Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

Hi blacksky. There is no apology necessary. From both our point of views, your view is perfectly rational and reasonable. There is/was nothing for me to take offence at - which is probably why I didn't.God bless,Ian

If we were to insert "Rrhains god" into my equation you might well be correct. But seeing as that is not the case, we are stuck with iano utilising what iano knows of God. Which means I am in a position to declare on sin. I can't say I follow the logic behind this. As a once blind person who now sees, I'm in a position to spot blindness at 20 paces.I think you have different ideas on what constitutes "judging someone" than I do. I go by the biblical model: condemning anothers sin as evil is judging someone. That's what happens on the day of judgement for instance.I haven't condemned anyone for their sin that I can think of in this thread - comdemning people is Gods role.Besides, if I was to condemn another I'd be a hypocrite - for I'm a sinner too.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You seem to still be confusing "reporting" and "judging". Telling someone they are a sinner doesn't mean I am judging their sin. I am merely reporting to them that they are sinners.It would be accurate to say that I am judging them to be sinners however. Intrinsic in the notion of solutions to problems is the notion of a problem existing in the first place. Telling people about the gospel of God also involves telling them about the problem this solution purports to resolve.Given that telling folk of the gospel is an instruction from God, I do think it honouring to God to follow that instruction. But I accept you could have another opinion I'm not sure of any biblical warrant for the idea of a saved sinner not being able to see. I would have thought it is only sighted sinners who will realise they are sinners. A blind sinner is a different matterA person who is able to see is in a position to state that others don't see. I wouldn't go so far as to say I am certain in all cases but it is possible to be certain in some. Some people are so blind that only a blind man couldn't see they are blind - if you know what I mean Lets agree on a middle ground. I go by iano's view of the biblical model. As to knowing Gods will..

quote:

---

1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God”this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is”his good, pleasing and perfect will

---

Again you are confusing "judging something to be sin" with "judging sin". The latter is condemnation. The former is merely raportage as to what I believe to be the case.

That's one way to approach it. Another is to take these two steps1) Believe the Bible is the word of God2) Interpret passages which indicate that all men are born sinners as meaning precisely that.Anyone doing the above is now in a position to tell another person that they are a sinner - even if they've never met them before in their life. Clearly step 2) can be expanded upon to include statements on specific sins.One could argue that I add 'according to my belief' after every statement I make. This would be rather cumbersome and I am assuming that folk around here are smart enough to figure this much out for themselves.

I do know God. In ways other than relying on my interpretation of the Bible alone it must be said. I'm not sure I intend to "get around the idea" thus. Which neighbour are you talking about specifically. Why?

It would seem to me that God intended a meaning and the closer a person happens to correctly interpret that meaning the more they will get to know God (via the Bible).So I don't suppose another interpreting different to me necessarily means they know God less or more than me. I do note that some people who have an interpretation don't really talk about knowing God at all. In a personal way that is. The two are synonymous to my thinking. Personhood is the "mind" predominantly.

You have seen the title of this thread haven't you?Open a thread called "Could mainstream Christianity ever make peace with x class of sinner" and I'd be happy to comment.

From a post addressed to Rrhain who argues along similar lines to yourself.

I was dealing with the specific objection you made that said I was not in a position to tell someone they are a sinner. According to the 2 step process outlined I am in a position to do that. You seem to accept that yourself. The same two step process applies to specific areas of human activity as it does to them being sinners. 1)Believe the Bible to be the word of God 2) Interpret passages that indicate x a sin as meaning precisely that.If you accept that this 2 step process puts me in a position to tell a person they are a sinnner, then that same process will put me in a position to tell them that a particular area of activity of theirs is sinful. As pointed out before, I could attach "I believe that this is what God says through a book I believe is his word" onto every statement I make. I assume folk are smart enough to conclude that for themselves though.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I suppose it depend very much on your concept of homosexual acts - which the Bible is not at all silent about.

Which shifts the goalposts slightly. I am making a judgement as to whether the Bible is the word of God or not. And I am making a judgment as to the accuracy of my interpretation. The conclusion of those judgements is (in this case) that God considers homosexual acts to be sinful.That is a different kettle of fish to the "speck of dust/plank of wood" judgement that Rrhain (for example) is referring to. Such judgement is a condemning / finger pointing / holier-than-thou kind of judgement. Given that I am a sinner too (by the same exercise of judgement as above), I try to steer clear of this quite different category of judgement.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

When dealing with the issue of calling someone a sinner, I don't need to know a thing about their activity. All I need to know is that they are a) a person b) not Christ. Once those two positions are satisfied then I can call them a sinner. The issue of calling a particular activity sinful is a different one and relies on the person telling me that they engage in that activity. Their engaging or not in that activity doesn't affect their being sinners or not. They are in any case. Perhaps you could explain how I get off the horns of a particular dilemma.You seem to be under the impression that I should not judge the Bible as the word of God nor the word of God as saying x, y, z is sinful (for if I do so judge then I conclude all are born sinners and that homosex is sinful).If I am not to do so then how am I meant to judge the meaning of the mote/plank passage? You repeat it so often I cannot but assume you intend I make some kind of judgement about it.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Would disagreeing with the interpretation also be a judgement? And your disbelieving it?There are judgements made of course but they are not the kind of judgments made which I think you are talking about. Judgements unto condemnation or holier-than-thou.My choosing to believe that a Ford are in a postion to write a workshop manual that will accurately decribe the Ford car I am investigating does not mean I am judging the merits or demerits of what I find under the bonnet. I can disagree with others interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with interpretations that say homosex is okay for instance.I'm a mechanical engineer and find the Bible to be quite mechanical in it's construction. Which means you cannot simply remove componants here and there without upsetting the workings of the overall structure. Structure and coherancy and understanding the mechanism are uppermost in terms of priority. Personal preferance is best kept out of it.It is easy for me to appreciate why I am not beholden to instructions about ritual cleansing practices - the Bible mechanism itself explains the function and place of those things and tells me that they are are not appropriate to my case as a Christian.It's also easy to see why I ought not go lusting after all and sundry - the Bible mechanism tells me those 'rules' are appropriate to my case.

If I chose to interpret the rules of the road to say it is illegal to drive over 70mph on a motorway then the interpretation is a personal one. If I tell someone else that their driving over 70mph on a motorway is illegal then I am reporting and not condemning. The way of disagreement is to compare another interpretation with mine. If it doesn't concur with mine then I disagree with it - per definition. There is no choice involved.Unless of course, one is suppose I chose to interpret anothers interpretation as disagreeing with my own - when the possibility was open to me to chose to interpret their interpretation as agreeing with my interpretation (or some such silliness).Why don't you chose to interpret me as reporting and not condemning? It would be so much easier for all concerned Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I've edited homosexuality to homosex for accuracy above. I'm not sure that the nature that results in sin can be said to be a sin. Just the actions that result from such a nature.My interpretation of the Bible indicates that I had no choice in believing the Bible is the word of God. Such a by-faith-alone based view is a common enough one. Note that I believed the Bible was the word of God before I came to interpreting that I had no choice in the matter so I'm not trying to dodge your query.If I had no choice then there is no judgement of mine involved in saying "homosex is a sin". Other than interpretive judgement that tells me that the Bible says homosex is a sin. Which you seem to agree is non-condemning. It doesn't really matter that I chose so long as I am only reporting and not condemning. I return you to my interpreting the law regarding speed on motorways. As mentioned earlier, I don't attach the rider "according to my intepretation" onto every thing I say for reasons of brevity. I assume folk will read things that way without my saying so.