Conservatives in America treat liberals like Ninevites? What of grace?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Someone said this yesterday... In a discussion about this thread:

 

 

 

But again, with the thread, it's all coming across as a one side or the other, like there is no way we can do both. Somehow there needs to be an understanding that both sides have valid points.

 

If somehow those points can be agreed upon - without discounting the other - perhaps we can get somewhere towards a solution? Does that make sense?

 

There's no way we can do both...   Both what??   Both sides... 

 

You cannot live with one foot in the world's value system and one foot in the Kingdom.  Jesus, everywhere in Scripture calls on us to decide where we stand.  There is no middle ground where promoting a sinful lifestyle and building the Kingdom are equally valid.   As the old saying goes.   Jesus will Lord of all or not Lord at all.   He doesn't call us to blend in and validate the culture.  He calls on us to engage it.  We can serve God or we can serve the world's system, but you can't have it both ways.

[Qnts2]

 

I have found that people do use Scripture to support just about anything. And I will include born again Christians. I know born again Christians who have an affair and try to use Scripture to justify their infidelity. I know Christians who try to justify murder. What do we do with Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

 

Bonhoeffer didn't conspire to commit murder.  Murder is the wanton act of taking an innocent human life.  Bonhoeffer's involvement in the conspriacy to assassinate Hitler was an act of war, and occurred in te context of a major world war. It doesn't qualify as an act of murder, on moral grounds. 

 

The point is, Christians do sin and sin terribly, and most try to make the bible justify what they want to believe or do. These are messed up people for sure, but I think this goes on in a lot of Christians, trying to interpret Scripture in a way they would prefer.

 

But that doens't really address the substance of what I was saying.  The issue I raised was not about people justifying sin by the Scriptures.   What I was referring to is outright rejection of the authority of Scripture to define sin and morality, as well as the rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture in historical matters, thus relegating history to nothing but an allegorical lesson, a story of events that never really happened.

 

 

As far as abortion, Scripture does not forbid abortion, it forbids murder. Those who murder have sinned.

 

Abortion IS murder.  Abortion is the wanton act of taking innocent human lives, namely babies.  How can you separate abortion from murder?  Unborn babies are as human as you and I.

 

 

What does Scripture say about 'abortion'? Well, we do have instances where abortion is done. 

 

Numbers 5:21

²¹ here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

 

Numbers 5 is talking about a women whose husband suspects she is cheating.

 

Numbers 5:11-13

¹¹ Then the Lord said to Moses, ¹² “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him ¹³ so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act),

 

That is not an abortion.  Abortion is understood as a human act of murder. It amounts to man taking the life of the unborn baby.  In the case you listed above. The curse comes upon the woman for marital infedility because she tried to hide her sexual encounter from her husband.

 

For homosexual marriage, Scripture defines a scriptural marriage. Civil authorities define a civil marriage. There are Christians who will not have a civil marriage, only a religious/scriptural marriage before God. Scripture really does not comment on civil marriages. In pagan cultures, pagans did get married, but their marriage was not a biblical marriage. Scripture says not to be unequally yoked, and a pagan marrying a pagan is not unequally yoked, but they are not getting married as a covenant before God. A real Christian who marries a non-Christian is violating the command, as they are 'unequally yoked' so this marriage is not a biblical marriage.

 

Marriage belongs to God and God alone.  God never intended for marriage to exist without Him in it.  I agree that there are many people who are married and their marriages are invalid before God.  Homosexual civil unions are not biblical marriages.   I personally do not believe that any marriage outside of God's biblical prescription is a biblically valid marriage.  It may be valid according to the state and may meet all requirements that are placed on by the state, but that does not make  a biblically valid marriage.

 

In the Mosaic law, the prohibition is against the form of sex. Sodomy. And of course there are other forbidden forms. So a person who is committing the sexual act is in sin, but there are other sexual sins. Sodomy is not the only one.      

 

1 Cor 6:9-11

⁹ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ¹⁰ Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

Well, adulterers are included in this list, along with thieves, drunkards.  

But, some of the Corinthians had committed these sins, and were sanctified. So homosexual actions are not among the unforgivable sins. And sadly, we do know of Christians who have committed adultery through the media, which is in the same list, who hid their adultery for several years. We also know of some Christian ministers who committed sexual acts with other men who hid that lifestyle for years, and have now confessed and repented. 

 

 

Again, you are confusing issues.  The issue is not whether or not Christian have committed horrible sins.  They have.  In some cases, they are new beleivers who fall to old temptations that they have not been completely delivered from yet.  

 

But that is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not a person can advocate for a particular lifestyle, or ideaology that God hates and calls abominable and still claim that they are a spirit-filled believer and are led by the Holy Spirit.  Can I fight for gay marriage  and promote homosexuality as normal and valid and yet demand to be considered a genuine Christ follower?   How far does that go?   Where do we draw the line as to what we can or cannot advocate for as believers?

 

I do not believe I am confusing issues.

 

When you say Christians have committed horrible sins, you are still identifying these horrible sinners as Christians. These Christians obviously advocated for a particular lifestyle that is opposed to Gods commands and done what God hates, yet you still call them Christians. So, in essence, you have answered your own question. Can a person advocate for a particular lifestyle that God hates and still claim to be a spirit-filled believer.

 

All Christians have sinned.

 

Most of the posts talk about liberal vs conservative, but the issue as it is being discussed only centers on 2 issues, which I do not believe really deals with the differences between liberal vs. conservative.

 

The woman who was unfaithful in her marriage, as a penalty, the child is aborted/miscarried.  The miscarriage is a forced miscarriage, which is a form of an abortion. A forced termination of pregnancy.

 

Numbers 5:11-13

¹¹ Then the Lord said to Moses, ¹² “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him ¹³ so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected

 

Numbers 5:21

²¹ here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

 

As far as marriages which are not biblical marriages, that is exactly my point. The government in the U.S. has chosen to define marriage for a civil purpose. It is tied to various laws and benefits, such as tax laws, inheritance laws, parental rights laws. The U.S. government has used the term 'marriage' for a long, long time, and it never did match the biblical marriage. All of these are civil laws which give those with a 'civil marriage' certain rights. Biblical marriages have different requirements and do not include some of the provisions/benefits of the civil government. I am not sure one can argue that a particular word be restricted use, with only biblical religious organizations allowed to use a word.    

[nebula]

 

 

Someone said this yesterday... In a discussion about this thread:

 

 

 

But again, with the thread, it's all coming across as a one side or the other, like there is no way we can do both. Somehow there needs to be an understanding that both sides have valid points.

 

If somehow those points can be agreed upon - without discounting the other - perhaps we can get somewhere towards a solution? Does that make sense?

 

There's no way we can do both...   Both what??   Both sides... 

 

Hi Shiloh - I believe there's been a misunderstanding.

 

GE and I were discussing the conflict of how we treat individuals vs how we treat the agenda.

 

 

What GE and some of the others have been proposing with this thread is about how we deal with individual people. And I believe they have a valid point.

 

Consider this, what is the first impression you think/feel when you hear "animal rights activist"? Probably you think of this rediculous person what wants to take away your right to eat meat, or a variation of that, correct? OK, so imagine what a gay person thinks/feels when they hear "Christian".

 

From the perspective of trying to save souls, wanting to attract people to Jesus, how can we do this if they see us as a bunch of jerks?

 

That's the one side - not allowing sin, or excusing sin, or not even calling it sin - but what should we be doing to bring the Gospel and reach these people with the love of God?

 

If you really think about it, it's a valid point.

 

 

The other side, that I was trying to explain to GE, is the agenda side. How do we let the agenda steam-roller us the way they have been? We live in a governement that technically runs by people raising their voice, and the way things go, the loud voices tend to win. So, do we let the loud voices win for the sake of "being attractive"?

 

 

Does that make more sense?

 

 

The gay agenda has painted us as haters because we believe the action is a sin; but they claim sexual orientation is no different than race, and thus we are bigots.

 

So, how do show the world the love of Jesus in this without compromising His holiness?

 

But how do we add love to the political fight? How do we raise our voice in a way that shows love and redemption?

 

 

On the other hand, I heard a testimony of a former lesbian who came to Jesus because of a church that didn't get on her case about here sexual orientation, didn't treat her like "a sinner", allowed her partner to come to church with her without any qualms, even let her play in the handbell choir. Along the line, she decided to give her life to Jesus. After she gave her life to Him, was baptised, and such, the Holy Spirit began convicting her about her gay relationship, and she split with her partner. Eventually she repented of her lesbianism and made a turn-around.

 

Would she have found Jesus is the church members were politically active in opposing "gay rights"?

 

 

That's the conflict.

 

Does this make more sense?

[Guest shiloh357]

When you say Christians have committed horrible sins, you are still identifying these horrible sinners as Christians. These Christians obviously advocated for a particular lifestyle that is opposed to Gods commands and done what God hates, yet you still call them Christians. So, in essence, you have answered your own question. Can a person advocate for a particular lifestyle that God hates and still claim to be a spirit-filled believer.

 

Wrong.  There is a difference between a Christian committing a sin  and promoting it.  Many Christians fall in moments of weakness or discouragement. I know of Christians who have rebelled against God at a time in their lives because they were hurt badly and are acting out against the pain they are feeling.   That is far different than advocating for a particular lifestyle and claiming that it is not sinful, even though the Bible clearly says it is a sin.

 

It is when people start rejecting what the Bible says is sinful, and denying truth that a problem exists.

 

The woman who was unfaithful in her marriage, as a penalty, the child is aborted/miscarried.  The miscarriage is a forced miscarriage, which is a form of an abortion. A forced termination of pregnancy

 

.Where do you find that there is forced miscarriage in that passage?  In fact, in the original there is nothing about a miscarriage at all.  It talking about the womb swelling and the thigh falling away, but nothing about a miscarriage.  There is nothing in that passage about her being pregnant or any mention of a child, either.  What translation are you using?

Most of the posts talk about liberal vs conservative, but the issue as it is being discussed only centers on 2 issues, which I do not believe really deals with the differences between liberal vs. conservative.

 

 

 

Actually those issues are part of what is at the heart of separates liberals and conservatives.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Someone said this yesterday... In a discussion about this thread:

 

 

 

But again, with the thread, it's all coming across as a one side or the other, like there is no way we can do both. Somehow there needs to be an understanding that both sides have valid points.

 

If somehow those points can be agreed upon - without discounting the other - perhaps we can get somewhere towards a solution? Does that make sense?

 

There's no way we can do both...   Both what??   Both sides... 

 

Hi Shiloh - I believe there's been a misunderstanding.

 

GE and I were discussing the conflict of how we treat individuals vs how we treat the agenda.

 

 

What GE and some of the others have been proposing with this thread is about how we deal with individual people. And I believe they have a valid point.

 

Consider this, what is the first impression you think/feel when you hear "animal rights activist"? Probably you think of this rediculous person what wants to take away your right to eat meat, or a variation of that, correct? OK, so imagine what a gay person thinks/feels when they hear "Christian".

 

From the perspective of trying to save souls, wanting to attract people to Jesus, how can we do this if they see us as a bunch of jerks?

 

That's the one side - not allowing sin, or excusing sin, or not even calling it sin - but what should we be doing to bring the Gospel and reach these people with the love of God?

 

If you really think about it, it's a valid point.

 

 

The other side, that I was trying to explain to GE, is the agenda side. How do we let the agenda steam-roller us the way they have been? We live in a governement that technically runs by people raising their voice, and the way things go, the loud voices tend to win. So, do we let the loud voices win for the sake of "being attractive"?

 

 

Does that make more sense?

 

 

The gay agenda has painted us as haters because we believe the action is a sin; but they claim sexual orientation is no different than race, and thus we are bigots.

 

So, how do show the world the love of Jesus in this without compromising His holiness?

 

But how do we add love to the political fight? How do we raise our voice in a way that shows love and redemption?

 

 

On the other hand, I heard a testimony of a former lesbian who came to Jesus because of a church that didn't get on her case about here sexual orientation, didn't treat her like "a sinner", allowed her partner to come to church with her without any qualms, even let her play in the handbell choir. Along the line, she decided to give her life to Jesus. After she gave her life to Him, was baptised, and such, the Holy Spirit began convicting her about her gay relationship, and she split with her partner. Eventually she repented of her lesbianism and made a turn-around.

 

Would she have found Jesus is the church members were politically active in opposing "gay rights"?

 

 

That's the conflict.

 

Does this make more sense?

 

Ah, I see.  GE failed to provide needed context.

 

OP raised the issue that we conservative believers are treating liberal believers as 'Ninevites' and so on.

 

My point is that it is possible to publicly and vocally stand up against sin and against the agendas and lifestyles that are a corrosive in our society and still be redemptive. 

 

You give a good example of a Church that welcomed a gay person in and treated them like human being without compromising their values, which is as it should be.   Frankly, I would not have allowed a gay person to operate in a ministry prior to becoming a believer and giving up their lifestyle for a season, but they dodged the bullet on that one.

 

One of the beautiful and most liberating things about ministry is that God doesn't hold you accountable for the results.   Our job is to save souls.  That's the Lord's job.  He is the one who saves.  Our job is to present the truth of the Gospel in love and let God handle the results.   Once you share the Gospel with a person, what they do with it, is between them and God. 

 

The problem is that many preachers hate controversy.  They have a big congregation and the money is coming in, so it is in their best interests, to tread lightly because if you speak out against gay rights, you may offend secretly gay congregational members or you may offend members who have relatives or friends that are gay.   You definitely don't want to say anything against abortion, or mention alcohol, and so on, because some of your church's biggest donors could be involved in any one of those sins.

 

We avoid controversy and the result of refusing to address the social ills of our day has not been the influx of souls in the Kingdom.  The refusal to speak out or actively oppose these agendas is that we keep losing ground to the world.  

 

·        They took prayer out of schools and we fell back;

·        They legalized abortion and we fell back;

·        They denied us our right to express our faith on government property and we fell back;

·        They denied our children to have “Christmas” plays in public schools while allowing schools to accommodate Muslim holidays without restriction, and we fell back. 

·        State after state is legalizing  same sex marriage and once again, we fell back.  It is time to stop giving up ground to the world, draw a line in the sand.

 

Granted, we don't want to be jerks, but at the same time, we are going to have to stop being afraid of offending people.  The truth is offensive to many people and it doesn't matter how sweetly you present it.  If you are opposed to same sex marriage in this day and age, you are treated as an enemy of humanity.  We are on the cusp of seeing churches being required by law to allow gay marriages upon penalty of both being sued according to anti-discrimination laws and losing their tax exempt status.   There is movement afoot to make any mention of homosexuality a sin from pulpits labeled as a hate crime and preachers will be prosecuted for those hate crimies.

 

So the reason we speak out is not because we are opposed to someone holding a particular point of view, but because, as with the homoseuxal movement, this goes far beyond simply being pro-gay.  It is about the gay movement adopting minority status and being allowed complete legitimacy as a legally recognized minority, which has far reaching legal and social ramifications that most Christians haven't really thought through.

.

[Qnts2]

 

When you say Christians have committed horrible sins, you are still identifying these horrible sinners as Christians. These Christians obviously advocated for a particular lifestyle that is opposed to Gods commands and done what God hates, yet you still call them Christians. So, in essence, you have answered your own question. Can a person advocate for a particular lifestyle that God hates and still claim to be a spirit-filled believer.

 

Wrong.  There is a difference between a Christian committing a sin  and promoting it.  Many Christians fall in moments of weakness or discouragement. I know of Christians who have rebelled against God at a time in their lives because they were hurt badly and are acting out against the pain they are feeling.   That is far different than advocating for a particular lifestyle and claiming that it is not sinful, even though the Bible clearly says it is a sin.

 

It is when people start rejecting what the Bible says is sinful, and denying truth that a problem exists.

 

The woman who was unfaithful in her marriage, as a penalty, the child is aborted/miscarried.  The miscarriage is a forced miscarriage, which is a form of an abortion. A forced termination of pregnancy

 

.Where do you find that there is forced miscarriage in that passage?  In fact, in the original there is nothing about a miscarriage at all.  It talking about the womb swelling and the thigh falling away, but nothing about a miscarriage.  There is nothing in that passage about her being pregnant or any mention of a child, either.  What translation are you using?

Most of the posts talk about liberal vs conservative, but the issue as it is being discussed only centers on 2 issues, which I do not believe really deals with the differences between liberal vs. conservative.

 

 

 

Actually those issues are part of what is at the heart of separates liberals and conservatives.

 

First let me cover the verse you questioned.

 

Numbers 5:21 is talking about the effects of the bitter water should the wife be guilty of adultery. The word translated as thigh, can also be translated as loin. In this scenario it is where the thigh connects to the loins, and refers to private parts which rot.

 

If the women is innocent: Number 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

 

The women who is guilty receives the curse and is no longer able to conceive. Were she pregnant, clearly this result of the private parts withering, is the death of the fetus, and never again to be able to conceive.

 

While you might think liberal means abortion and homosexual marriage, not all liberals support these and many liberals are liberal to support care for children, the poor, the elderly etc. Or protection of the environment. It is presumptuous to force your anti-agenda into being a liberals agenda. It certainly is not true. There are far more environmentalists, so environmental concerns are probably the majority agenda of liberals.  

 

But, the whole issue is the view and treatment of liberals by conservatives in light of the gospel. The gospel is number one. And with that as the primary purpose of Christians, anything which interferes, is taking away from what needs to be our primary God given commission.  

 

Murder is a sin, but Jesus died to offer salvation to a murderer. Salvation is not just the work of God, but so is conviction of sin. Our job is to share the good news of what Jesus has done, in love, hope and patience. If some receive salvation, then it is the Holy Spirit who will teach, convict etc. We live in what some call  post-Christian. Fewer and fewer people have read scripture so fewer and fewer know much about Jesus. If you want to correct a wrong, that is the one to correct. That is the most serious issue as that lack of knowledge is a result of the failure of Christians who should be sharing first, about Jesus so that some might be saved.

 

And as has been said on this thread several times, if you want to cure society, that cure can only come one person at a time, by changing the people. That change only comes thru Jesus, making the person a new creation who desires the things of God.   

[nebula]

 

OP raised the issue that we conservative believers are treating liberal believers as 'Ninevites' and so on.

 

I think by "Ninevites", the meaning was treating them the way Jonah treated the Ninevites - or rather having the attitude towards them that Jonah had towards the Ninevites.

 

While we can argue that this is not what we are doing, I can imagine how the world would perceive it this way - especially when too many "Christians" actually do condemn homosexuals to hell verbally or beat up someone who is gay, etc.

 

 

But I completely agree with what you are saying. When they make it "hate" to speak what Scripture does that marriage is described as a man and a woman - how can we even talk about Gen. 1-2 without being threatened with a lawsuit?

 

 

But if we try to witness and evangelize to gays and gay activists while having in our hands a sledge-hammer, or even if they perceive us to be having a sledge-hammer, how will we reach them?

[GoldenEagle]

I will say this, though.  There is a form of Christianity in this world, especially in the US and Europe that does not have Christ in it.  That also needs to be factored into all of this.   There are many people who profess to be Christians who "Christians" in the sense that they participate in the external Christian community.  They are what I call "cultural Christians" who go through the motions, but never made a decision for Christ. In same cases, there are those who think they are Christians because they were confirmed at age six or were baptized as an infant, yet have never darkened the door of a church, since.  

 

Asking if a person is unsaved because they believe in evolution is not the right question.  The right question to ask is why a person who professes Jesus as Savior and Lord would want to accept such a theory that precludes a divine Creator, in the first place.

 

 

I agree with you brother particularly in bold. I would say it is not just limited to the U.S. and Europe.

This is a good question underlined.

 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

OP raised the issue that we conservative believers are treating liberal believers as 'Ninevites' and so on.

 

I think by "Ninevites", the meaning was treating them the way Jonah treated the Ninevites - or rather having the attitude towards them that Jonah had towards the Ninevites.

 

While we can argue that this is not what we are doing, I can imagine how the world would perceive it this way - especially when too many "Christians" actually do condemn homosexuals to hell verbally or beat up someone who is gay, etc.

 

 

But I completely agree with what you are saying. When they make it "hate" to speak what Scripture does that marriage is described as a man and a woman - how can we even talk about Gen. 1-2 without being threatened with a lawsuit?

 

 

But if we try to witness and evangelize to gays and gay activists while having in our hands a sledge-hammer, or even if they perceive us to be having a sledge-hammer, how will we reach them?

 

This in bold Neb. I agree. 

The OP is all about having an attitude check.

 

In red this is the question. Ultimately how will we reach homosexuals and homosexual supporters with a sledge hammer?

 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

BTW, if your friend wants Biblical proof abortion is murder and homosexual relations is an abomination in the sight of God, I will be glad to provide it.  I hope they have been reading what I wrote, because I stand by what I said.  Nobody that supports those liberal positions, and candidates is a real Christian.  I understand you don't agree, but that is my position.  I will even meet with them in chat to discuss it with them, but if they have been reading this, I don't know how much more I can say?

 

As for it not being my right to say who is saved, I will close this post with a story I once heard.  A man died and went to hell, and walked around lifting people up from the flames one by one.  He was asked what he was doing, and said he was looking for the preacher that told him he was ok.  This friend of yours won't be able to make that accusation of me.  Good luck with that kind of Christianity.

 

Perhaps you didn't understand or missed this post quoted below...

 

But as to the specifics of the OP... This particular person I was talking about doesn't believe that evolution is contrary to Scripture. Should I consdier this person unsaved? 

However, another person I was talking to (also on the boards) said that they have an issue with the whole homosexual marriage thing - particularly because they have a close friend who is a homosexual. Should I consider this person unsaved?

 

The original person I was discussing with didn't see a conflict with evolution and Scripture. This is not really specifically about abortion or homosexuality. These are topics that from my perspective you wanted to discuss brother. I threw those in because they're hot topics in Western Christian circles.

Another friend was having a hard time with the whole homosexual marriage thing from the perspective of granting homosexual citizens in the U.S. equal rights under the law (tax, insurance, inheritence, benefits, etc.).

 

God bless,

GE