Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 211 of 263 (460263)
03-13-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by CK
03-13-2008 1:21 PM


Thanks, I was waiting for that
Thanks CK, I wanted to reply to message 1 for this topic, but I didn't want to disupt the resulting discussion. Perhaps I should have. Anyway...
quote:
Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?
My answer basically boils down to "ever is a long time".
Yes, I think mainstream christianity will make peace with gay people eventually. To defend this, we only have to look at the track-record of mainstream christianity in regards to things like racial marriages or racial slavery.
I don't think it's going to be any time soon, but as society continues along it's movement of making peace with gay people, so too will mainstream christianity as it has with all other aspects of society it once opposed.
Mainstream christianity is too big of an organization for it to go away in the near future. But that same size does mean it's extremely susceptible to society's standards.
Society will one day make peace with gay people. Mainstream christianity will either conform, or lose it's mainstream status. I am betting that christianity will conform with this social issue as it has with past social issues (likely within the next 50 years). Of course, it will resist until the notion of losing it's mainstream status will be too large to ignore. One day, this will be christianity's downfall, and they will eventually fade out of being mainstream. But that day is much, much further away (likely hundreds, if not thousands, of years from now).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by CK, posted 03-13-2008 1:21 PM CK has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 212 of 263 (460273)
03-13-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Rrhain
03-13-2008 1:43 AM


Silent H writes:
You cannot make out that Iano is errant in his interpretation of english Biblical scripture
Rrhain writes:
But it isn't my burden of proof. It's his. He's the one making the claim.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2008 1:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2008 5:39 AM iano has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 213 of 263 (460317)
03-14-2008 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by iano
03-13-2008 7:03 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
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
Since everyone is a human being, what does that distinction tell us about "human beingness"? Absolutely nothing. The only way to understand what that means is to compare a "human being" to something that is not a "human being."
If there is no distinction, we have learned nothing.
quote:
That impression is gleaned from your own interpretation of the Bible I presume.
No, it is gleaned from the meaning of "judgement."
quote:
If I accept and apply your interpretation of the mote/plank passage then I am still judging the passage
Logical error: Equivocation.
"Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."
Again, you are not able to apply what is said in the Bible to anybody else. It is not for you to determine if anybody else is sinning. Only god can do that. You can certainly comprehend the concept of sin, but it is not for you to tell anybody else if they are or are not sinning for that requires the ability to judge which is strictly forbidden to you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by iano, posted 03-13-2008 7:03 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by iano, posted 03-14-2008 7:43 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 214 of 263 (460318)
03-14-2008 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by iano
03-13-2008 7:33 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
quote:
If everything is X, then nothing is Y and it is useless to try and distinguish X from Y because there is nothing that is Y.
Jesus
All human beings are sinners.
Jesus was a human being.
Therefore, Jesus was a sinner.
Great...you just denied your own assumption. Something, somewhere is false. Is it that human beings are sinners or is that Jesus was a human being?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by iano, posted 03-13-2008 7:33 AM iano has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 215 of 263 (460319)
03-14-2008 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by iano
03-13-2008 7:43 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
It doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what you do.
But if everyone's a sinner, then there is no way not to sin. Thus, it doesn't matter what you do. If we were to follow a person through their life and at every point of choice, follow each path, then the statement that everyone is a sinner means that it doesn't matter which path you follow: There is no winning solution.
Thus, since there is no way to win, it doesn't matter what you do.
quote:
Hell might be hell. But that doesn't mean there aren't shades of torment.
But you've said all sin is equivalent, not one is worse than the other. Therefore, there are no "shades of torment."
Once again, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If you're going to make a distinction, then something has to give. You have to be able to select between things to show why one is different from the other.
quote:
Their sinful nature has been destroyed
But everyone's a sinner. Therefore, it is impossible for the "sinful nature" to be destroyed. You don't get to have it both ways. Either everybody's a sinner, including Christians, and nothing anybody does matters or not everybody's a sinner and your god's direct admonition to you not to judge means that the person you are so certain is doing the thing that makes god vomit really isn't.
Which is it?
quote:
There is one sure way not to be a sinner anymore. And that's die a Christian.
BZZZZZT! Pascal's Wager.
I'm so sorry, iano. Thanks for playing.
Besides, you just said everybody is a sinner. That means Christians, too.
Which is it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by iano, posted 03-13-2008 7:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by iano, posted 03-14-2008 9:41 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 216 of 263 (460320)
03-14-2008 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Silent H
03-13-2008 2:38 PM


Silent H responds to me:
quote:
When do straights get a pass?
Straight people aren't told they are abomination for having sex. If the admonition were against sex, why is heterosexual sex given a pass?
This gets back to the "everybody's a sinner" thing. If everybody is, then it doesn't matter what anybody does. There's no way to win.
quote:
It was only by great effort within the last century that sex outside of marriage was allowed by law
What does that have to do with anything? It's still sex and still a sin. If the admonition were against sex, why is heterosexual sex given a pass?
quote:
You claimed it was done recently, not me.
In the scale of history, even if we limit ourselves to the scale of Christian history, the past couple hundred years is "recent."
quote:
They had brotherhood-type ceremonies in the past and that's what it looked like.
That included sex? Such a strange definition of "brotherhood" you have. Seems were at the same attitude proclaimed in Biological Exuberance: Any explanation except the most obvious one is forced upon the situation. It's "bonding behaviour," "submission behaviour," "dominance behaviour," anything but SEXUAL behaviour.
quote:
I'm sorry, but your original statement was that if everyone is a sinner than sinner doesn't mean anything... that it explains nothing. I was correct in pointing out that that statement is wrong.
Incorrect. If everyone's a sinner, how does one distinguish it? If everyone is the same, what makes one different from another? Since you've drawn your boundary to include everything, suddenly there is no way for anything to be any different. Thus, "sinner" doesn't mean anything because everyone's a "sinner."
Didn't you see The Incredibles? If everybody's "special," then nobody is.
quote:
All humans are air-breathers as they fulfill the criteria for that category and do not fulfill the criteria for being water-breathers.
I'm sorry...what is this "water-breather" thing you speak of? There ain't no such thing because everybody's an "air-breather."
What? You mean there are things that aren't "air-breathers"? Then we're talking about not humans but "breathing organisms" and thus we have a distinction that can be made.
quote:
Yeah, but it gets into a circular problem for yourself given your line of argument against him.
Incorrect. Do not engage in the logical error of equivocation.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 03-13-2008 2:38 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2008 2:48 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 217 of 263 (460321)
03-14-2008 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by iano
03-13-2008 8:09 PM


iano writes:
quote:
my interpretation of that word" ...after statements like "homosex is sinful".
But "interpretation" is judgement and you are specifically admonished not to judge.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by iano, posted 03-13-2008 8:09 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by iano, posted 03-14-2008 7:22 AM Rrhain has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 218 of 263 (460324)
03-14-2008 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Rrhain
03-14-2008 5:39 AM


But "interpretation" is judgement and you are specifically admonished not to judge.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2008 5:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Rrhain, posted 03-16-2008 11:42 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 219 of 263 (460327)
03-14-2008 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Rrhain
03-14-2008 4:52 AM


Rrhain writes:
"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'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)
It is not for you to determine if anybody else is sinning. Only god can do that. You can certainly comprehend the concept of sin, but it is not for you to tell anybody else if they are or are not sinning for that requires the ability to judge which is strictly forbidden to you.
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.
Since everyone is a human being, what does that distinction tell us about "human beingness"? Absolutely nothing. The only way to understand what that means is to compare a "human being" to something that is not a "human being."
If there is no distinction, we have learned nothing.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2008 4:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Rrhain, posted 03-16-2008 11:49 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 220 of 263 (460343)
03-14-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Rrhain
03-14-2008 5:07 AM


But if everyone's a sinner, then there is no way not to sin. Thus, it doesn't matter what you do. If we were to follow a person through their life and at every point of choice, follow each path, then the statement that everyone is a sinner means that it doesn't matter which path you follow: There is no winning solution.
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.
Thus, since there is no way to win, it doesn't matter what you do.
Shades of torment?
But you've said all sin is equivalent, not one is worse than the other. Therefore, there are no "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 sin
If x equivilent to y then 10x cannot be equivilent to y
Shades of torment
Their sinful nature has been destroyed
But everyone's a sinner. Therefore, it is impossible for the "sinful nature" to be destroyed.
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.
Besides, you just said everybody is a sinner. That means Christians, too. Which is it?
As I stated before, everyone who is
a) human
b) 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2008 5:07 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 221 of 263 (460373)
03-14-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Rrhain
03-14-2008 5:35 AM


First of all, there are plenty of other groups picked on by Xians for nonsexual issues, so what is your hangup with just sexual proscriptions?
Second, you keep re-asserting that straights get a pass, which is simply not true. If one looks at Lev and Deu, one might notice a whole mess of straight sex that gets nixed, before we ever get to homosexuality.
This is all very simple. God is looking at individuals, not categories of people. With your genitals you are capable of enjoying yourself in all sorts of ways. Apparently God wants to exclude all sexual acts for all individuals, except the one case where a penis and vagina meet in such a way to facilitate reproduction, and even then only after an arcane ritual has been conducted between the two reproducers.
I'm not sure where you are seeing heteros getting a break. There is only one group getting a break... devout, prudish monogamists. And as it is there were even some groups, like the Shakers, who felt even procreative sex was out. Celibacy is the model behavior, if one fails at that, then chastity and prudism.
What does that have to do with anything? It's still sex and still a sin.
Your claim was that heteros get a pass, and asked why homosexuality was picked on. I began listing sexual issues showing that homosexuality is only the most recent legal issue in repealing sexual laws which is why it gets so much airplay right now. Heteros clearly were reigned in with earlier laws and continue to be with current laws.
In the scale of history, even if we limit ourselves to the scale of Christian history, the past couple hundred years is "recent."
Save me from your rationalizations. I note you didn't even address the fact that uncommon practices do not indicate public attitudes were different on that subject. But let's cut to the chase. You say Boswell's claims are as solid as evolutionary theory, please present the data, and links to support it.
We both know you are making bald assertions on something which is limited in scope at best, and totally inaccurate at worst. He might be lauded for opening debate and interest in a practice unknown to most in the Church. But the debate has not been settled.
Any explanation except the most obvious one is forced upon the situation. It's "bonding behaviour," "submission behaviour," "dominance behaviour," anything but SEXUAL behaviour.
Here you attempt to attack me personally. I never made such an effort or argument. It is you and Boswell seeking justifications for a modern movement which appear to be seeing what you want wherever you go. I am open to whatever conclusions can be reached on the subject given evidence.
All I said is that in the ongoing debate, there are alternatives for the ceremonies discussed. They do mirror other brotherhood-type rights, which is why they might better be explained as being such. I saw no mention of sex within the ceremony, or any attributions to sexual rights in such ceremony. I assume that will be within the evidence you provide next.
If everyone's a sinner, how does one distinguish it? If everyone is the same, what makes one different from another?
We are reaching the end on this. Sin is defined, and one can be categorized as sinful. That everyone does end up fulfilling such a category (fitting the definition) does not erase its meaning.
You do a silly tap dance away from the "air-breather" example, ignoring the others I gave. Clearly then you are just arguing to argue.
Yes, if sin were an indication of "specialness" (which is defined as something different than everyone else), then like in the incredibles movie, if everyone had sin no one would be special. Too bad for you that sin is not defined as being different or distinguished from others. Just as if all people were bi-peds, that would not mean no people were bi-peds.
You have made a logical error, and you simply refuse to admit it. It must be clear to anyone reading this, and so I'm not going to deal with that point any more.
Edited by Silent H, : clarity

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2008 5:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Rrhain, posted 03-16-2008 12:03 PM Silent H has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 222 of 263 (460537)
03-16-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by iano
03-14-2008 7:22 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
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?
Interesting dilemma you have there, isn't it? How does one judge the demand not to judge?
Here's one possible way out: It only applies to yourself. Thus, the mote/plank comment makes sense: Stop worrying about others and start paying attention to yourself.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by iano, posted 03-14-2008 7:22 AM iano has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 223 of 263 (460538)
03-16-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by iano
03-14-2008 7:43 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
I'm not determining good and evil. I'm stating that a person is engaging in something that is sinful
You do realize that the second sentence contradicts the first, yes? How do you know that "a person is engaging in something that is sinful"? Who are you to make that judgement? Since when did you become the mind of god?
[quote] Rrhain writes:
"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'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)
It is not for you to determine if anybody else is sinning. Only god can do that. You can certainly comprehend the concept of sin, but it is not for you to tell anybody else if they are or are not sinning for that requires the ability to judge which is strictly forbidden to you.
quote:
That homosex falls under the category of activities deemed sinful
Since when? There's nothing in the Bible about it. Certainly not as we understand the term.
quote:
So go compare humans to non-humans.
Why? You're the one that said everyone is a sinner. Therefore, there is no other category. You cannot find any person who is not a sinner, by your standard. Therefore, there is nothing to be gleaned from the entire concept of "sin." It doesn't actually explain anything.
Since everybody's a sinner, then it won't matter what anybody does: There's no way to win.
quote:
I've already told you the basis on which I state everyone a sinner. a)they are human b) they are not Christ.
But Christ was human.
Therefore, he was a sinner.
And according to your book, Christ wasn't the only one.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by iano, posted 03-14-2008 7:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by iano, posted 03-16-2008 2:02 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 224 of 263 (460539)
03-16-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Silent H
03-14-2008 2:48 PM


Silent H responds to me:
quote:
so what is your hangup with just sexual proscriptions?
Huh? Do you not realize that the topic of the thread is, "Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?" It would seem to be the case that the question of sexual proscriptions would be the subject of the conversation.
quote:
If one looks at Lev and Deu, one might notice a whole mess of straight sex that gets nixed, before we ever get to homosexuality.
But straights still have sex without being told they are sinning. Therefore, they get a pass.
Can you respond to that or do we have to go around the merry-go-round again?
And you can drop the ad hominem, while you're at it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2008 2:48 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Silent H, posted 03-16-2008 2:08 PM Rrhain has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 225 of 263 (460547)
03-16-2008 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Rrhain
03-16-2008 11:49 AM


Rrhain writes:
How do you know that "a person is engaging in something that is sinful"? Who are you to make that judgement?
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?
-
It is not for you to determine if anybody else is sinning. Only god can do that. You can certainly comprehend the concept of sin, but it is not for you to tell anybody else if they are or are not sinning for that requires the ability to judge which is strictly forbidden to 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."
-
iano writes:
That homosex falls under the category of activities deemed sinful
Rrhain writes:
Since when? There's nothing in the Bible about it. Certainly not as we understand the term.
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.
-
Why? You're the one that said everyone is a sinner. Therefore, there is no other category. You cannot find any person who is not a sinner, by your standard.
For some reason you actually quoted my standard in the same post. It is this:
I've already told you the basis on which I state everyone a sinner. a)they are human b) they are not Christ.
It is clear from this standard that you can find someone who is not a sinner to compare sinners with.
-
But Christ was human. Therefore, he was a sinner.
According to your standard perhaps. Clearly not according to mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Rrhain, posted 03-16-2008 11:49 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Rrhain, posted 03-24-2008 10:52 PM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024