I inferred nothing of the kind, nor did I intend to imply such. Is there something wrong with focusing on overcoming our sinful propensities? Isn’t that what sanctification is all about? Paul said that he “died daily.” He fought the battle with self continually. He also referred to himself as “the chief of sinners.” We are no different. And Paul hadn’t met me, so he can be forgiven for not knowing that I would be ahead of him in that department. We either resist the devil and his temptations, or we acquiesce. And I don’t recall using the word “perfection.”
"You continue to infer…"
Herein lies the problem. @blc quest “to infer” would/could never be quenched.
Yes, we should never forget that sin should be the constant focus of the church, as there can never be too strong and emphasis on our “sinful propensities” so we can remember each one and check them off when we’ve overcome them.
But just as soon as one has been conquered there’s a whole lot that still needs our attention; which should always be directed toward identifying them in ourselves but also in others. After all, “narrow is the gate and few there be that find it.”
cc: George, Elmer
Be careful here Birder, in my few short days on Spectrum, I’ve learned that any valid point, particularly those backed up with evidence, will end up with certain people on here side-stepping the argument and resorting to childhood playground antics of ad hominem attacks.
David, this movie was reviewed here on Spectrum a year or so ago and probably could be located. I’m sorry I don’t have the link but perhaps the WebEd could supply it. It was very well done, according to the review and received many comments, as you can imagine.
You’re another breath of fresh air here and your comments are most informative
(I don’t think there is a link as the movie has not generally been offered for free on an ongoing basis. - webEd)
There’s been much discussion here. (A lot of the conversation was on Disqus & not currently available.) E.g.,
There is if you hurt people in the process and refuse to show them respect and care; it is wrong. All people should be shown the respect that they are able to study, think and pray for themselves and come to terms with their relationship to God and the church.
In my childhood I was in a kind of church and denomination that thought and acted like it was responsible for criticizing and informing on people for their own good. This is a repressive and unloving world to live in. It was fear based and practically devoid of acceptance outside of a narrow confines of what was deemed as acceptable behavior. One of the most vicious of these kinds of negative judgments was about women’s clothing and their jezebel-like desire to lure men into temptation. There was all kinds of toxic judgementalism.
Do we want to return to those days?
Would you be willing to explain 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, through your interpretation please?
First if a child or other person was being sexually and physically abused this matter should go immediately and directly to the authorities. This is a crime that has real victims.
If someone is stealing from the church, this should go directly to the authorities.
As for the rest of it. It may have been necessary in the time of Paul, and the situation that they were in, but it is no longer necessary to follow these rules. After all, the SDA church corporation is constantly working with the outside legal system to protect it’s interest. I see no reason for members should not go to the authorities on legal matters involving other members or the church itself.
As far as sexual morality goes. I don’t believe that the sexual morality spelled out in the bible is anything to treasure. It is not focused on principles such as consent, maturity, responsibility, respect and other such features that we can build a modern sexual morality around. A sexual morality that takes into consideration all those involved, not only the men.
You raise an interesting point: does the last in the list of 1 Corinthians 6:9 refer to them non-contextually, or only if they are doing so without consent and respect for one another?
The other thing is, 1 Corinthians 5:12, in my reading, suggests we are to pass judgment on those only within the church (at least in the ESV translation). And seeing how Romans 1:25-27 handles homosexuality… Might it be within the purview of the church to follow Matthew 18:15 as well?
Or, in the very least, can one understand that through an interpretation of Matthee 18:15, by “judging” someone and “correcting” them verbally, that person may be attempting to Love the judged, even if it is done without love? (Not upper and lowercase uses)
Not really. I see all these situations as being excessively judgmental. We live in a different world, we have a long tradition, especially in the US, of a more libertarian ideal. The freedom of the person over the institution is held in high regard. I don’t believe in the concept of personal judgments as being part of the love we show each other.
Just to be sure, if we are not protecting the vulnerable to abuse and taking care of these legal matters with the correct authorities we are being criminal. That is a far more dangerous position to be in compared to someone who doesn’t meet a specific behavioral criteria that does no harm.
I think there is no clearer statement regarding denial of eternal life than 1 Corinthians 5:9 & 10. There is no wavering, nor ambiguity. It is a simple statement: “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Followed immediately with a strong warning: Do not be deceived"
I think about Penn Jilette (yes, the famous angry atheist) and his opinions on respect for one another:
Well quoting Penn Jillette. Just because someone is an ardent atheist does not mean that he can’t be wrong about the church and religious people. Or is that what you are saying?
Yes it is quite clear, but not practiced by any except the most extreme Christians. How many greedy people have been censured or disfellowshipped for being greedy. The pews would be empty by looking at offerings and Tithe paying alone.
It is obvious that some sins are more important than others. The so called sin of a different gender identity or sexual orientation is by far seen as being worse.
I actually agree with him: “there’s a certain point where I tackle you, and [everlasting life] is more important than that.”
Although it is true that the film is not available for free watching at the moment, the link to the site still works… and the price for downloading it to your own computer is a very nominal one. In fact, the price of the DVD is very nominal. I highly recommend getting it… in whatever form is the most convenient to share with others. And when you do, be sure you get the Blu-ray or DVD, since both of these include extra material that is not included in the download version. http://buy.sgamovie.com/
While it is true that this film has “an emotional impact”, it is of the quiet and comfortable type, not the kind that would necessarily make one who does not resonate with it need to "check to see if [they] have a heart.
For that kind of impact one should watch the documentary, “For the Bible Tells Me So”. For some time it was available for watching free of charge on several web sites as well as youtube. Like other controversial films, this one has been off and on… and most sites are no longer showing it. There are still trailers available, which will give one glimpses of it. The whole documentary is, however, available on DVD for purchase from several sites… including Amazon at a very nominal price. I highly recommend it.
I am not sure if everlasting life is something that you should damage people’s lives in the here and now to achieve. If they are damaged, how will they ever reach a point of understanding what the church is about? If people are driven away from Christianity, and you believe that everlasting life is only available in Christianity then how are they going to have a chance at eternal life.
That is a great point, and I sadly have no great response. You are right, we don’t have a way right now to address homosexuality in a way that doesn’t push them from the church.
As homosexual members don’t usually relay that information to any but perhaps close family, how would a member know someone is gay and why would they want to ask or correct them? It is the pastor’s responsibility to hear other’s confessions IF they do so and if they ASK for advice, but when did it become a member’s responsibility to talk to another member about such very personal and private matters? But FIRST, ONLY if someone asks your advice.
Unfortunately there is an attitude out there (as expressed by Robert Schuller) that we must never tell people that they are sinners because it might hurt their self esteem. Jesus was always kind to the sinner, but he never minimized the seriousness of sin. In fact, He went so far as to suggest that it would be better to cut off one’s hand or pluck out one’s eye, if they were a hindrance to us in our Christian walk.
Yes, you should inform him of this…lol birder is quite good at this himself