If certain "Baptists" don't believe the Bible is God's Holy Word,

[post-it]

jasonW
Quick refresher on logical fallacies. Equivocation is using misleading words or using the same word with two different meanings. How is 'marriage', 'man, or 'woman' misleading or which one is used with two different meanings?

I have to assume you want marriage to mean "legal union between two people" while you imply that I mean "one man, one woman before God and country". Is this correct?

So, sex outside of marriage is wrong unless you are homosexual? Is that what you want to say? Since homosexuals cannot legally be married, any active homosexuals would be sinning (by your own admition) if they practice in these states. This only concerns the legal definition of marriage, not the God given one.

No, that's not what I said. Marriage of homosexuals in front of God, not the State is allowed, further it is not denied by scripture. No State law denies the marriage of same sex, they just won't legalize the marriage with rights from the State.

Dear Post-it;

Please answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Do you believe that there exists at least one action which is absolutely wrong, no matter the intent/situation/circumstances?

()Yes ()No

define "wrong"

[ September 05, 2002, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Graceforever]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Graceforever:
I suppose we should just throw the “go and sin no more” verse right out of the Bible…. Is that correct postit? What about these verse below? Is this another part of the Bible that is wrongly interpreted?….

You didn't read the post did you? I never said we are able to sin at will. I said Becoming saved done on the belief and acceptance of what Jesus did for us on the cross. It is accepting this gift that saves us. That is was establishes we are saved. Then aftewards we work on not sinning.

Slow down and read it again. I hate it when people disagree with me just because they see the name, Post-It!</font>[/QUOTE]I know what you mean postit…. BUT… why don’t you just answer the question….. You see what the bible says about sin, what does postit say?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
No, that's not what I said. Marriage of homosexuals in front of God, not the State is allowed, further it is not denied by scripture.

Ok...so from all the passages in the bible about homosexuality being wrong, you still think God recognizes these unions? A stretch, but I can't prove you wrong because I don't know God's mind. But then again, I can also claim that God thinks that polygamy is good. Where does that leave us? Nowhere except we would both probably be wrong.

No State law denies the marriage of same sex, they just won't legalize the marriage with rights from the State.

No state law denies premarital sex. So? The point is, they cannot legally be married in the US. I was pointing this out for someone who things that whatever laws a country has negates the sin of the action. For instance, I have been told that homosexuality is a sin right now because the US does not recognize these unions, but once the US does recognize these unions, it will no longer be a sin. I was bringing this up as a preemptive just in case you were one of these type of lazy thinkers.

define "wrong"

You have got to be kidding! No? Ok...though I swear you should have learned this by at least third grade.

from www.m-w.com
Main Entry: 1wrong
Pronunciation: 'ro[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wrang, from (assumed) wrang, adjective, wrong
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : TORT
2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
3 : the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect b : the state of being guilty
synonym see INJUSTICE

And for further restriction, lets use definition #2 but without law. Legality of some action is inconsequential to it being right or wrong from a religious standpoint.

Some other terms you might want:

also from www.m-w.com

Main Entry: as·i·nine
Pronunciation: 'a-s&n-"In
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin asininus, from asinus ass
Date: 15th century
1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment &lt;an asinine excuse&gt;
2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass
synonym see SIMPLE
- as·i·nine·ly adverb
- as·i·nin·i·ty /"a-s&-'ni-n&-tE/ noun

Main Entry: 1re·quest
Pronunciation: ri-'kwest
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English requeste, from Middle French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin requaesta, from feminine of requaestus, past participle of requaerere to require
Date: 14th century
1 : the act or an instance of asking for something
2 : something asked for
3 : the condition or fact of being requested &lt;available on request&gt;
4 : the state of being sought after : DEMAND

Main Entry: be·night·ed
Pronunciation: bi-'nI-t&d
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : overtaken by darkness or night
2 : existing in a state of intellectual, moral, or social darkness : UNENLIGHTENED
- be·night·ed·ly adverb
- be·night·ed·ness noun

Sorry about the above, but I had to make sure we were clear.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK Now here's one of those relative morality tales for us to sort out, and it is perfectly true.

There was a man and a woman married and she was totally paralized, and he took care of her. They received welfare payments and he was paid a pittance for providing for her care, but not much, because after all, he was her spouse, and lived with her anyway.

So they came to their caseworker (that was me) and told me they were getting a divorce in thirty days. And they did.

Then afterwards, he volunteered to become her live in attendant. Under the laws of the state of Oregon, he got a very subtantial increase in salary for living with her and providing exactly the same care he had been doing all along.

I've always suspected they did not maintain a strictly plutonic living arrangement, either.

So did they sin by getting a divorce?

 

[David Cooke Jr]

If you have to mull this answer over, then there's a problem. BTW, if you know these folks make sure that they have a new will drawn up to reflect their change in marital status. Otherwise, the next of kin will claim it all b/c the old will may be invalidated b/c of the divorce. If they never had a will, they need one now b/c they are no longer spouses and there could be certain tax consequences to inheriting things from each other. Please refer them to a pro bono lawyer (if they qualify) or a to a good wills estates and trusts attorney.

 

[Bible-belted]

So you're asking if deliberate deception in order to make more money is a sin?

You figure it out.

I will say this though. Without denying that there are situations that are more gray than black and white, two things neverthless are true:

1) Situational ethics is a dinosaur in moral theory.

2) You can't define the rule by the exception.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Graceforever:

I know what you mean postit…. BUT… why don’t you just answer the question….. You see what the bible says about sin, what does postit say?]

Scripture is clear, being saved is not dependent on sin afterwards. If it was, Christ would not be needed in the equation. Homosexuals can be saved and stay saved without regard to sin.

Galatians 2:16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

17 "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!

18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.

19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.

20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

A believing homosexual is a righteousness person, saved by Jesus Christ. Here is the proof.

Galations 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

6 Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

[ September 07, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

If you believe that a homosexual can't be saved, if he/she doesn't stops sinning, why do you think you can be saved since you can't stop sinning?

You are righteous before God because you believe and accept Jesus; not because of works (not sinning), or efforts (trying not to sin) that follow.

[ September 07, 2002, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
If you believe that a homosexual can't be saved, if he/she doesn't stops sinning, why do you think you can be saved since you can't stop sinning?

You are righteous before God because you believe and accept Jesus; not because of works (not sinning), or efforts (trying not to sin) that follow.

I won't speak for any others, but I NEVER said a homosexual can't be saved. This is a strawman on your part. However, homosexuality IS a sin. Even you just admitted that. What i am saying is that a practicing homosexual (willingly, consenting to sin...resigned to sin) should truley question their salvation.

So...that leaves us here: Homosexuals can be saved, but homosexuality (not the orientation, the practice) is a sin. That is clear. Why are you fighting this?

jason

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
I won't speak for any others, but I NEVER said a homosexual can't be saved. What i am saying is that a practicing homosexual (willingly, consenting to sin...resigned to sin) should truley question their salvation.

Everyone's daily thoughts and emotions involves willing, consenting and a resignation to sin, are you questioning your salvation too? I think not.

The problem you present here is one of works. You are saying that through evil works, salvation means nothing. Either we are saved by belief and acceptance of Christ's works or we are saved by acceptance of Christ and our individual good works. If that were the case, why need Christ. Just stop sinning or make the effort and you make it to heaven.

I am leaving the homosexual issue for a moment since the answers to this issue is found in understanding how we gain salvation and if we can lose salvation.
You seem to think that one can be saved and in the next 10 minutes or 10 days, lose it by works or nonworks.

Jesue died because we couldn't stop sinning. Did you not get that part? After you believe in Jesus and accept what he did, you will continue to sin. He did not remove sin from the equation, he made it not count anymore when we continue in it.

It is impossible to stop all sinning. Each of us will do what we can, but we can't be expected to stop altogether, we try to stop sins that hurt others and ourselves. Our nature is to sin, even after we are saved.

The effort to stop counts for nothing in whether one is saved or not, you can't lose salvation once you have it. Otherwise it can't be a gift, it is a condition. A gift is freely given and only need be accepted. To expect anything in return, is a "sales" transaction.

Of course because we are asked to present ourselves as good people in the sight of others, that is why we stop or try to stop sinning. If what we do is the appearance of evil, then we shouldn't do it. This passage shows that we aren't being held responsible, but rather we just "shouldn't do it" since it makes us look bad to others not of the faith.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
Everyone's daily thoughts and emotions involves willing, consenting and a resignation to sin, are you questioning your salvation too? I think not.

Fundamental problem again. Not every sin is a sin of will. Some sins I do just because it "slipped" out. Saying something in anger, something sarcastic, something biting. These are neither premeditated nor consenting. As a matter of fact, I could actually be working on QUITING these and still let it slip out. Alas, one does not simply "slip" into a consentual homosexual sex act. For that matter, one does not "slip" into a heterosexual sex act. These are sought out.

The problem you present here is one of works. You are saying that through evil works, salvation means nothing. Either we are saved by belief and acceptance of Christ's works or we are saved by acceptance of Christ and our individual good works. If that were the case, why need Christ. Just stop sinning or make the effort and you make it to heaven.

No, you are building another strawman. What did I say? I said homosexuality is a sin. What do you say? Homosexuality is not a sin. I said you are wrong. I am right (again). What else did I say. I said that an active, practicing homosexual needs to seriously evaluate his/her condition, question his/her salvation. Wow. Seems I may have just stepped in something there. But only if you are ignorant of the facts. We (Christians) are know by our works. If we are not ACTIVELY trying to be like Christ, we are not moving forward. By questioning their own heart, their own salvation, it should make them reevaluate their condition and , if they have truely given their lives over to Christ, they will try to move in the opposite direction of their sin.

You, on the other hand, suggest that we are all resigned to sin...so let the party start. You, on the other hand, think that homosexuality is all well and good...you even go so far as to say it is not a sin. You, on the other hand, are wrong(again....btw...you STILL have yet to address several questions and corrections in multiple threads).

I am leaving the homosexual issue for a moment since the answers to this issue is found in understanding how we gain salvation and if we can lose salvation.
You seem to think that one can be saved and in the next 10 minutes or 10 days, lose it by works or nonworks.

You see, this is our major problem. I never said they would lose their salvation. I said they should question if they ever had it. You just don't read (or answer questions...or address multiple corrections to rather illogical arguments...or admit you are wrong when clearly shown by your contradictory position).

Jesue died because we couldn't stop sinning. Did you not get that part? After you believe in Jesus and accept what he did, you will continue to sin. He did not remove sin from the equation, he made it not count anymore when we continue in it.

It is impossible to stop all sinning. Each of us will do what we can, but we can't be expected to stop altogether, we try to stop sins that hurt others and ourselves. Our nature is to sin, even after we are saved.

Yeah? So? Does that mean we should not TRY and stop sinning? Oh, I'll bet below you say those attempts are useless....lets see....

The effort to stop counts for nothing in whether one is saved or not, you can't lose salvation once you have it. Otherwise it can't be a gift, it is a condition. A gift is freely given and only need be accepted. To expect anything in return, is a "sales" transaction.

Yup...you said it.

Of course because we are asked to present ourselves as good people in the sight of others, that is why we stop or try to stop sinning. If what we do is the appearance of evil, then we shouldn't do it. This passage shows that we aren't being held responsible, but rather we just "shouldn't do it" since it makes us look bad to others not of the faith.

Wow...this is...oh, how shall I put it....dead wrong. Another way to say this is HYPOCRITICAL! Oh my. This is stupid. I am sorry, but this is the dumbest thing I have heard. We are to stop sinning so others can think we are good people? This is ludicrious. We are to STRIVE for perfection, to try and stop sinning because we LOVE JESUS, because we want to honor our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I couldn't care less if you think I am good person, I couldn't care less what anybody thinks of me. I only care what Jesus thinks of me and that is why I try to stop sinning.

BTW. Another way to get people to think we are good people is to publicy fast and show it off. Hmm..there seems to be a bible passage on that...

Oh, how about praying publicly so everyone thinks we are very holy....well...I am sure you get the idea.

No, PI, Christians shouldn't care at all what the world thinks about us(remember, if you are doing it right, the world will hate you because of Jesus). We should only care what God thinks about us. Stop trying to please this world and start trying to please its creator.

In Christ,
jason

 

[GIG]

Amen Jason ! If a person willingly lives in sin then maybe they should question their salvation...My Bible tells me that I'll be a new man ! and my bible also tells me that Homosexuallity is an abomination to God...

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by GIG:
Amen Jason ! If a person willingly lives in sin then maybe they should question their salvation...My Bible tells me that I'll be a new man ! and my bible also tells me that Homosexuallity is an abomination to God...

Where in the Bible does it say a new man will stop sinning? I must have missed that part. Have you stopped sinning since you became a new man? My Bible tells me eating shrimp is also an abomination.

Out of context scripture is a favorite past time around here. Next, someone will quote... "go and sin no more." Will someone please present a nonsinning person to me, everyone seems to think this is possible. Or they think that "trying" not to sin is equivent to not sinning. I'm not sure what Bible you get this stuff from but it's not one being used today.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
. These are neither premeditated nor consenting. As a matter of fact, I could actually be working on QUITING these and still let it slip out. Alas, one does not simply "slip" into a consentual homosexual sex act. For that matter, one does not "slip" into a heterosexual sex act. These are sought out.

Accidental sin isn't counted? Ok that makes a lot of sense (not). I accidentally though a bad thought today. Well, I won't let that ever happen again. POOF I know I'm saved. Right!

No, you are building another strawman. What did I say? I said homosexuality is a sin. What do you say? Homosexuality is not a sin. I said you are wrong. I am right (again). What else did I say. I said that an active, practicing homosexual needs to seriously evaluate his/her condition, question his/her salvation. Wow. Seems I may have just stepped in something there. But only if you are ignorant of the facts. We (Christians) are know by our works. If we are not ACTIVELY trying to be like Christ, we are not moving forward. By questioning their own heart, their own salvation, it should make them reevaluate their condition and , if they have truely given their lives over to Christ, they will try to move in the opposite direction of their sin.

I never said they shouldn't. I said it would be impossible to stop the act of sinning. If a homosexual feels he is sinning, then he should try to stop, but if he does not see marrying as sin, then there is nothing to stop. Kissing and dating... no sin there either.

You, on the other hand, suggest that we are all resigned to sin...so let the party start.

No, I never said that, in fact I said we should try not to sin. The effort to not sin is what we should be doing as Christians. We just won't be able to be successful. Which is what Paul said. This is why it can't be any part of salvation which is what you seem to think.

You see, this is our major problem. I never said they would lose their salvation. I said they should question if they ever had it.

Well you continue to sin in thought, do you question your salvation? Jesus made it very clear that we all are sinners everyday and that it will not stop while we are alive. Salvation is attained through belief in Jesus and accepting what he did on the cross for us. That has nothing to do with sin, or going to church, or tithing, dancing, makeup, clothing, TV, if one is hooked on drugs, whatever.

Your other comments were so off base, I can't even waste time on them. You didn't read what I said and twisted it.

[ September 08, 2002, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

By the way GiG, welcome to the BB.

I look forward to crushing more of your opinions.

 

[suzanne]

Can't sleep, so here are my random thoughts

Post it,
some of your statements seem to point towards our efforts being what makes us good. Where is the power of the Lord? Cannot the Lord cleanse our sin and change us? And being good for others also seems to be a "I can do it by myself" sort of mentality. Where does the Lord fit in this?

I don't mean any disrespect...just curious. Perhaps I misunderstood.

I also don't understand how a murderer, homosexual, thief can be righteous and still be those things. Are we not new creatures in Christ?

I get the impression that you have not had a lot of contact with working with homosexuals trying to come out of the lifestyle. I have a hard time seeing the lifestyle as monogomous or healthy.

Am I correct that you do not hold that there are absolutes?

Thanks,
suzanne

 

[suzanne]

I'm not sure of specific names, but for those who hold to the concept that all the Bible is to be taken literally, I wonder....what are we to do with the portions of the Bible that are quotes from literary sources of the day. Obviously, they are used to illustrate a point. What the quotes from the book of Enoch in the Bible? Are they valid? Does that mean that scripture that quotes from other sources gives validity to that source being inspired?

And for those who do not think a person can come to the knowledge of salvation through Jesus without reading the Bible, my question is do you not think that the Lord is not able to save people even though they may not have a book? There are records of tribes that seemed to have the message of salvation before missionaries appeared to their culture and they did not have a Bible. Please don't box God in.

suzanne

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by suzanne:
Can't sleep, so here are my random thoughts

Post it,
some of your statements seem to point towards our efforts being what makes us good. Where is the power of the Lord? Cannot the Lord cleanse our sin and change us? And being good for others also seems to be a "I can do it by myself" sort of mentality. Where does the Lord fit in this?

I also don't understand how a murderer, homosexual, thief can be righteous and still be those things. Are we not new creatures in Christ?

I think you did misunderstand. Our efforts don't make or take away our salvation.
Yes, the Lord cleanses us of our sin and makes us new, new in that we are no longer stained by sin. That doesn't mean we won't continue to sin. Don't you continue to sin? Aren't you a new creation in Christ? You can't stop sinning if you wanted to. Wanting to stop sinning is the most one can do. And it doesn't have anything to do with salvation or not. Can a heroin addict continue taking drugs after being saved and still be saved? Since the criteria of being saved is belief and acceptance of Christ gift then yes. I wouldn't want to be in the same church with the guy, but he is going to heaven as long as he continues to believe. There is no requirement to grow in the spirit, no requirement to become unaddicted to drugs, many can't get off once they start. Yes many will and have, but not every one of them will be able to do so. Their life has been shot. But they will find peace at the end of this troubled life. Some sins can be ended, others will not. Many men are addicted to pornography, and can stay addicted for years, no matter how hard they try to stop. Some women and men as well gossip, they will never stop, they no it and can't stop. Some can, some can't. Our weakness for sin is caused by sin nature. Sin nature does NOT GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE WE GET SAVED. Sin is just not counted against us anymore.

I get the impression that you have not had a lot of contact with working with homosexuals trying to come out of the lifestyle. I have a hard time seeing the lifestyle as monogamous or healthy.

No casual sex lifestyle outside marriage is healthy for anyone. HIV is a risk anyone takes male or female. But as far as monogamous relationships, they have them just as anyone else does. Remember that heterosexual married couples have a greater than 50% divorce rate. I have no real interest in talking to someone that wants to come out of the homosexual orientation. That makes about as much sense as a heterosexual saying they want to be homosexual, because they will get more sex. It is silly to go against nature if indeed they are homosexual. I have seen people who are gay that are living a perverted heterosexual lifestyle. I wonder how long it will last, what horrible effects the divorce will have on the children and how someone can get brainwashed into thinking they are not normal by a religious money motivated organization like Exodus.

I have seen a Pastor friend of mine, turn his back on his own homosexual son. They talk, but he has no part of his life in relationships. As a result, the son was into all kinds of unhealthy activities for a while, later he settled down into one steady relationship. But since the father rejects it, he has no say over anything.

I do have a lot of war stories dealing with Gays mainly with their parents in our families.

The missing father/mother relationship, that is the most difficult part of their life. If the relationship were there, you wouldn't have the free for all sex attitudes that is commonly associated with many homosexuals. It is because parents turn away from them. They give no direction, encouragement to find a mate, no sex, etc. The same thing would occur with heterosexual children if you were not there to give guidance and advice.

Several of my own family members on both sides are homosexuals and I have friends and coworkers going back for 20 years who are homosexual. It is hard not to know any since they are everywhere, even in your family. Of course, the homosexuals in your family may not have told you about it since they already know how low and evil you think they are unless they change.

Am I correct that you do not hold that there are absolutes?

No, I believe in absolutes. It is absolutely wrong to change your relationship with a family member because they tell you they are homosexual. It is absolutely wrong to tell them that they must change or go to hell.

[ September 08, 2002, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

If the Bible were the exact words of God, then it would be EXPLICIT.. What kind of God would dictate rules (which mean life and death,) which are ambiguous, unclear, and vague?

When we can derive over 3000 denominations out of one book, it means that it is ambiguous, unclear, and vague.

So either God wants it that way and we have to guess what is the proper interpretation at the risk of our soul if we are wrong; OR THE BIBLE IS JUST INSPIRED by God. If it is inspired by God, it is going to be ambiguous, unclear, and vague in many parts because original sin stopped us from talking one-on-one with God. No more stone tablets to read his exact words from.

I think that many verses are almost word for word what God would want to say to us. But what Jesus did on the cross is the perfect message the Bible reveals.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by post-it:
If the Bible were the exact words of God, then it would be EXPLICIT.. What kind of God would dictate rules (which mean life and death,) which are ambiguous, unclear, and vague?

When we can derive over 3000 denominations out of one book, it means that it is ambiguous, unclear, and vague.

So either God wants it that way and we have to guess what is the proper interpretation at the risk of our soul if we are wrong; OR THE BIBLE IS JUST INSPIRED by God. If it is inspired by God, it is going to be ambiguous, unclear, and vague in many parts because original sin stopped us from talking one-on-one with God. No more stone tablets to read his exact words from.

I think that many verses are almost word for word what God would want to say to us. But what Jesus did on the cross is the perfect message the Bible reveals.

There is an obfuscation here. It is certainly true that not every word in the Bible is God's (such as when Saan speaks in Job). It is nevertheless true however that every word is God's Word. They all serve to work together to reveal God.

The rules regarding sexaulity are pretty clear. Heterosexual monogamy inthe contrext of marriage is cxlealy spelled out. Just because some poeple INSERT ambigity to suit their own needs does not mean that the ambiguity actually exists. Indeed, I beleive that people insert ambiguities so that they avoid submitting to God's truth.

As for the denominations argument, well that is a manidfest falsehood. Indeed, POst, if you think that, then you should be Roman Catholic. But the reality is that relatively few denominations exist because of doctrinal controversy. Most exist fro geographic, administrative, linguistic, or cultural reasons. The list of things that the people on this board for example agree to is much much longer than the list of things they disagree about.

In short, post, you misrepresent things badly here.

The idea that inspiration means ambiguity is laughable. Revelation (which is what the Bible is) presupposes an intent to communicate. Are you going to argue that a perfect God has a "speech impedimaent"? Come now. Use the brain God gavee you.