This Makes #2 on the List, REALLY???

[Dichotomy Girl]

Ok, so I'm wasting time on Facebook, and It's telling me to join various groups, one of which is an Apostolic Group, curious as to why it would tell me that, I clink on it, and it turns out that I have friends who are in the group. Anyway, the group calls itself "One God Apostolic Pentecostals" and describes itself as such:

We believe in One God and His name is Jesus.

We believe in traditional marriage.

Being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ not His titles.

Talking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance which is the initial evidence of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Being separate from the world.

Living a life acceptable to our Lord and seeking His will in our lives.

Doing our part in reaching the lost.

We desire revival in our lives as well as our church.

Praying and seeking out our Lord on a daily basis.

Reading and studying the bible on a daily basis.

We believe in having church like the bible instructs, we do not believe in being pew warmers.

We are not afraid to lift our hands in praise and worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We are not ashamed of these truths.

Really??? 1st one God who is Jesus, 2nd Traditional Marriage, followed by baptism, tongues and separation....

I don't know why, but this truly truly shocked me. What's will they add next? Hating Obamacare?

It's one thing to have a conviction, but another completely to define yourself (and others) by your conviction. And to actually make it 2nd, like your stance on gay marriage is more important in the definition of an Apostolic Christian, then baptism or the Holy Ghost.

I feel strangely disappointed in...I don't know...whoever wrote the list, or affirmed it....or something.....I don't know it just makes me sad.

[Luke]

Homosexual marriage is not a matter of conviction rather it is matter of accepting the bible as God's word.

[Luke]

Where do you think it would have been more appropriate to appear on the list?

[Reader]

I would not view it as a list of descending order of importance. I see it as nothing more than a list of beliefs. If someone asked you what your beliefs were, would you make certain they were shared in the order of importance-------and furthermore, could you?

Even with the ten commandments, can we claim that honoring mother and father is more important than not stealing or killing?

It would appear that #2 bothered you because you support gay marriage, not because of thinking it was a list in order of importance.

[Dichotomy Girl]

I would not view it as a list of descending order of importance. I see it as nothing more than a list of beliefs. If someone asked you what your beliefs were, would you make certain they were shared in the order of importance-------and furthermore, could you?

Even with the ten commandments, can we claim that honoring mother and father is more important than not stealing or killing?

It would appear that #2 bothered you because you support gay marriage, not because of thinking it was a list in order of importance.

Actually, not really, because I don't follow (or support) standards ("separation from the world"), but it didn't bother me to see it on the list.

Homosexual marriage is not a matter of conviction rather it is matter of accepting the bible as God's word.

Actually, I would argue that it's a matter of interpretation. Regardless of whether or not you believe the Bible to be God's word, you still need to interpret that Word, right? I personally interpret OT passages about homosexuality to be under law and therefore not applicable, and interpret Romans 1 to be speaking about worship practices in pagan temples. And one could hold those interpretations and still believe the Bible to be God's word.

But it's not secret that I believe Jesus to be God's Word, and that the Word is not living inside of us (i.e. written on our hearts) and not contained in a physical book.

Where do you think it would have been more appropriate to appear on the list?

Not at all?

Look, it's not that it's a surprise. Everyone knows that the majority of Conservative Christians (of ANY denomination) are against gay marriage. And I respect their right to believe that. (Even if I disagree).

But It just seemed....off somehow....for them to use what they are against to define them.

I'm curious....what if someone was an Acts 2:38 3-stepper, Oneness, followed Standards, etc, but was...we won't even say pro-, we'll say neutral gay marriage. Would you still consider them to be a "One God Apostolic Pentecostal"?

[n david]

There are so-called gay Pentecostal or Apostolic churches.

[Reader]

Their statement about marriage wasn't using what they are against to define them. It was using what they are for. They believe in traditional marriage. They didn't mention anything outside that, nor go on a rant about homosexuality or polygamy.

It didn't bother you, but you were shocked by it? (but it didn't bother me to see it on the list. ....this truly truly shocked me) And you didn't address the rest.

Even individual states can state what they consider to constitute a marriage, so what is wrong with a group doing so?

[MissBrattified]

I agree that it seems out of place, but the list doesn't seem to be ordered logically anyway. As for whether it belongs on the list at all--if it's a doctrinal view rooted in scripture, related to a person's salvation or Christianity, then it belongs on the list. (From the perspective of the list maker, at least.) Most Christians aren't looking at this as a political issue; they are looking at it as a sin issue. Views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage certainly aren't on par with one's feelings regarding Obamacare, which is almost purely political in nature.

[Reader]

Most Christians aren't looking at this as a political issue; they are looking at it as a sin issue. Views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage certainly aren't on par with one's feelings regarding Obamacare, which is almost purely political in nature.

Well spoken!

[Dichotomy Girl]

Their statement about marriage wasn't using what they are against to define them. It was using what they are for. They believe in traditional marriage. They didn't mention anything outside that, nor go on a rant about homosexuality or polygamy.

It didn't bother you, but you were shocked by it? (but it didn't bother me to see it on the list. ....this truly truly shocked me) And you didn't address the rest.

Even individual states can state what they consider to constitute a marriage, so what is wrong with a group doing so?

I guess because it was in the section where they describe their group, and because the group was called "One God Apostolic Pentecostals" it felt to me that they were defining what they believed to be OGAP's (I'm tired of typing that out!)

For all I know, maybe they had a bunch of the Gay Apostolic try to join, and they felt the need to specify, "hey, we're not cool with that".

It's just....do you ever tire of judging/and being judged by what you or other's are against. Cause we all do, on each and ever side. I do it, I did it in the original post. You do, you did to me in another thread.

I sit here crying because I just don't understand why we can't all just love Jesus and let it unite us, and show it to the world, imagine what we could accomplish.....and then I cynically wipe the tears off my face because it's a foolish dream that will never happen.

[Reader]

I did not judge you. I have commented in reply to your postings. I have not spoken of your character or person. I have said nothing against you personally.

If a person states they believe in traditional marriage (I do, by the way), why must that translate into judging people in your mind? Why should I be judged because I believe that?

N David shared something in another discussion (I forget which), that clearly showed he believed in traditional marriage and yet he did not treat the homosexuals he encountered with anything but love.

With your comment about loving Jesus, we also need to keep in mind that Jesus spoke & stood openly against sin. Having the love of Jesus also includes this.

[n david]

It's just....do you ever tire of judging/and being judged by what you or other's are against.
It didn't say they were against anything. It simply stated they believe in traditional marriage. What's wrong with that? Should we not say what we believe anymore?

Unfortunately, due to recent lawsuits and court rulings, churches have been advised to update their bylaws to clearly state their belief in traditional, biblical marriage and that the church will not provide same sex marriages or other gay celebrations.

I think it's absurd to have to do so, but such is the times we live in.

[Dichotomy Girl]

I did not judge you. I have commented in reply to your postings. I have not spoken of your character or person. I have said nothing against you personally.

If a person states they believe in traditional marriage (I do, by the way), why must that translate into judging people in your mind? Why should I be judged because I believe that?

N David shared something in another discussion (I forget which), that clearly showed he believed in traditional marriage and yet he did not treat the homosexuals he encountered with anything but love.

With your comment about loving Jesus, we also need to keep in mind that Jesus spoke & stood openly against sin. Having the love of Jesus also includes this.

I keep getting you and Luke confused as we are all posting in several different threads.

I guess, whereas I think that it's Jesus' place to convict and rebuke someone regarding sin. But I don't know that I believe it's our place to do the same to others. Can you show me anywhere that He told us to do this? All I can think of is Him telling us to worry about our own issues, before dealing with others'

[Luke]

Loving Jesus involves following what He said and He did speak on the topic of homosexual marriage. Everytime He dealt with marriage He clearly limited it to a man and a woman in fact in one place He even specifies that in the beginning God created them male and female and for this cause a man was to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. That was the standard and definition of marriage that Jesus set forth man and woman and this is the only type that Jesus ever sanctioned.
Also you ought to look at 1corinthians 6:9 and 1timothy 1:10.

[Reader]

I can only show by quoting the Bible where people spoke about sin. But if quoting the Bible will be disregarded because we can't know if what it is speaking about really happened, then how would that help? (See what happens?)

[Pressing-On]

I keep getting you and Luke confused as we are all posting in several different threads.

I guess, whereas I think that it's Jesus' place to convict and rebuke someone regarding sin. But I don't know that I believe it's our place to do the same to others. Can you show me anywhere that He told us to do this? All I can think of is Him telling us to worry about our own issues, before dealing with others'

It isn't only Jesus' place to convict or rebuke, actually.

Luke 17:3 - "So watch yourselves. If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them." (NIV)

I Timothy 5:20 - "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

Ephesians 5:11 - "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove/admonish/convict them."

[Luke]

I don't recall make a personal judgment against you in any thread. As to judging Jesus said in John to judge a righteous judgment. We are told that we will know people by their fruits. Paul tells us that we will judge angels therefore we ought also have the ability to judge between brothers. In Isaiah we read that we are cry aloud and spare not and to show people God's their sin and iniquity. In Hosea it is said that we are teach the difference between the holy and the profane. In Hebrews Noah is listed among the champions of faith for being a preacher of righteousness (preaching against sin). The list could go on and on. It is a misconception to say that warning of sin by pointing it out is not love. Would it be love to walk past a burning house and not warn those sleeping inside of the danger because it would cause them discomfort and jolt them from their rest and slumber?

[Reader]

But, Pressing & Luke, we only know that those things were written as being said, but we do not know if Jesus or Paul actually said any of them. See http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=46176 (Continuing the devil's advocate thought)

[Pressing-On]

I don't recall make a personal judgment against you in any thread. As to judging Jesus said in John to judge a righteous judgment. We are told that we will know people by their fruits. Paul tells us that we will judge angels therefore we ought also have the ability to judge between brothers. In Isaiah we read that we are cry aloud and spare not and to show people God's their sin and iniquity. In Hosea it is said that we are teach the difference between the holy and the profane. In Hebrews Noah is listed among the champions of faith for being a preacher of righteousness (preaching against sin). The list could go on and on. It is a misconception to say that warning of sin by pointing it out is not love. Would it be love to walk past a burning house and not warn those sleeping inside of the danger because it would cause them discomfort and jolt them from their rest and slumber?

I don't know where that "don't judge me" mantra started. It is being used a lot in the media.

[Pressing-On]

But, Pressing & Luke, we only know that those things were written as being said, but we do not know if Jesus or Paul actually said any of them. See http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=46176 (Continuing the devil's advocate thought)

Be nice. lol

[MissBrattified]

If "judging" involves using scripture to determine what's sinful and what's not, then I'm guilty. Scripture condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments and since I DO view scripture as the inspired Word of God, profitable for doctrine...and instruction in righteousness, then I defer to what it says on any subject. Do I feel compassion for people struggling with homosexuality? Yes. Does that mean I'm not going to say that homosexuality is a sin? No, no sooner than I would stop saying that adultery, lying or stealing is a sin.

Personally, I'm a bit tired of people acting like homosexuality is "special." It's not. It's a sin just like lying is a sin, stealing is a sin, murder is a sin, adultery is a sin, etc. People are born with their human nature which means the ability and propensity to sin in a variety of ways is built into their very nature. That doesn't make it okay in God's eyes. Adam and Eve were created with the ability to choose wrong, and God still considered their act disobedience. He didn't excuse it because it was part of their "nature."

[Ferd]

Ok, so I'm wasting time on Facebook, and It's telling me to join various groups, one of which is an Apostolic Group, curious as to why it would tell me that, I clink on it, and it turns out that I have friends who are in the group. Anyway, the group calls itself "One God Apostolic Pentecostals" and describes itself as such:



Really??? 1st one God who is Jesus, 2nd Traditional Marriage, followed by baptism, tongues and separation....

I don't know why, but this truly truly shocked me. What's will they add next? Hating Obamacare?

It's one thing to have a conviction, but another completely to define yourself (and others) by your conviction. And to actually make it 2nd, like your stance on gay marriage is more important in the definition of an Apostolic Christian, then baptism or the Holy Ghost.

I feel strangely disappointed in...I don't know...whoever wrote the list, or affirmed it....or something.....I don't know it just makes me sad.

hahaha! well I do hate obamacare....

[houston]

I'd like to see Christians working on their fourth marriage rallying against divorce.

[Sasha]

Recently, a gay man from the church I attend passed away. Everyone knew of his lifestyle, and he and his partner were often at church. While their lifestyle wasn't embraced, he was a friend to many including myself, and many were also his friend. Condolences were made to his partner, and many will miss him. His funeral was held at church just before the Wednesday evening service. No judgement. God can do that for Himself.

[jfrog]

Recently, a gay man from the church I attend passed away. Everyone knew of his lifestyle, and he and his partner were often at church. While their lifestyle wasn't embraced, he was a friend to many including myself, and many were also his friend. Condolences were made to his partner, and many will miss him. His funeral was held at church just before the Wednesday evening service. No judgement. God can do that for Himself.

Passing the buck to God when the bible speaks more clearly on homesexuality than on almost any other topic is wrong. Your God's messenger, tell others what God has said. Tell them to follow Christ AND to turn away from their sins. That's what we are called to do. We don't have to be beligerent about it. We don't have to shout you are going to hell over and over again. But we do need to be truthful and honest about what the good book says, especially about the things its crystal clear on.

[Pragmatist]

Really, they're just saying they support traditional marriage. They don't mention homosexuality at all. They might be firmly supporting the idea that people should get married and not just live together.

[shazeep]

Ok, so I'm wasting time on Facebook, and It's telling me to join various groups, one of which is an Apostolic Group, curious as to why it would tell me that, I clink on it, and it turns out that I have friends who are in the group. Anyway, the group calls itself "One God Apostolic Pentecostals" and describes itself as such:



Really??? 1st one God who is Jesus, 2nd Traditional Marriage, followed by baptism, tongues and separation....

I don't know why, but this truly truly shocked me. What's will they add next? Hating Obamacare?

It's one thing to have a conviction, but another completely to define yourself (and others) by your conviction. And to actually make it 2nd, like your stance on gay marriage is more important in the definition of an Apostolic Christian, then baptism or the Holy Ghost.

I feel strangely disappointed in...I don't know...whoever wrote the list, or affirmed it....or something.....I don't know it just makes me sad.Amen. You have just defined why humans are incapable of determining such matters, and one should let the Spirit be their guide. imo.

[shazeep]

...the bible speaks more clearly on homesexuality than on almost any other topic...:lol i'm sorry, what?

[shazeep]

I'd like to see Christians working on their fourth marriage rallying against divorce.or something. i'd like to see Christians getting over it, and recognizing tempests in teacups, and non-issues. and distractions meant to keep them from real discussions. yikes.

[jfrog]

:lol i'm sorry, what?

Alot of topics are unclear. The bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is wrong. One has to try really hard to even try to present a biblical case where homosexuality is acceptable. If one is honest, it can't really be done.

[shazeep]

well, i wouldn't be trying that, but i'm not sure it's fair to say that it has been specially singled out to stand above any other sin? i tried this once, and found precious few verses on the matter, actually. An "abomination," yes--but who really even grasps the term? i doubt our current definition is adequate. Isn't cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk an abomination? i mostly get 'against nature' from the term, for some reason; i doubt the sin is any less forgiven.

however, @ 'topics unclear,' i am kind of getting you, as Scripture seems to (purposefully, imo) present conundrums in many cases, ya.

[jfrog]

well, i wouldn't be trying that, but i'm not sure it's fair to say that it has been specially singled out to stand above any other sin? i tried this once, and found precious few verses on the matter, actually. An "abomination," yes--but who really even grasps the term? i doubt our current definition is adequate. Isn't cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk an abomination? i mostly get 'against nature' from the term, for some reason; i doubt the sin is any less forgiven.

however, @ 'topics unclear,' i am kind of getting you, as Scripture seems to (purposefully, imo) present conundrums in many cases, ya.

Myself, I would not base any of my morality solely on the old testament laws. There are far to many that have absolutely nothing to do with anything moral or ethical. While homosexuality is condemned in the old testament, so are many other things we have absolutely no problem with. However, the problem with homosexuality is that the new testament quite clearly condemns those kinds of acts as well.

[Sasha]

Passing the buck to God when the bible speaks more clearly on homesexuality than on almost any other topic is wrong. Your God's messenger, tell others what God has said. Tell them to follow Christ AND to turn away from their sins. That's what we are called to do. We don't have to be beligerent about it. We don't have to shout you are going to hell over and over again. But we do need to be truthful and honest about what the good book says, especially about the things its crystal clear on.

He knew that. The important thing was, he attended church, something all of us who sin should do.

Preach against sin, yes. Judge one another for sinning, no.

[jfrog]

He knew that. The important thing was, he attended church, something all of us who sin should do.

Preach against sin, yes. Judge one another for sinning, no.

Then give pedophiles the same benefit. Or do you only refrain from judging others on sins that don't bother you very much?

[Sasha]

Then give pedophiles the same benefit. Or do you only refrain from judging others on sins that don't bother you very much?

I would hardly compare a pedophile to a gay person. Not sure why you would.

[Sabby]

I agree that it seems out of place, but the list doesn't seem to be ordered logically anyway. As for whether it belongs on the list at all--if it's a doctrinal view rooted in scripture, related to a person's salvation or Christianity, then it belongs on the list. (From the perspective of the list maker, at least.) Most Christians aren't looking at this as a political issue; they are looking at it as a sin issue. Views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage certainly aren't on par with one's feelings regarding Obamacare, which is almost purely political in nature.

Well said!

[Sabby]

I'd like to see Christians working on their fourth marriage rallying against divorce.

LOL.

I'd like to know how one can make a moral comparison of failed social relationships with homosexual activity.

There are some exceptions, but obviously someone working on their fourth marriage has interpersonal issues that go far beyond sexual activity!

[jfrog]

Then give pedophiles the same benefit. Or do you only refrain from judging others on sins that don't bother you very much?

I would hardly compare a pedophile to a gay person. Not sure why you would.

Hypocrite. You teach judge the sin, not the sinner. Why do you insist on ignoring your principle and judging pedophiles?

[Sasha]

Hypocrite. You teach judge the sin, not the sinner. Why do you insist on ignoring your principle and judging pedophiles?

Who said I was judging pedophiles? I never did. Did you see a different post than what I posted? Did you miss the point of this thread?

[shazeep]

ah, no--the frog has a point there. sin is sin. and btw, pedophilia, once common and even accepted, is way on the decline; just more reported now.

interesting to me that it is those Christians on their 4th marriage that in a large part make homosexuals (or at least make them feel more justified).

[jfrog]

Who said I was judging pedophiles? I never did. Did you see a different post than what I posted? Did you miss the point of this thread?

You said:

Then give pedophiles the same benefit. Or do you only refrain from judging others on sins that don't bother you very much?

I would hardly compare a pedophile to a gay person. Not sure why you would.

...when asked why you don't give pedophiles the same benefit of not judging as you do homosexuals, You didn't deny that you judge them, instead you justified being able to judge them because pedophiles are far worse than homosexuals

[shazeep]

amen--far worse. only to us, tho...

[houston]

LOL.

I'd like to know how one can make a moral comparison of failed social relationships with homosexual activity.

There are some exceptions, but obviously someone working on their fourth marriage has interpersonal issues that go far beyond sexual activity!

Clean house inside the church before worrying about what others are doing.

[houston]

ah, no--the frog has a point there. sin is sin. and btw, pedophilia, once common and even accepted, is way on the decline; just more reported now.

interesting to me that it is those Christians on their 4th marriage that in a large part make homosexuals (or at least make them feel more justified).

My point, really.

[shazeep]

amen.Clean house inside the church before worrying about what others are doing.and amen. And oh, good luck with that, too, as from where i stand, the Apo/Pent church seems to be melting? in the heat? Hmm.

[Aquila]

Gay people and gay couples existed in ancient times. How do we think Jesus would have responded to them?

[Aquila]

One interesting interpretation that I've read addressed the Centurion and his servant. The Greek word for "servant" used here is "pais". In many extra-biblical sources this kind of servant was more akin to a male concubine. There were other words in the Greek to denote a bond servant or attendant of a home. Sometimes the term is used as a term of endearment for a male concubine.

Even more interesting is that Rome didn't always permit Centurions to marry. This was because the state would be responsible for caring for their dependents while on deployment or if they were killed in war. It is documented that many centurions had "boy servants" or "pais" who were both house servants... and concubines. Remember, the Romans had few hang-ups with regards to this lifestyle. Roman culture also seemed to value relationships between men as being more noble than visiting prostitutes or loose women. Now, was this the case with the centurion in the NT? I don't know. However, I've read the story with this in the back of my mind. Let's review the story, then I want to comment on it's implications...

Matthew 8:5-13 (ESV)
5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Here the centurion tells Jesus about his suffering servant (pais, boy servant). Jesus tells the centurion that He will come and heal the servant. However, the centurion is convicted. He feels that he isn't even worthy to have Jesus under his roof. Why? Clearly this centurion didn't feel unworthy to beseech Jesus to heal his servant. However, something about the centurion's home life was making Christ's visitation to the centurion's home convicting. We know that the centurion was honorable as far as centurions go. In fact, he had assisted the locals with building a synagogue at one point and seemed to genuinely care for the Jewish people (Luke 7:4-5). None of this really speaks of his personal life. Only that he was socially kind and just to the local Jews. The usage of the term "pais" may very well indicate that while the centurion was a decent man, he had a "boy servant" he was living with. This would have made him feel terribly unworthy to be visited by a man of Christ's caliber. If this is true, it shows the humility of a sinner seeking a healing for a person they care about... even if the relationship was "unclean" in accordance to Jewish law. Does Christ condemn him? Ridicule him? No. Jesus simply moves with compassion to heal this beloved servant. Does it condone the relationship? No. We see in Christ what could be a grand demonstration of grace towards a Gentile who was quite possible living in sin as the Gentiles tended to do.

Folks, we're going to encounter sinners in this world. Some are going to be in relationships. Some are going to be in "marriages". How will we handle these lost souls should they seek healing, love, and grace? Will we light torches and drive them away? Or will we sincerely pray for them and welcome them into our midst that they might receive what God intends to give them? Our calling isn't to merely condemn sin and gain converts to our religion. Our calling is to reveal sin and declare that there is a Savior who provides grace and empowerment. We call them to repentance. That word is "metanoia". The prefix being "meta" a change as in a metamorphosis. And "noia" as in the mind, or manner of thinking, as in "hyponoia", meaning to think slowly. So repentance is a "change of mind". Strong's defines it as follows:

3341 // metanoia // metanoia // met-an'-oy-ah //
from 3340 ; TDNT - 4:975,636; n f
AV - repentance 24; 24
1) a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a
purpose he has formed or of something he has done

We are to call people to change their minds with regards to what they think about sin and God. We are to convict them of their sins, yes. However, we are also to turn the convicted to Christ for grace. We can encourage people to repent and turn from their godless lives to Christ, who will have abundant mercy and grace for their sinful failings and glaring imperfections. This doesn't mean we condone the actions. It does mean that we point them to one who can cover all their sins with His precious blood.

[houston]

You sure read a whole lot into the text.

[Sasha]

You said:





...when asked why you don't give pedophiles the same benefit of not judging as you do homosexuals, You didn't deny that you judge them, instead you justified being able to judge them because pedophiles are far worse than homosexuals

So my absence of denial of judgement means the opposite? Whatever judgement I may have against another has little to do with the fact that they are a sinner, but perhaps what kind of sinner. For instance, I don't fear my children being in the presence of a gay man, but I am a bit more careful about them being around known pedophiles...and many other people who may hurt them. And not just adults either. If kids are mean to them, I tell them to stay away from people like that. If you call that judging, well....

[jfrog]

So my absence of denial of judgement means the opposite? Whatever judgement I may have against another has little to do with the fact that they are a sinner, but perhaps what kind of sinner. For instance, I don't fear my children being in the presence of a gay man, but I am a bit more careful about them being around known pedophiles...and many other people who may hurt them. And not just adults either. If kids are mean to them, I tell them to stay away from people like that. If you call that judging, well....

I don't think you understand my stance. I'm all for judging each and every one of those sinners. I think it's right to judge. I'm most against hypocrisy. Saying dont judge anyone including homosexuals and then making excuses for why it's okay to judge pedophiles is not right IMO.

[Sasha]

I don't think you understand my stance. I'm all for judging each and every one of those sinners. I think it's right to judge. I'm most against hypocrisy. Saying dont judge anyone including homosexuals and then making excuses for why it's okay to judge pedophiles is not right IMO.

I think that while we are both talking about fruit, I'm talking apples and you, oranges. I'm opposed to any and all sin, however, I admit that I sin daily.

I think it's one thing to judge someone on a particular sin or undesirable trait. It's another to judge sinners for being...sinners. We are all sinners.

I guess a lot of how I feel stems from how I was raised. I was raised believing that if I hung around sinners, I would turn into one. As it turned out, I sinned a lot more by hanging out with my Christian friends because, well, I was judgmental. Yes, don't hang around that girl because she wears pants and her mom smokes, but I can hang around the Christian girl who has long hair and wears skirts even though she tells me how many boys she has had sex with this year.

As it turns out, I found out that I can have sinner friends without partaking of their sin. I have also found out that just because someone preaches against sin doesn't mean they don't have skeletons in their closet.

[jfrog]

I think that while we are both talking about fruit, I'm talking apples and you, oranges. I'm opposed to any and all sin, however, I admit that I sin daily.

I think it's one thing to judge someone on a particular sin or undesirable trait. It's another to judge sinners for being...sinners. We are all sinners.

I guess a lot of how I feel stems from how I was raised. I was raised believing that if I hung around sinners, I would turn into one. As it turned out, I sinned a lot more by hanging out with my Christian friends because, well, I was judgmental. Yes, don't hang around that girl because she wears pants and her mom smokes, but I can hang around the Christian girl who has long hair and wears skirts even though she tells me how many boys she has had sex with this year.

As it turns out, I found out that I can have sinner friends without partaking of their sin. I have also found out that just because someone preaches against sin doesn't mean they don't have skeletons in their closet.

Well said. :thumbsup :yourock

[Abiding Now]

Ok, so I'm wasting time on Facebook, and It's telling me to join various groups, one of which is an Apostolic Group, curious as to why it would tell me that, I clink on it, and it turns out that I have friends who are in the group. Anyway, the group calls itself "One God Apostolic Pentecostals" and describes itself as such:



Really??? 1st one God who is Jesus, 2nd Traditional Marriage, followed by baptism, tongues and separation....

I don't know why, but this truly truly shocked me. What's will they add next? Hating Obamacare?

It's one thing to have a conviction, but another completely to define yourself (and others) by your conviction. And to actually make it 2nd, like your stance on gay marriage is more important in the definition of an Apostolic Christian, then baptism or the Holy Ghost.

I feel strangely disappointed in...I don't know...whoever wrote the list, or affirmed it....or something.....I don't know it just makes me sad.

IF the order is correct, who knows what that church has been bombarded with that would cause them to post it like this.