Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive? - Page 5

Esaias · #41 02-12-2015, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've become friends with some rather interesting Quaker folks. I like Quakers. They give me a lot of food for thought. These people are deeply spiritual, non-legalistic (to the extreme), and they live honest, peaceful, prayerful, and quiet lives. However, when discussing this issue once they had an interesting perspective that I believe has an element of truth to it.

They do not believe that sexuality, in any form in and of itself, is "sinful". They believe that what makes a given sex act sinful is what makes anything else sinful, the lack of love. Sexuality without love is inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. From their perspective, all are loved and welcomed by God as they are through an infinite grace provided by Jesus Christ. The highest calling being love.

Thus what I've noticed is that for most "inclusive" churches the notion of what is sin and what isn't based on a given act or behavior. It is the heart's intention within the action.

The element of truth that I find in all of this is that this truly does essentially define "sin" at its core. Sin is that which is void of love for God and/or love for others. It is definitely anything that is inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. The believer's highest calling is indeed love. Where I differ with them here is... I believe that some sexual behaviors, such as homosexuality (as I understand it), are inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing and that this is why God forbade them.

I do believe that anyone should be welcomed to come to Christ, regardless of the struggles with sin that they might face. Christ tends to clean one's life up significantly if one is dedicated to being conformed into the image and likeness of Jesus. Ultimately we, as individuals, will answer to God for our faith and our lives. I can only seek to listen and follow the Spirit's leading in my life and refrain from hating others based on how they feel God leading them. I don't hate anyone. But... I do not always agree with them.

But I will ask this. If one truly believes that their behavior isn't a sin, I ask that they deeply consider this and do some soul searching. Is their behavior/relationship harmful selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing in any manner? I am not fully convinced that a homosexual can answer yes to this this question.

And if they can... perhaps they should consider being Quakers. lol

The view of your Quaker friends allows for God-approved sodomy as long as it is "done in love". And this is the logical conclusion to the belief that there is a dichotomy between the commandments of God on the one hand and loving God and your neighbor on the other.

In reality, the commandments of God (such as the proscription against "gay sex" found in Leviticus) explain HOW we are to love God and our neighbor. They show us what love looks like in action.

But when people put a supposed contrast between the commandments of God and "love", they actually destroy love. It becomes reduced to whatever we feel it is or ought to be. We become the Judge that determines right and wrong based on our personal opinions... as James warns in ch. 4 of his epistle.

Aquila · #42 02-12-2015, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

The view of your Quaker friends allows for God-approved sodomy as long as it is "done in love". And this is the logical conclusion to the belief that there is a dichotomy between the commandments of God on the one hand and loving God and your neighbor on the other.

In reality, the commandments of God (such as the proscription against "gay sex" found in Leviticus) explain HOW we are to love God and our neighbor. They show us what love looks like in action.

But when people put a supposed contrast between the commandments of God and "love", they actually destroy love. It becomes reduced to whatever we feel it is or ought to be. We become the Judge that determines right and wrong based on our personal opinions... as James warns in ch. 4 of his epistle.

I think you missed the point. Homosexual relationships are inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. The love expected of God in a sexual relationship is far deeper than anything a homosexual couple can ever have.

I don't show my wife that I love her by considering her "unclean" during her menses, not laying in the same bed with her during her menses, or touching her during her menses, as the law would require. lol

All sexual relationships condemned by God inherently bring with them harm, abuse, exploitation, degradation, and coercion. So, again, the issue is indeed love vs. exploitation and degradation.

Esaias · #43 02-12-2015, 02:21 PM

"I think you missed the point."

lol
I got the point and showed how it is in error. All you can say about homosexuality boils down to your personal feelings and judgments about the matter.

For me, it boils down to "what saith God?"

Can you see the point I am trying to make here? If there is a dichotomy between "love" and God's commands, the ONLY MORAL AUTHORITY LEFT is personal opinion and feelings... relativism.

CC1 · #44 02-12-2015, 10:29 PM

I try to find good in every bad situation. In this case at least Stan's church will have some of the best interior decorating and floral arrangements of any church in town!

Esaias · #45 02-13-2015, 02:46 AM

lol

Aquila · #46 02-13-2015, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

"I think you missed the point."

lol
I got the point and showed how it is in error. All you can say about homosexuality boils down to your personal feelings and judgments about the matter.

For me, it boils down to "what saith God?"

Can you see the point I am trying to make here? If there is a dichotomy between "love" and God's commands, the ONLY MORAL AUTHORITY LEFT is personal opinion and feelings... relativism.

If one has "faith" in the Scriptures there is another moral authority. Being personally led of the Spirit.

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Living a life walking in the Spirit, experiencing spiritual union with the LORD Himself through His abiding Spirit, is superior than the ancient constitutions of ancient Israel. They didn't have the Spirit abiding in them to lead them and guide them personally. The very same Spirit that rested on Jesus to proclaim liberty to the captives, the very same Spirit that was in Jesus whom He tells us will teach us all things, the very same Spirit that was poured out at Pentecost. The very same Spirit that inspired the Apostles, healed the sick, raised the dead, inspired the Scriptures, and delivered the demon possessed is... abiding in our very being. He can, and does, speak to our inner man and guides us in all things if we learn how to hear Him and we allow Him to guide us. Living in the Spirit is life! Living in the Spirit is freedom! It takes faith to live it and hear it... and it takes faith to believe when one is being guided by the Spirit, especially if the Spirit takes them in a direction that is not exactly what tradition would require or expect. But that's life in the Spirit as opposed to bondage under law. Liberty.

So many will often say, "Moses wrote thusly...", or "The prophet wrote...", or "Jesus said...", or "Paul wrote...". I know what they wrote and said, and the contexts of their statements. What I want to know is... What is the Spirit telling you personally???

2 Peter 1:19-21 (ESV)
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit still speaks to us today. He who has an ear, let him hear.

Aquila · #47 02-13-2015, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

I try to find good in every bad situation. In this case at least Stan's church will have some of the best interior decorating and floral arrangements of any church in town!

ROFL!!!

Dante · #48 02-14-2015, 01:17 PM

More churches should be inclusive. A person's sexuality should not disqualify them from participating in the kingdom of God and having a relationship with God.

Esaias · #49 02-14-2015, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante

More churches should be inclusive. A person's sexuality should not disqualify them from participating in the kingdom of God and having a relationship with God.

God however says it does. No fornicator for example has any inheritance in God's kingdom. We are also instructed that if any professing Christian practices immorality, idolatry, etc we are to shun them and not even eat with them.

Unrepentant sinners have plenty of "churches" they can go to and be "included". Sadly the only thing they'll be included in is a one way ticket to the lake of fire, along with everyone else who refuses to repent of whatever sin they're holding on to.

Dante · #50 02-14-2015, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

God however says it does. No fornicator for example has any inheritance in God's kingdom. We are also instructed that if any professing Christian practices immorality, idolatry, etc we are to shun them and not even eat with them.

Unrepentant sinners have plenty of "churches" they can go to and be "included". Sadly the only thing they'll be included in is a one way ticket to the lake of fire, along with everyone else who refuses to repent of whatever sin they're holding on to.

That's neither for you or your interpretation to decide, though.