An Apology From An Aspie Methodist

Post Reply New Topic

No, but if the issue was big enough and the divide was felt by many more people, I would think it's time to form an offshoot.

That is a lame analogy. first of Churches don't make federal, state or Local law, and connot commit us to war etc. besides I am registered Independent, I vote for one party over another so that the party that better represents my beliefs will be in power and be able to make and enforce laws etc that I more closely agree with.

All a church does is gather a bunch of like minded people together and tell them how they should live their lives based on supernatural imaginary friends (my opinion of course) so quitting your church makes a statement without affecting how our country might be governed...

How could any Christian justify excluding members of the LGBT community from their church? Jesus is quite clear that we shouldn't judge others, and that even sinners aren't excluded from his religion. In fact, Jesus reached out to sinners and treated them kindly. Now, I don't really believe in God, but the hypocrisy here is ridiculous.

Um, when did Jesus say we shouldn't judge? The popular reference to "judge not" refers to dispensing justice fairly, meaning you shouldn't have different or uneven justice from person to person or inconsistency between how you treat people and the way you expect to be treated. "Lest ye be judged" just means that if you withhold from someone what is fair and rightfully theirs, God will "reward" you by the same uneven standard.

Bear in mind that this saying is included in the same passage as "don't try to remove a speck from your brother's eye if you have a beam in your own. It is a Christian's duty to hold each other accountable for their behavior. But we are also to try gain a better perspective if we don't understand the situation in which a believer acts in error. It is clear from this passage that Christians should call each other out when they make mistakes, and Christians are also called to at least try to gain a full view of exactly what it is they need to correct.

This is all wrapped up with "Don't throw your pearls before swine." In other words, be careful about who it is you judge--avoid getting mixed up with authority figures who aren't going to change their minds and who could destroy you and the good work you could do with people who are willing to respond positively to what you have to say. In referring to the unclean ruling authorities as "swine," Jesus is asking His followers to make negative judgment calls.

Nowhere does Jesus instruct His disciples to refrain from discerning right from wrong and from holding each other accountable for their actions. When people abuse "judge not," it's most often because they are doing something morally wrong and don't wish to be called on it. They just want to do whatever they want to do and be free from guilt. It's amazing to me how easily a lesson in fairness gets twisted around to justify pretty much any kind of unbiblical behavior.

I'm a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and I'm constantly butting heads with my church body over LGBT rights, and macro-evolution. Just the same, my congregation will always be my home, and Lutheran doctrine will always be comforting for me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

What about "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"? Or, as J's brother James put it: "God alone, who gave the law, is the Judge. He alone has the power to save or to destroy. So what right do you have to judge your neighbor?" What right indeed. It doesn't get any clearer than this. Oh wait... it does in the psalms: "It is God alone who judges". But don't listen to an atheist or to the Bible It's your personal religion, so you get to pick the scripture that you like best.

Are you going to mention you support criminalizing homosexuality as part of 'holding each other accountable', or are you going to pretend you never said it and try to look respectable despite what you really think, like you usually try to do? Anytime you want to say what an acceptable penalty is for this behavior, go right ahead.

I would not really stay on a forum that condones criminal activity with a unique thread for them. It must make you rather mad that this actually exists and take it very personally, and I wonder how angry you really get if you ever go there and see how these abject sinners accept themselves for who they are and try to support each other...

Two things--

1. If that is true, then there is no Christian justification for any justice system at all. According to Hebrew law, to which the woman was subject, there was no need for them to bring the woman before Jesus. She'd been caught in the act, there had been witnesses, and the death penalty for her actions was required. Their intentions in bringing her to justice were misplaced, hence why they approached Jesus. Jesus, by saying what He said, exposed the fact that their motives were impure and very likely had done something questionable in accosting the woman. We have no idea how, but it doesn't take that much imagination to come up with some ideas. If she'd been caught in the act, that means at least two witnesses were present. With sex generally being a private act, then very likely the "witnesses" had been themselves party to her immoral behavior. Maybe one of them had been her pimp who became displeased with her, or maybe she was trying to escape her situation and was being blackmailed. Maybe she called their bluff and they decided to get rid of her. Perhaps they failed to follow proper legal procedure in catching her in the act. We don't know, but it is plain that Jesus brought any one or more of these things to light which made it impossible for her accusers to continue to stand against her.

The most important lesson here, though, is that in order to pass judgment on anyone, one must himself be able to do so with a clear mind and conscience. If you have something obstructing your view, get around it so you can see better in order to make a fair judgment against someone. Another way of looking at this passage is Jesus is trying to help the accusers remove the beams from their eyes.

But if the requirement is ONLY someone without sin can execute judgment against someone, then there is no longer any place for law and order in society. Jesus never opposed law and order, which He would have said was God-given. What was going on in that situation was a little bit deeper than that. In order to accuse the woman, it would have been better to try a little understanding before bringing her before the elders. That's why I think there was more to the story than what appears on the surface. In modern times, think of it like a rape victim being told she had it coming because of the way she dressed and for getting drunk at a party. Even if she didn't help her situation any, she didn't force her attackers to rape her. According to Hebrew law, both a woman AND the man or men she slept with had to be put to death, and that's why I think it was likely that her accusers were quick to withdraw once they were called out. They may not have cared about the woman, but they certainly weren't willing to turn on each other.

2. While this story provides some good insight, demonstrates a valuable lesson, and is consistent with Jesus' teachings, most scholars will admit that it is absent in the oldest manuscripts and is likely a later insertion. It could have been part of an oral tradition omitted from the original text, or it could possibly never have happened. Would be interesting if it never even happened, wouldn't it? Just like "don't judge," "let he with no sin" is just another buzz-phrase unbelievers who don't even really know the Bible throw around to justify doing pretty much whatever immoral thing they want to do.


I find this one interesting. You're making the mistake of quoting something out of context. James 4:11 says "Don't criticize one another brothers. He who criticizes a brother or judges his brother criticizes the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge." The letter from James was addressed specifically to an audience of Jewish converts to Christianity who were familiar with the law of Moses. When James says "don't criticize one another," he's referring to believers who ARE trying to follow the law. Most likely James was writing at some point in the 40's AD at a time when Christians were still meeting in synagogues and houses of prayer in which open debate on religious matters was standard practice. If someone is a believer and keeps the law, there is no reason for a fellow believer to criticize him. If he were to be critical of someone who also does what the law says, then he'd effectively be critical of the law. It is not the believer's place to judge the law, which is God-given.

And what does that law say? Among many other things that extramarital sex is immoral and that homosexuality is an idolatrous practice. That believers should hold each other accountable for their actions. That the actions of one or a few people affect the community. If you are critical of those who uphold the law, then you aren't under a law but a judge of that law. If you twist the Bible around to somehow assert that LGBT behavior is good and correct behavior according to the Bible, then you are a judge of the law and, since God is the law-giver, God himself.

I think in the context of James' writing, most likely he was referring to the contentious nature of religious debate and the potential for destructive behavior among bickering believers. It could be he's promoting tolerance and friendship among those with a common ground. But it's important to note what that common ground is. Remember that James also said "Faith without works is dead." If you won't do what Jesus instructed, then you probably have no faith in His words. Jesus did teach mercy, forgiveness, and love. But no amount of loving sinners can magically transform the same evil actions into good actions. I'm not advocating for violence or discrimination against any person for any wrong that they commit (though this is necessary in keeping with basic law and order regardless of what society or ideology one might find himself in). But neither am I glossing over what the Bible very plainly and clearly lays out as wrong.

...

I don't mean to be overly harsh. Anybody can read the Bible and understand the harsh reality of right vs. wrong according to what the Bible has to say about it. If you go back to the OT--which I think is amazing even for Christians--you often find that God goes to great lengths in His patience before punishing those who do wrong, especially during the kingdom period (God's fuse seems the shortest during the most crucial times, such as Exodus period and also during the earliest formative stages of the Christian church. By contrast, things in Judah had to get REALLY bad before God allowed it's destruction). The wisdom of "don't judge" is with the related saying "first remove the beam from your own eye." Wrong/evil have to be called what they are. But that doesn't mean that in correcting fellow believers one shouldn't first make every effort to understand the error.

Concerning LGBT issues, it's not unknown among Christians that believers have experienced what they feel are unwanted same-sex attraction. It's not wrong to feel those attractions any more than it is wrong for a recovering alcoholic to crave alcohol. Christians are Biblically correct in identifying homosexuality as aberrant behavior for believers. Where many Christians screw up is in their response to it. We tend to be quick to criticize and condemn and slow to validate the underlying feelings that affected believers have. This effectively pushes someone struggling with same-sex attraction away when what they are really seeking is love and support from their own. What they don't get in the Christian community they find in the LGBT community. The opposite ought to be true. While Christians cannot legitimately condone and encourage homosexual behavior, they CAN help someone understand feelings of same-sex attraction and respond in such a way as to avoid sinful behavior--all done in a way that does not alienate the person struggling. The LGBT community, on the other hand, encourages the behavior and leads the individual away from a lifestyle consistent with Christian faith.

Exodus International is an example of a group of Christians seeking to help those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction, many of whom had at some point struggled with homosexuality themselves. They don't believe they are "cured," nor do they believe that there is a "cure" for homosexuality. What they do provide is an alternative to the LGBT community for those who are struggling yet do not wish to engage in that lifestyle. It's certainly possible, and I do know someone who is an "ex-gay" who married and raised a large family. And that was after a long period of believing he'd never be involved in (and deliberately avoiding) any kind of romantic relationship. If unwanted same-sex attraction can be dealt with in a non-destructive way consistent with Biblical teaching, then there is no reason at all why anyone should use the Bible to rationalize homosexuality as acceptable behavior.


That's not very clear at all. Psalm 75 in the original Hebrew does not say "...God alone judges." It just says "God is the judge." Psalm 75 is a song of thanksgiving to God who judges the wicked and lifts up the righteous. Psalm 75 cannot be used to justify the suspension of discernment or justice.

That is very true. If I steal a Christians coat, then the Christian is obliged also to give me his shirt.

You really can't expect non-Christians to accept this. There would be little point in Christians serving as magistrates.

Well-poisoning, much?

Look, nice try. But it's been made perfectly clear to me that any further opinions I could express on that matter will get me banned from WP. I'm doing my best to respect the TOS--even if I disagree that I've violated TOS at all--and keep certain mods happy. I'm sorry my very presence here offends you, but I have just as much right to express my views as anyone else does, whether they agree with me or not. The only thing that angers or offends me is that someone is willing to bait me to the point I'd be lured into a discussion that would get me banned.

This thread specifically was started by a Christian relating to Christian and Biblical viewpoints on a specific behavior or lifestyle. I feel that the OP and others have reached the wrong conclusion from a Biblical perspective, and I merely wish to correct the errors. Surely having a difference of opinion isn't banworthy, or is it? Honestly, I'm starting to feel bullied here.

Heh...indeed. Now, I DO think there is a Christian justification for justice. I just think that what we're doing here is selectively quoting to say something that the Bible does not say.

Your observation was half the point I was trying to make. We are all judgmental and discerning human beings whether we admit to it or not, whether we are Christian or not. And that is as it should be. If someone harms you, you should feel that you deserve justice; if you are accused of something--even if you are guilty and admit to it--you should feel that you deserve due process and a FAIR punishment no more or less what the next guy would get. You shouldn't have to feel that someone can get off easy by bribing a judge while you get a life sentence for the same crime.

You're talking about the whole "extra mile" bit. I always thought that had to do with being found in situations you had no control over. The Jews of Jesus' day were forced to submit to Roman authority. The point here in dealing with violent people is that it isn't necessary to respond in kind. One would hope this would open the offender to question the actions of his captive. Hopefully this would serve as an invitation for the captive or victim to witness to the person who had wronged him.

In a similar way, Christians were later instructed not to take each other to court but to rather have people within the church assist with settling disputes. That would have been the opposite of what one would expect in a litigious society. On a side note, my wife at one point was being pursued by medical collections because her friend's insurance refused to pay up a claim made by her for a passenger (my wife)--all this after my wife was hit by a car in which neither she nor the driver of the car were at fault (it was the driver of the other car that tried to cross two lanes turning into oncoming traffic). We figured everything had been settled until we started getting ugly phone calls. We were forced to "lawyer up" since there was no way we could pay the bill (nor should we have paid it). We are vehemently opposed to the idea of going after someone for "pain and suffering" in silly, petty lawsuits. However, we found ourselves going down that path because we've successfully navigated our way out of some deep debt, including medical, and having to pay for something for which we weren't at fault would have ruined us. It's times like that in which a Biblical model for life looks really attractive. But this, too, also assumes that everyone is honest...

Don't confuse your religion with your church. Churches are organizations that are run by human people which means you have to contend with all of their prejudices and blindness. Take your religion seriously. If we are all sinners (in fact and in the sight of God) then do not be surprised if a**holes rise to the top and impose their blindness and stupidity on the organization.

Your buddy Jesus presumably came to earth to sort this messiness out.

ruveyn

You tell yourself that.

Why haven't you condemned the use of the death penalty yet? Rhetorical question...since I bait people into getting them banned, that is hilarious.

Not so that is a very bais opinon.

So why would you be apart of a political party you do not entirely agree with see kinda the same thing don't ya think

Their is hypocrisy in everything politcal views religion ect.