened me, by the same measure you use, I contend that it’s a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said, and charge you for deliberately bearing false witness. Well, I don’t really, but the member who threatened me was used to illustrate that we did not go down there telling people they were going to hell because they were homosexuals, and I used this story to describe a time when someone accused me of the same thing. So if you want to talk about bearing false witness, then we can use the same charge here, or I can try and understand where you’re coming from, and go from there. At no time did I say this guy was a ‘churched’ guy, I said we met some ‘churched’ people, as well as others. For instance, I never knew the term homosexual isn’t in the Bible, until a ‘churched’ person told me. Those were what I refer to as the ‘homosexual church’ in Cedar Springs, they were usually always there, as were we. I looked forward to seeing them, but it was more of a question and answer time. The other times we’d just talk to anyone who’d come talk to us. I have to admit though, sometimes some of the people we’d hear preaching weren’t the most compassionate, and for that I’m sorry.
Homebrew, to give Svt the benefit of the doubt, I suspect strongly that he meant “we went to meet with people, many of whom were members of the Cathedral of Hope” (which BTW, Svt, is not a “homosexual church” – it’s a denomination founded by gay people and mostly attended by gay people precisely because they weren’t welcome at other churches, but its ministry is to all outcasts and those made marginal by society – much like Someone we both know, according to Luke. At St. John’s here, there’s a heterosexual man with a beautiful tenor voice who sings in the choir – he’s wheelchair bound, and when he had his accident his home church was not willing to make any accommodations to enable him to attend services, much less stay in the choir – this was before ADA. He’s welcomed and much loved there.)
Also, Svt, thanks for answering my questions. And I find little to disagree with in what you said (and won’t bother disagreeing with what little I did see).
As for why your message was not well received – virtually every homosexual man and woman in America has been cast out and rejected by the church he or she grew up in, if their family was religious. Supposed “ministers of the Gospel” like Donald Wildmon, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the notorious Fred Phelps feel very free to bear false witness against them, and accuse them of hideous acts (other than the ones they quite willingly admit to!). “Christian” has left a bad taste in their mouths. You cannot be so blind as to never have noticed this. Check out the AFA website linked to in my “Snopes’s Evil Twin” Pit thread for a classic example of what I’m talking about.
Now you tell me why you think they don’t like your message.
Final item, and a hijack: Homebrew or somebody else, can you explain what the heck is going on with Cathedral of Hope, Pastor Piazza, and the MCC? Everything I’ve seen in the press is so carefully whitewashed as to give no clue to what supposedly happened – but it’s obvious that there’s a big problem brewing. Any clues what’s going on?
Right. Keeping myself composed. One note, Svt4him, that you might find interesting: you hav one of the most consistently confusing writing styles I’ve ever seen on this MB. It’s very train-of-thought-like. It’s … it requires me (dunno 'bout anyone else) to red very fast to understand how you’re saying something, which leaves something to be desired comprehension-wise.
This means that for me to get 50% of what you mean, I have to read it something like 3 times. Sometimes many more, considering possible parsings and meanings and such. I thought you might find some use in knowing that. Again, I’ve no idea if I’m alone here or if everyone else has that same reaction, but there you have it.
Now then.
But here’s the thing: the tract you were handing out SPECIFICALLY SAID that extramarital intercourse (or desire thereof) was in the ten commandments. Absent adultery, this is false. Wrong. There is no such admonission in the Ten Commandments to the effect of “thou shalt not know anyone with whom thou hast not been joined before God”. Jesus could have said whatever the hell occurred to him at the time. The tract says that extramarital intercourse (or desire thereof) is a violation of the ten commandments. This is false. There is no such commandment (other than the admonission against adultery, which doesn’t cover unmarried persons).
Do you understand this point now?
I’m abandoning the whole “we were at the church … no, we were at a bar … no, we were at a street corner.” Frankly, there are more important things in life to me. Let someone else deal with that. I believe I showed to a reasonable certainty that, at the very least, your posts conflict with each other. But that’s not the issue here. The issue here, to me, is now what your witness consists of. That’s what interests me now. Well, that and the whole “commandment 11: thou shalt not have sex if thou are not married” thing.
iamapunha- I have been an admin for a nintendo site for a while, and honestly the writting style is a bit different here. Not only that, but usually there are quite a few people asking simular things, so when I go to post, I usually have a few of them running through my head. So I appologize, and I do realize that there is a more mature audience here, so my writing level does need to pick up.
I shall look up the track though, then look up the ref. I will have to get back to you on that one. But I’m thinking now that the verse from Matt: 27 where Jesus said “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So the term adultery to Jesus didn’t just mean sex between a married person. But I will look into it more.
What did we talk about? I never mentioned homosexuality unless I was asked, and depending on how I was asked, I may not even then. So then I would preach law if someone said they were good enough to get to heaven, I’d preach grace if someone knew then needed God, or I’d just listen if people didn’t want to hear about God. Honestly some of the stories I heard were like the link, but when you talk to someone face to face and see their hurts, it sticks with you.
Polycarp- I agree totally with you. It is really sad how people react. Not only that, but a lot of people can use the Bible to do a lot of hurt. Now by that I don’t mean we just ignore issues the Bible talks about, but you have to do it with humility and empathy. I think this is a problem and the church needs to address it. But I can give you more examples, but I heard a story once, the abbreviated version is that once there was a man who saw all the people who would drown when the boats crashed on the rocks, so he though to himself that he should build a lighthouse and help save the people. The lighthouse keeper who did what he was supposed to do: he kept the light burning and he rescued people. Those who were saved were so grateful, they formed a club to support the lighthouse and to help the rescue efforts. They held regular meetings, fixed up a fancy clubhouse, brought in speakers, and wrote a manual on rescuing. Once someone rescued someone, he was immediately brought in as the expert rescuer and sent all over the country teaching how to rescue dying people. But as time went by, they became more interested in their club than in the lighthouse. Social activities and fund-raising became high priority. They no longer kept watch for people in distress. They hired others to do the saving. Not only that, when someone was saved, they were a bit too dirty to join the club, so new members were no longer welcome. The people took care of the clubhouse but neglected the light and never practiced rescuing techniques, and the lighthouse keeper thought to himself that he should build another lighthouse and help save people.
Svt4him, the relevant portion of the tract, which I quoted on page 5 of this thread:
Numeric emphasis mine.
Repeat: If you have broken even one of those Ten Commandments. Funny how they omit one or two … like murdering … and replace it with something not actually in the Ten Commandments … like pre-marital sex.
So I say again: How is it true to the Ten Commandments to represent them as they are represented above? Incomplete, and woefully so, and deliberately skewed to one’s romantic life. Looks suspiciously like something a dishonest Christian might give to a homosexual who doesn’t know better than to think that pre-marital intercourse is a violation of the Ten Commandments.
Reasonable point. You do recognize, do you not, that Jesus was once again speaking of the ideal to which one ought aspire, not handing down a “fence” for the Law? And, of course, we do not know whether he was talking to a group composed predominantly of married people, as would be the case with most randomly chosen groups in the Judea or Galilee of the time.
I can easily believe this. Maybe it’s just me, but I can feel the hurts of the people on this board, only about 30 of whom I’ve ever met in real life. I do know some “Bible-believing Christians” (quotes to indicate that’s how they refer to themselves) who have the sort of compassion you indicate you tried to give.
And you know what? I personally don’t believe homosexual activity is necessarily a sin – I think the commands in Leviticus and Paul are directed at selfish gratification of lust, not at the physical expression of same-sex affection (the sole case of that in Scripture is itself praised, as are both participants, one of whom’s sins are detailed in condemnation by a prophet without mentioning that one.
But if you could say, “I personally think gay sex is sinful, but hey, I lust after women and Joe over here struggles with keeping his temper; ain’t it wonderful that we’re saved by the grace of God and stengthened against temptation by the Holy Spirit? And it’s up to Him to convict you of your sin (assuming I’m right) as and when it suits Him” – well, then, I’d have no problem with your witness, and I think most of the gay men and women here wouldn’t either. But I only know one man who customarily takes that view, and even he slips and gets aggressive about it from time to time.
Yep. And it’s the work God’s called me to do. And to me the key point is to try to get Christians focused on what Christ says for us to do. Even supposing that the traditionalist condemnation of gay sex based on the Bible is right, the gay flks are just one example of a world more interested in anime, or Nintendo, or NCAA football, or alternative rock, or the Republican Party, than it is on the Christian message. So we Christians need to stop beating the gay men over the head with our Biobles – and I’ve taken on the role of the person who volunteers to get beaten on in their stead. (I know my Bible too, and can give as good as I get! :p)
I love that parable. Did you get it, as I did, from Jamie Buckingham?
That’s why I said to get off the fence, over in that other thread. Because there are folks here who need our friendship and compassion, and everybody else is too busy debating whether the rule in Chapter 3 of the Lighthouse Rescurers Manual applies to them or not, to be bothered doing any of the work at hand, i.e., to care and to share their burdens.
What if the truth is that there is no god, and what you are saying about convicting of sin only serves to make people believe that they are degraded and worthless?
What if there is a god that operates on principles of being positive and thinks sin a horrible human corruption of him/herself?
What if there is a god, and that is the god of a religion which is not Christianity, and all this Bible citation and reproof is folly?
How do you know that your god wants people to tell other people that they’re sinning, and how do you know that your god has given the proper message to you on who is and who is not sinning?
