What's the difference?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

I think for this question, and others that involve standards, or appearance that is not specifically covered by the 10 commandments, or addressed by an apostle in a letter of un-ambiguous language. The sin is in the intent.

Intend to go to a bar to drink enough to forget- or to loosen your moral compass enough for a hook up, is sin the moment you leave the house with that intent.

Going for a nice shepards pie, cheesecake, and 2 fingers of really nice single malt scotch, is called having dinner. And because this place is a nice respectable pub.....just fine. No intent to do an evil, dangerous or disreputable thing is there.

Amen.

This fundamentalist lunacy has us condemning brethren over the mere consumption of a substance... and not the sin of the individual who abuses the substance.

[Wilsonwas]

8

Originally Posted by Aquila

Amen.

This fundamentalist lunacy has us condemning brethren over the mere consumption of a substance... and not the sin of the individual who abuses the substance.

The lunacy has its Genisis in things like the temperance movement, Wesleyan thoughts on holiness look, and the response to the counter culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of the objections are grounded in honest response to the same creep in relative social views of sinful behaviour that lead us to having more than two genders on a form. By categorically phohibiting, or expressing even, "we know its not bible, but"......To say one should seperate fron the world and define this in terms relative to a point in time is maybe OK. But to continue the prohibition or disfavor of a look or act not specifically biblical, long after the relative worldly issue has changed is to border on ridiculous.
To call it "the old landmark" - invent horrendous stretches of interpretation and reading between the lines to quote bible for it, this is where we wander into not only lunacy, but circles as well. If you constantly see an old landmark, you either never left the area, or are walking in circles.

[berkeley]

why do you want to remove the landmarks of the 1900’s?

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

8

The lunacy has its Genisis in things like the temperance movement, Wesleyan thoughts on holiness look, and the response to the counter culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of the objections are grounded in honest response to the same creep in relative social views of sinful behaviour that lead us to having more than two genders on a form. By categorically phohibiting, or expressing even, "we know its not bible, but"......To say one should seperate fron the world and define this in terms relative to a point in time is maybe OK. But to continue the prohibition or disfavor of a look or act not specifically biblical, long after the relative worldly issue has changed is to border on ridiculous.
To call it "the old landmark" - invent horrendous stretches of interpretation and reading between the lines to quote bible for it, this is where we wander into not only lunacy, but circles as well. If you constantly see an old landmark, you either never left the area, or are walking in circles.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by berkeley

why do you want to remove the landmarks of the 1900’s?

I dont want to remove them all, but ones invented in the 1800s and 1900s in response to specific movements, that are generally related to American historical moments, seem the ones least biblical, and most unevenly applied, as well as provide a source of dissension and infighting among what ought to be brethern.
These also are the sources of the horror stories we all hear where pastorial oversights become tryanny.
They may have had a purpose, at the time, but they have become institutional in how they are viewed. Questioning is greeted with shouts of "backslider", "rebellion", to quell discisdion. This seem pharasitical.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

8

The lunacy has its Genisis in things like the temperance movement, Wesleyan thoughts on holiness look, and the response to the counter culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of the objections are grounded in honest response to the same creep in relative social views of sinful behaviour that lead us to having more than two genders on a form. By categorically phohibiting, or expressing even, "we know its not bible, but"......To say one should seperate fron the world and define this in terms relative to a point in time is maybe OK. But to continue the prohibition or disfavor of a look or act not specifically biblical, long after the relative worldly issue has changed is to border on ridiculous.
To call it "the old landmark" - invent horrendous stretches of interpretation and reading between the lines to quote bible for it, this is where we wander into not only lunacy, but circles as well. If you constantly see an old landmark, you either never left the area, or are walking in circles.

Ouch.