Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

Because 'lie' might mean the telling of untruths - unless you interpret lie to mean have sex?

To believe that black is white? It would seem that there are some things that aren't a matter of choice. If God made himself known to you in a way that was intended to result in you believing he exists then you wouldn't have a choice to believe what you like. You would believe what he intended you believe. I don't interpret the Bible as being the word of God. I believe the Bible is the word of God without my choosing to believe so. Thereafter I chose the system of interpretation I do and certain things roll off the conveyor belt - one of them being that homosex is a sin.

Everyone is a human being. Everyone is an air breather. Everyone is a warm blooded mammal. Everyone is a sinner. I'm not sure I follow your thinking That impression is gleaned from your own interpretation of the Bible I presume. And if it's incorrect? I think you misunderstand what the dilemma is.If I accept and apply your interpretation of the mote/plank passage then I am still judging the passage - whereas you seem to be insisting that I should not judge the passage.

Jesus

If I may press the "pause" button on your not permitting me to interpret the Bible.. for a moment.To be a sinner basically means your nature is geared towards sinning. It doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what you do. If every sin is going to be judged and punished according to law then it matters very much what you do. Hell might be hell. But that doesn't mean there aren't shades of torment.Then there's the Christian. Their sinful nature has been destroyed - meaning that they are not geared towards sinning in the same way a sinful natured person is. They will sin, but technically and in relation to judgement and Hell, things have shifted. They will likely refer to themselves as sinners all the same.There is one sure way not to be a sinner anymore. And that's die a Christian.Edited by iano, : Add rider regarding Christians being sinners but not sinners. If you know what I mean..

Proclaiming would be a better way to put it.As mentioned to you already, I could attach the rider "according to a) my belief that the Bible is Gods word and b) my interpretation of that word" ...after statements like "homosex is sinful".But I assume people around here would figure that out for themselves - and so I don't generally attach such riders.

Which also means I can't interpret the mote and plank passage the way you suggest. So why do you keep posing the mote and plank passage as if I'm supposed to interpret it the way you suggest - if I'm not allowed to interpret?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not determining good and evil. I'm stating that a person is engaging in something that is sinful - linguistically meaningfully I mean. That sin is defined as evil - linguistically meaningfully I mean, means that I can say homosex is evil. I'm not determining that it is - God is. I'm just reporting on that fact (assuming my language comprehension judgement is on target) You apparently permit me to judge the meaning of words linguistically. That homosex falls under the category of activities deemed sinful is acceptable judgement in that case. I don't determine that someone else sins. They tell me that they do. So go compare humans to non-humans. Or warm blooded creatures with non warm-blooded creatures. Or sinners with non-sinners. I've already told you the basis on which I state everyone a sinner. a)they are human b) they are not Christ.So go look at Christ.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

There are ways not to sin. But there is no way not to sin at all. Sinners might not sin at every turn but they will sin as some turn or other.You are right in there being no winning solution. Which is why God provided a saviour in Jesus Christ. Shades of torment? I'm not sure I said that but even if I did and sin x was equivilent to sin y then you are still left with the issue of quantity of sinIf x equivilent to y then 10x cannot be equivilent to yShades of torment Au contraire. When the sinful nature is destroyed, the Christian finds his new sin-hating nature at war with his sin loving flesh. From time to time (or even a lot of the time) sinful flesh will win out resulting in the Christian sinning (for anyone who commits sin is a sinner). There is nothing to be terminally alarmed about seeing as death with result in the Christian pressing the eject button on his sinful flesh.Contrast that with the undestroyed sin-nature possessed by a non-Christian. That nature loves sin and wars with God who works to restrain the sin nature. When the sin nature wins out sin results. There is something to be worried about in this case. Anyone found in possession of an undestroyed sin nature on the day of Judgement is condemned to Hell. As I stated before, everyone who isa) humanb) not Christ....are sinners. That means the lost sinner and the found sinner are sinners. That there is all the difference in the world between them in respect of why they sin, it doesn't alter the fact that they are both sinners.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It takes but three steps.1)I judge their self-reported actions to be sinful in "linguistically meaningful" fashion.2)I then judge Bible to tell me "linguistically meaningfully" that God is the one who determines certain actions to be sinful.3)I add my belief that the Bible is the word of God.The above steps render me believing that homosex (for example) is sinful. Given that you don't appear to apply mote/plank thinking to "linguistically meaningful" judgements, could you tell me where the problem lies for you?- The above 3 steps should make things clear. All revolves around your still holding this view...

quote:

---

Rrhain said: "Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."

---

- We would differ linguistically meaningfully on that and I have no interest in debating interpretations with you. Suffice to say I judge the Bible to condemn homosex - in a linguistically meaningfully way.- For some reason you actually quoted my standard in the same post. It is this: It is clear from this standard that you can find someone who is not a sinner to compare sinners with.- According to your standard perhaps. Clearly not according to mine.

Thank God for alternative interpretations.

I can't see that it matters much to the issue at hand - Which is how I arrive at stating homosex sinful. No objection to Step 1?- Whoa!The sentence starts out with "I judge.." so it is me judging that God determines certain things. The judgement is a [i]linguistically meaningful[i] one and not, according to you, a mote/plank kind of judgement. No objection to Step 2?-You missed out Step 3 which is the bit where I say that "I believe the Bible to be the word of God". You don't register an objection there either.- I think it does, but like I say, I have no interest in debating the linguistic meanings I draw from the Bible with you. The issue is how I arrive at stating people sinners and that involves the linguistic meaning I draw from the Bible. Not the linguistic meaning you draw from it.

double postEdited by iano, : No reason given.

So? The basis on which I say homosex is sinful doesn't refer in anyway to how others judge. I thought you were objecting to the basis on which I state homosex sinful.- And that objection is?- No right to judge (in linguistically meaningful fashion) what the Bible says God has decided is sinful?Could you explain how my judging the linguistic meaning of the Bible is "telling God what to do"?- It would be helpful if you could quote the step and tie your objection to it.- Okay. That narrows things down a bit.- Earlier you said this...

quote:

---

"Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."

---

I understand the Bible to frown on judgements involving the latter of the two kinds of judgement you describe above (for logical reasons).It doesn't appear to condemn the former kind of judgement (for logical reasons). The former kind of judgement is the judgement involved in steps 1 and 2.- I think the Bible does say what I think it says. And that is the basis for my stating that homosex is sinful. The only judgement involved islinguistic meaningful judgement - which is not mote/plank territoryI do think I have the right to express my opinion on what I think God thinks.Are we done?

What's irrelevant? The fact that the basis of my saying what I say is not about them but about me? Not only is that relevant but er..that point is mine. One made in reponse to you introducing them. Get your own points will you?- I can't see what would stop me judging things on a linguistically meaningfully basis: the ability to read puts me in a postion to do so.Certainly nothing in the Bible prevents me doing so - indeed, I would need to utilise judgements as to linguistic meaning in order to glean anything the Bible says (or to glean what your posts say).- I judge that there are. You judge that there are not. But that is not the issue. The issue has to do with you saying I am not permitted to judge linguistically meaningfully - for that would be mote/plank.- Another example of not dealing with the point. Step 2 doesn't involve rights. It involves how I come to concluding as I do. The right to tell someone they are sinning arises out of rights involving free speech within the strictures imposed by the forum rules. If Percy removed those rights then I wouldn't have the right.If you'd done as I asked and placed your objection to step 2 under a quote of step 2 then it would be easier for you to see whether you have an actual objection to it. You tend to object to things other than the steps I've given.- You quote one point of mine and respond with an unrelated point. I'm going to have to insist you tighten things up Rrhain. As already mentioned, I'm not getting into the relative merits of this or that linguistic meaning with you. Sorry.- I truly believe the Bible and nothing that I see in it prevents me from saying what I believe God thinks. I've got your word for it but am not inclined to accept that.Arriving at a belief about what God thinks involves the 3 steps outlined and I am eager to hear specific objections to step 1 and 2 (3 being already accepted by you).I would be particularily keen to hear from you how you propose to eliminate my right to arrive at linguistic meaning (central to steps 1 and 2) without sawing the legs off your own right to do the same.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.