David's Challenge on Tolerance...

[harleygirl]

Or the other is...."He that is without sin...cast the first stone." An excellent answer to a crisis situation of a woman caught in adultery. However: how many remember the second comment by Christ?
"Woman, where are your accusers?
Go and sin no more."

Who will tell them how far they have fallen? Who will remind them of the real meaning of shame?[/QUOTE]

I guess God will on judgement day. So, I guess when I caught my first husband cheating I should not have slept with his boss??


J/K Hessien, just trying to lighten the mood. It was actually his best friend.

 

[RoseRed]

Or the other is...."He that is without sin...cast the first stone." An excellent answer to a crisis situation of a woman caught in adultery. However: how many remember the second comment by Christ?
"Woman, where are your accusers?
Go and sin no more."

How easy was that for her? Did Christ honestly believe that the rest of her days would be spent in sinless bliss?
No: But he ordered (not asked) her to strive and resist temptation, to not succumb to lust.
She understood grace the most: because she was exposed to the penalties of the law (stoning)...and yet was given life: NOT TO KEEP SINNING...but to reform her life and change.

How many thousands are not exposed to the wages of their sin (until it is too late) because it would be politically incorrect and "intolerant." Thus....they feel they are fine
(Every man who does right in his own eyes).

--they don't know the law....they will never know grace.

Who will tell them how far they have fallen? Who will remind them of the real meaning of shame?

I am going blindly into this and expect to be slammed... but... what if it were the man who sinned?

 

[harleygirl]

I am going blindly into this and expect to be slammed... but... what if it were the man who sinned?

Revenge is mine, said the lord. I just could not wait that long!!

 

[RoseRed]

Revenge is mine, said the lord. I just could not wait that long!!

No red yet...

 

[Hessian]

Rose...

You are certainly not the first who asked that question...
If the woman was threatened with death....what happened to the guy she was with?

Scripture is silent on that point and some who have a bruised ego will retort that in that male oriented society ...he may have gotten away with it.
HOWEVER...

I'll tie your question back to my point.
Who was the most likely to change their ways? The woman or the man?





Naturally the woman....why? she was exposed to the harsh realities of the law...then was shown the depth of forgiveness (grace)...and thus---she is likely to have changed her life.---not the man.

I'll ask another question....
Why did "publicans" and "sinners" like to hang around Christ?
Some came because they wanted to see miracles....
Some came because they thought he might ovethrow Rome...
However: many came because they wanted to hear the truth: no matter how hard it was...they wanted to know if there was any hope for them (since the teachers of the Law didn't seem to care at all and were consumed by petty arguments).
They KNEW they were wretched and they wanted a way out. (remember the prostitute who washed Christ's feet with her hair & tears?)

Today: we have millions who do NOT recognize their wretched condition...and thus Christ is considered a mere moral teacher...mostly irrelevant: and they will do fine when they die because "They led a good life."--WRONG.
("Their 'righteousness' is as filthy rags")

And the last thing they will hear: "Depart from me, I never knew you."

 

[harleygirl]

Naturally the woman....why? she was exposed to the harsh realities of the law...then was shown the depth of forgiveness (grace)...and thus---she is likely to have changed her life.---not the man.

And the last thing they will hear: "Depart from me, I never knew you."[/QUOTE]

Something we agree on, Hessain!! But I thought even a death row inmate that asked God for forgiveness before he is thrown into Old Sparky goes to heaven?

 

[Hessian]

Harley...paraphrasing more scripture!

What you just modernized (correctly) was the thief on the cross...
One continued to mock & taunt while the other realized his fate and asked to be "remembered" in heaven:
(He did two things: 1.realized that his soul was in jeopardy...2.and then accepted the idea that Christ could save him from eternal torment.
How did Christ respond???
"Today you shall be with me in paradise" (sorry Ayatollah: no mention of 70 virgins either)

Back to your question:
YES...the deathrow inmate still must pay his earthly penalty for the crimes he committed but if his is sincere in his acceptance of Christ's offer of forgiveness: HE IS PARDONED...no different than the thief on the cross.

but remember where it begins: recognition that one cannot save themself...that they are in a fallen state...that what they have been doing is WRONG---(which is repentence)

One does not reach that state of repentence unless: THEY READ/HEAR/SEE that their behavior is wrong.

 

[Esprix]

OK, I'll bite, at least to put my two cents in.

I'll state flat out - I'm not a Christian, don't believe the Bible is God's word, and I think Jesus was a wonderful teacher but not the son of God. That said, I was raised Methodist and have a strong spiritual side (my religious home is now Unitarian Universalism).

A few years ago I ran across a wonderful article that I think says a lot about what Christ's love ought to teach Christians. I daresay it's not nearly as baised a source as NARTH (a most disreputable source if ever there was one), but it's a good read anyway:

"Homosexuality and the Bible" by Walter Wink

In it, Wink says that if you're going to accept that the Bible takes a negative view of homosexual activity, you're going to have to accept a lot of other social mores, such as:

- No sex during menstruation
- Adulterers must be put to death
- Nudity in private is shameful
- Polygamy and concubinage are perfectly acceptable
- A widow must bear a male heir with one of her husband's brothers
- Women are property
- Bodily functions are unclean
- Jews must only marry within the 12 tribes of Isreal
- Divorces should not be allowed
- Celibacy is abnormal
- Slavery is acceptable
- If a woman intervenes while her husband is being beaten, her hand should be cut off

And yet, all of these things are now ignored, if not considered downright barbaric. So why do these social mores get to change, but the stance on homosexuality, which is only mentioned three times in the Bible, should remain unchanged?

His bottom line is that the Bible has no "sex ethic," but Christ did have an ethic - a love ethic. That's really what matters, isn't it?

And there's my two cents.

Esprix

 

[Hessian]

And there you have it folks...

The bible is irelevant..
Christ is a moral teacher who lied to all of his followers...
Rules that applied to Israel..now don't apply to Christians and thus they can all be tossed into the waste bin because we make much better rules today.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

"Imagine there's no Heaven...
Its easy if you can...
No Hell below us...
A Brotherhood of man..

Imagine all the people....living for today..."

The "Lennon Doctrine" sounds very inviting but ...it is very wrong.

 

[harleygirl]

- No sex during menstruation
- Adulterers must be put to death
- Nudity in private is shameful
- Divorces should not be allowed
- Celibacy is abnormal


Esprix[/QUOTE]

OMG!! If these are true I am going straight to hell

Actually, all joking aside Hessain I do like reading other's opinions. It is always good to stimulate your mind and look at things from another's perspective. Keeps the old cranium from turning to mush.

 

[Esprix]

The bible is irelevant..
Christ is a moral teacher who lied to all of his followers...
Rules that applied to Israel..now don't apply to Christians and thus they can all be tossed into the waste bin because we make much better rules today.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

"Imagine there's no Heaven...
Its easy if you can...
No Hell below us...
A Brotherhood of man..

Imagine all the people....living for today..."

The "Lennon Doctrine" sounds very inviting but ...it is very wrong.

I'm sorry, but I did not say the Bible was irrelevant, nor did I say Jesus lied to anyone. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please note I also never told you what you ought to believe - please, feel free to believe whatever you wish, but you did ask for other people's opinions, and that's mine. If you're going to throw your hands up in the air every time someone doesn't believe the same things you do, you may end up having to dodge 747s eventually. Simply put, since I'm not Christian, I'm not going to believe what you do, so you can call it sin, and I can call it a blessing, and maybe we can get on with our lives now.

Esprix

 

[Christy]

- Nudity in private is shameful

I say that every day as I look at myself climbing out of the shower. I really need to diet.

 

[Hessian]

Yes...you did.

To Claim

"I think Jesus was a wonderful teacher but not the son of God."

is to circumspectly say: Christ was one of the greatest deceivers ever.
He got a massive & loyal following...promised them he would "Raise this temple in three days" and then was killed by authority of Rome...then managed to convince his deluded followers to also preach a doctrine of false resurrection to the point where almost all of the 12 were killed too.
We wasn't just a liar...he was sadistic. That is what happens to your "wonderful teacher" idea.

The Bible is irelevant to you, you can openly admit it if you are in the mood to openly admit things. There is no reason to keep trying to protect something that keeps nagging at your lifestyle...so it is easier to dismiss it. Why not take the next courageous step? Its not that hard.
Go ahead...say it was mistranslated...it is full of mythology...it was written by hateful religionists. Parts were intentionally changed years later weren't they?

regards,
Wormwood.

 

[Esprix]

To Claim

"I think Jesus was a wonderful teacher but not the son of God."

is to circumspectly say: Christ was one of the greatest deceivers ever.
He got a massive & loyal following...promised them he would "Raise this temple in three days" and then was killed by authority of Rome...then managed to convince his deluded followers to also preach a doctrine of false resurrection to the point where almost all of the 12 were killed too.
We wasn't just a liar...he was sadistic. That is what happens to your "wonderful teacher" idea.

The Bible is irelevant to you, you can openly admit it if you are in the mood to openly admit things. There is no reason to keep trying to protect something that keeps nagging at your lifestyle...so it is easier to dismiss it. Why not take the next courageous step? Its not that hard.
Go ahead...say it was mistranslated...it is full of mythology...it was written by hateful religionists. Parts were intentionally changed years later weren't they?

regards,
Wormwood.

Hmmm. Interesting definition of "debate" you have.

OK, then, nice talking to you!

Esprix

 

[gumbo]

But homos can do what they like........ it doesn't bother me a bit

So therefore it's OK to encourage the children by having open Homosexual role models.
It don't bother me either. What bothers me is the open flaunting and the encouraging of young un molded minds.
Countless times I have heard women make remarks of how Gays can do this or that better or excel more than heterosexual men. Encouragement to young ears!

Sexual preference is not a race of people, but yet it is treated as racism.
Why ? Who cares that someone is Gay, I wouldn't know if they were or not. But noooo they insist upon telling me. So why do they have to broadcast it?

Funny thing about human behavior. Fact ! When a person knowingly is doing wrong, they will constantly think of every angle to justify their action to easy their conscience. Then after doing so long enough, they actual believe it to be so.
This is my theory of why gays need to flaunt..To reinforce their need to justify a wrongful un natural act to ease their conscience.

 

[Esprix]

When a person knowingly is doing wrong, they will constantly think of every angle to justify their action to easy their conscience.

Like people who discriminate, bully, hate, and murder people who are different from them?

Wow. You're very insightful.

Esprix

 

[BuddyLee]

Someone prove to me that the bible or any philosophical "theory" is right...or wrong. There have been many books, many words written, many words spoken. I don't see what compels man to be so close-minded about one "theory" over another, simplicity perhaps.

 

[FromTexas]

Someone prove to me that the bible or any philosophical "theory" is right...or wrong. There have been many books, many words written, many words spoken. I don't see what compels man to be so close-minded about one "theory" over another, simplicity perhaps.

Why would it be faith if it was proven?

 

[supersurfer]

Actually, all joking aside Hessain I do like reading other's opinions. It is always good to stimulate your mind and look at things from another's perspective. Keeps the old cranium from turning to mush.

Christianity isn't a thinking man's religion.

 

[FromTexas]

Christianity isn't a thinking man's religion.

It doesn't take a lot of thought to have any one faith or no faith at all. That is not what faith is about. Being of any one faith or no faith does not make anyone more or less of a "thinker"...

Also, the morality of homosexuality outside of religion is decided not on thinking. It is decided on emotion. Either you believe or do not believe that it is acceptable. Your belief is not dictated by scientific proofs and proven theories... all you have is your feelings on whether they are doing wrong or not.

As an example, you could go to parts of the world where tribes induct their children into sexuality at 10 years of age. They teach them intercourse by having sex with them. If you were in that tribe and made the argument it was wrong to do so, you would not be considered a "thinking man" because what they do is for the good of the tribe in their moral norms. There is a purpose validated by their beliefs. That does not mean those people are not thinking people... it just means their morals are dictated by their feelings on the matter. There is no logical proof in their society for it being good to do it that way or to do it our way. It works for them and their society has existed that way for hundreds of years.

So, don't throw up the straw man of thinking men when you are talking morals and religion. They are fluid and guided by societys feelings and viewpoints on a subject at the time. They hardly ever change because there is some great scientific proof that doing it one way or the other is better. Therefore, none of those decisions can be said to make one a thinker or not a thinker.