Would Jesus have attended a pro-rights rally?

[Guest man]

There's a difference in simply attending a rally vs evangelizing at that rally.

Eh-hem:

You didn't ask if He would be a participant evangelizing. You asked if He would attend.

Here's the topic title, "Would Jesus have attended a pro-rights rally?". The OP is posted below. Both ask if Jesus would attend.

Ok, now we're back to square one. Would Jesus attend a rally?

In your most sincere honest opinion, do you believe Jesus, when confronted with sin, would turn a blind eye to it? Would He just stand back and not say anything?

[nebula]

I think our problem here is that you and I (and others) have a different understanding of what "attending" a rally means.

[Guest man]

I think our problem here is that you and I (and others) have a different understanding of what "attending" a rally means.

If it was simply attending a rally, I might see your point, but you brought 2 variables into the equation that changes everything. One being Jesus and the other is evangilizing.

If Jesus attended this rally and was confronted with sin, would He remain silent?

Do we refrain from sharing the Gospel out of fear of appearing sinful?

[nebula]

I think our problem here is that you and I (and others) have a different understanding of what "attending" a rally means.

If it was simply attending a rally, I might see your point, but you brought 2 variables into the equation that changes everything. One being Jesus and the other is evangilizing.

Hold - where did I bring in the variable of evangelizing?

If Jesus attended this rally and was confronted with sin, would He remain silent?

That's a different question. We are discussing if He would be there to begin with.

Do we refrain from sharing the Gospel out of fear of appearing sinful?

OK, if a person goes to a gay rally with the intent of evangelizing and/or confronting sin, what is such a person called? Is he not considered a disruptor? Or a protester who stands on the sidelines?

Neither of these are considered "attenders".

[nebula]

If it was simply attending a rally, I might see your point, but you brought [a] variable into the equations that changes everything... Jesus...

Jesus said that He only did what He saw the Father doing. Now I don't know if we have the same idea of what this means, but what I get from this is that He was sensitive to the leading of the Father through the Spirit about where to go and what to do.

When we see Jesus preaching to the multitudes, it was either in the Temple (where there was allowance given for rabbis and such to teach and preach) or it was where a multitude was gathered specifically to listen to Him.

Going to a rights rally of any sort is not designed for an "outsider" to speak to the crowds against or contrary or having nothing to do with the purpose of the gathering.

But if you want to argue that Jesus would go to such an event because there was a person there ripe for harvesting (like the one crippled man Jesus healed at the Pool of Bethesda) that He needed to reach, I might give that lee-way. But I still protest that this is outside the parameters of what it means to "attend" a rally.

[Guest man]

I think our problem here is that you and I (and others) have a different understanding of what "attending" a rally means.

If it was simply attending a rally, I might see your point, but you brought 2 variables into the equation that changes everything. One being Jesus and the other is evangilizing.

Hold - where did I bring in the variable of evangelizing?

1 Cor. 8

1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know ; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 7 However not all men have this knowledge ; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol ; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God ; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols ? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Now, if your attending a gay rights rally will cause a weaker brother to stumble, are you acting in love to the brethren?

Or will you condemn the weaker brethren for their weakness while supposedly evangelizing to the lost?

[nebula]

I think our problem here is that you and I (and others) have a different understanding of what "attending" a rally means.

If it was simply attending a rally, I might see your point, but you brought 2 variables into the equation that changes everything. One being Jesus and the other is evangilizing.

Hold - where did I bring in the variable of evangelizing?

1 Cor. 8

1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know ; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 7 However not all men have this knowledge ; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol ; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God ; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols ? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Now, if your attending a gay rights rally will cause a weaker brother to stumble, are you acting in love to the brethren?

Or will you condemn the weaker brethren for their weakness while supposedly evangelizing to the lost?

That came after you talked about Jesus eating with sinners as a means to reach them (aka evangelism).

[Guest man]

OK, if a person goes to a gay rally with the intent of evangelizing and/or confronting sin, what is such a person called? Is he not considered a disruptor? Or a protester who stands on the sidelines?

Neither of these are considered "attenders".

That's your argument?

Ok.

Today I was feeling all bent out of shape over a poster who is acting beyond difficult. Better sense was telling me to let him go, stop trying to reason or communicate with him, but yet that drive was still there to break through...something...with this person. And as I was mulling this over, why I couldn't let it go, a revelation came to me.

"I just got to pop this pimple!"

[nebula]

Right. You aren't the one I was referring to. But that is what you make yourself out to be on this board.

I should - as with the pimple - just ignore you.

I don't know why you enjoy playing mental games like this, but it sure does not lead to life, love, and godliness.

Maybe one day you will learn what it means to be a minister of the Gospel - preaching good news, healing the sick, mending the broken-hearted, etc.

[Guest man]

Right. You aren't the one I was referring to. But that is what you make yourself out to be on this board.

I should - as with the pimple - just ignore you.

I don't know why you enjoy playing mental games like this, but it sure does not lead to life, love, and godliness.

Maybe one day you will learn what it means to be a minister of the Gospel - preaching good news, healing the sick, mending the broken-hearted, etc.

There were no games being played on my part. You asked a question and because you didn't get the desired response, you decided to try and persuade me to see it your way. I resisted and you pushed harder, until in the end it came down to the meaning of a word. What could have been a thought provoking conversation, ended up being about semantics.

If you want to say I'm unlearned and don't know what it means to minister the Gospel, that's your right. I will not be offended. As I stated, I don't care what people think of me. I don't believe there's anything I've said in this thread that is out of line with the teachings from the Word.