Featured How did Jesus Interact with Sinners?

In reference to the OP, Jesus didn't call anyone to "turn from sin" before He pronounced them forgiven. Not if you use "turn from sin" in reference to stopping a particular behavior. He always pronounced them forgiven BEFORE He said "Go and sin no more"

 

I typically don't delve into this arena, simply because most of those on either side are there on political grounds rather than theological grounds.

The bible references are usually nothing more than a cover to bolster a position that has been reached already. It amounts to scriptural abuse in many cases, even if the person has the right view.


If we want to get into hypothetical examples, there are some subtleties which can really get nit-picky.

Suppose a gay person wants to buy a cake from a baker? Should the baker refuse?
What if the cake is a wedding cake for the gay person and his/her lover?
What if it's a birthday cake for a child who is being raised by a gay couple?

What if a gay couple comes into an ice cream shop? Should they be refused?
What if they want to order one ice cream to share? Does that make a difference?
What if they have two kids? Would only the parents be refused?

If more professional athletes "come out", should we boycott all sports? What if it's the owner of a team who comes out?

Should there be a difference between providing a service for vs. accepting service from a gay couple?

What if you call a painting company, and they send out a flamboyant guy to do prep work?

What if you go to have your taxes done, and you find that the CPA is in a same sex relationship? Should you let them do your taxes?

What if a Christian is in in a bad car accident on a lonesome highway? The only people who stop are a gay couple. Should we refuse to let them take us to a hospital?

What if a Christian was the only one who showed up to an accident, and it's a gay couple in the car? Should the Christian refuse to take them to the hospital? Would that be considered condoning their lifestyle if they live and continue in their relationship?


There are probably a million scenarios which could be raised, to show the inherent difficulties of trying to draw a line in the sand.

I don't condone the lifestyle, for sure. But I also don't condone some of the things I've done since becoming a believer.

The error most people make is making judgment based on only one brand of perverted behavior.

There is a scriptural distinction between the inner man and outer man, the spirit and the flesh. The inner man of a believer is righteous, no matter what he partakes in with his flesh.

Gays have a perverted desire to be with someone of the same sex
Pedophiles have a perverted desire for 7 year old girls
Thieves have a perverted desire to take things which don't belong to them
Gluttons have a perverted desire to eat 3 times more food than what they should
Drunks have a perverted desire to be inebriated.
Adulterers have a perverted desire to cheat on a spouse
Murderers have a perverted desire to kill people
Gossipers have a perverted desire for what we call "drama"

Where most Christians are hypocritical is in refusing to acknowledge that all of these perverted desires are simply the flesh desiring what is abhorrent to God.

We cannot "choose" what our flesh desires.

A gay person doesn't choose to desire a same sex partner, any more than a 420 pound person chooses to desire donuts and twinkies.

The choice is in whether or not one gives in. Both the glutton and the gay are reveling in the flesh. Unfortunately, one has been embraced within the church, while the other is rejected.

THAT is where the hypocrisy lies. The gluttons and gossips are in the church, saying that God hates gays, all the while giving in to their own desires of the flesh.

 

There are a few possible applications here, I suppose.

It sounds like a political point that the government should not be imposing on Christians that we must serve this person or that person. With this I agree, but it has nothing to do with anything theological.

It should go much further than Christians vs gays. I believe if someone doesn't want to hire me, even if it's because of my race, age, sex, or religion, that's their prerogative. I don't believe they should get in trouble for discrimination because they have a preference in who they wish to hire.

If a business owner doesn't wish to serve me a plate of food because I'm a Christian, that should be his right.

I believe discrimination should be allowed to go both ways, not one way. If people wish to boycott a certain business, they are allowed - for any reason. There is no law which restricts me from boycotting Kosher products if I so desire. There is no law which requires me to shop at a Mexican food store. I can refuse if I want, on any grounds that I want.

By the same token, if a business wants to boycott Christians, or gays, or white people or black people, it should have the right. What's good for the goose (people) should be good for the gander (businesses).

I was fired form a job once, for a silly reason. A friend thought I should be up in arms about it. My take on it was this: I'm allowed by law to quit them on a moment's notice, for any reason I desire. If that's my right, it should be their right too. If I can quit them for no reason, they should be allowed to quit me for no reason.

Like I said, this is more of a political issue than a theological issue. Scripture doesn't address the issue of whether or not we should, or must, or should not, or must not cater to someone of a different persuasion.

We cannot condemn them, but we can point out the folly of their position.

Their fight for the right to refuse service is political, just like the fight to force them to provide is political. And if that's the case, that's fine. They should have the right to refuse - on political grounds. Make the fight about the right to discriminate, regardless of religious persuasion.

But as soon as the fight becomes clouded with Christian overtones, it is on the cusp of highlighting an enormous amount of hypocrisy in Christians.

What if someone tried to force Chik-fil-A to open on Sundays? They close for religious reasons, but that would not be the proper grounds to fight on. The proper ground would be the individual right of a business owner to run his business as he sees fit. Just like a barber choosing to close every Monday. That should be his right, whether his reason is religious or not.

 

Jesus never lost sight of the will of the Father or the means which he ordained to accomplish that purpose.
He was a friend to sinners.
He displayed a full range of emotions.
He could be gentle with a bruised reed, he could be stern with false religious persons.
He had a way of focusing in on each persons sin,and need.
He always spoke the truth ..in love.

 

I understand the government's part in the whole thing. All I'm saying is that "Freedom of Religion" is absolutely the wrong platform for most Christians to argue from. From the standpoint of this nation and its constitution, is a matter of individual liberty - not religious freedom.

Most Christians who try to make this an issue of conscience are, in fact, being hypocritical toward one faction of sinner.

When is the last time a Christian refused to serve food to a glutton? Oh, wait. Statistics show that most Christians are gluttons.

Here's a link to an SBC Life article - http://www.sbclife.org/Articles/2007/01/SLA8.asp

Here is one quote from it:

Here's another link - http://www.examiner.com/article/obesity-america-study-shows-christians-more-overweight

As one obese friend of mine says, "You don't get to weigh over 300 pounds unless you like to eat." He understands it, and revels in it. Just like the flamboyant homosexual, there are many believers who flaunt their gluttonous lifestyle, and sit comfortably in a church pointing out at all the "sinners" with an air of condemnation.

Honestly, it makes me sick.

 

When Jesus asked the woman who was there to condemn her, she replied, "No man, Lord." In that context, her use of "Lord" indicates, to me anyway, that she had come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and it was on that basis that Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee." Zaccheus addressed Jesus as "Lord" in the same fashion and went on to demonstrate that his wallet had been saved along with his soul. Those examples aren't ironclad proof, but scripture is firm in noting that eternal forgiveness of sin comes only to those who receive Christ as Savior.

Note: This is a side point, as I pretty much agree with what you've posted.

 

excellent post!

To add a few points....

Didn't jesus also tell the woman caught in adultery that hr forgave her, didi not judge her for her behaviour, but also to "go and sin no more?"

Didn'r paul state that if YOU regarded something, due to convictions/preferences, to be sin, it would be as to you sin to do that?

And why won't those same persons claiming that we cannot be showing love of chrsit if we refuse to participaye in their cermonies have the logic to extend that to saying pastors MUST perform wedding ceremonies if asked?

I see this being the front assault to gettingit to the end game where NO church/pastor/christian will be allowed to voice any concerns on homosexuality, no preaching against it as sin, and no way to refuse gay weddings, as that would be 'homophobia", and seems that many in church would see all of that as being "christ like loving them!"

 

You're right. It's about gays and abortion. The two sins which are supposed to be so much worse than hypocrisy. But Jesus had stronger words against the hypocrite than anyone else.

The issue is whether or not a Christian should be allowed to refuse to provide a service which he perceives as helping gay people to celebrate their lifestyle.

But if he serves food to a 460 lb. person who rolls up in a scooter because they're so fat they have a hard time walking, then he is helping that glutton celebrate his lifestyle.

THAT is what makes him a hypocrite. Not the one act of refusal, but selective refusal against only one brand of sinner and not others.

And yes, there is absolutely a moral equivalence between gluttony and homosexuality. They are both perverted desires of the flesh. I listed a few equivalent types of sinner in a previous post. The pedophile is no worse than a liar. The homosexual is no worse than the thief.

Your flesh might desire something totally different.

It would be hypocritical if he refused to serve a Ku Klux Klan event, while not refusing to serve an Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson rally. That's not a religious issue at all.

The hypocrisy lies with the double standard.

You're right. His obesity is simply the manifestation of giving in to a perverted desire of the flesh.

 

But that's where your argument should be. We aren't a Theocracy, we're a Democratic Republic.

Christ never called us to change governments and magistrates in order to have a more righteous society. He has promised that things will go to hell on this earth before He comes to establish righteousness.

If we try to go about making this world a better place through our own brand of government, it is effectually arguing that we don't want Christ coming back. We can do it just fine on our own.

If you want to make governmental changes, you do so as a citizen - apart from calling it Christian.

 

Because they were not much of an issue in His day. If you think hypocrisy is worse that the slaughter of unborn children then you have a serious issue.

Apparently even Christians have become desensitized to abortion. Sad

 

What's really sad is that Christians have become desensitized to more "subtle" sins like gossiping, gluttony, pride, jealousy and such, all the while making mountains out of only a couple of pet peeve sins.

I agree that many Christians don't give a hoot about abortion, or homosexuality. But the failings of those warped people in no way gives us cause to elevate two or three sins higher than others (including our own).

And it doesn't give us the right to embrace a "lesser" sinner while rejecting others with what we perceive as greater sin.

Anyone who tries to categorize sin into varying degrees ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

Abortion, "gay rights", jesus just a way to heaven, God accepts all sincere religions etc

And the beat keeps going on!

 

god Himself stated that pride/self rightousness and Homosexuality are all sinning of a degree beyond just being 'equal to all other sins!"

An unmarried man and woman will fonicate, which is sinning
but when 2 gay men do same thing, even worse sexual sinning, as against natural order and a perversion!