My reasons for ?liberal? over ?conservative? Christianity

[BVS]

Actually, I never spoke of hierarchy of sin, nor implied it. The reason I would differentiate between the two instances of divorce, is because one of the two is definitely not a sin. If a person gets a divorce because the spouse was unfaithful, that is not a sin. Jesus said that himself.

Ok I guess I was a little confused based on what you said;

"I would definitely exclude anyone who was remarried who had gotten divorce simply because they didn't "feel like being married anymore".

However, everyone makes mistakes. If someone had committed a sexual sin in the not too close past, and had repented of the sin and evidence of their life showed that they were not involved in that sin anymore, I might vote for `em, depending on the individual case... "

To me it sounded like you were saying, you would with careful examination consider the individual that divorced "just because" due to the fact that everyone makes mistakes.

But those were two different thoughts right? You WOULD exclude the "just because" divorcee. And then the person who committed the sexual sin is a different scenario.

 

[nbcrusader]

Because the Fundamentalist I know negate the New Testament for the old Testament.

I actually chuckled a little when I read this. Primarily because most Christians I've met never even read the Old Testament.

 

[BVS]

I actually chuckled a little when I read this. Primarily because most Christians I've met never even read the Old Testament.

The first time I ever went to a _____ church (I won't name the denomination) the whole sermon was on the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" bit. He is equating it to modern day times. It was very harsh and graphic as well. My brother and I were visiting with a cousin, we walked out with our jaws dropped just looking as each other. I still can't believe it today that a Christian church in these times would preach something like this. It explains a little bit about this small town which my cousin use to live.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But those were two different thoughts right? You WOULD exclude the "just because" divorcee. And then the person who committed the sexual sin is a different scenario.

If someone repented of their sin (by repented, I mean "turned away from and knew it was wrong"), and was now leadership quality, I would consider voting for the person, based on whom he/she is now. However, if there was no repentance, he/she would be a flat-out "no way" for me.

I'm not sure how I would feel about the "just because" divorcee if he/she had repented, simply because the Bible says they are living in adultery. But then again, I wouldn't want him/her to leave the 2nd wife, because it wouldn't be far to that person. It's a very sticky situation, one I haven't resolved in my mind. One that I had never thought of. Thank you for giving me one more thing to ponder!

 

[80sU2isBest]

The first time I ever went to a _____ church (I won't name the denomination) the whole sermon was on the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" bit. He is equating it to modern day times. It was very harsh and graphic as well. My brother and I were visiting with a cousin, we walked out with our jaws dropped just looking as each other. I still can't believe it today that a Christian church in these times would preach something like this. It explains a little bit about this small town which my cousin use to live.

Actually, I have a problem with a lot of the things preached at churches these days, and have left 2 churches because of doctrinal differences. But noen of these had anything to do with liberal/conservative views.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The first time I ever went to a _____ church (I won't name the denomination) the whole sermon was on the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" bit. He is equating it to modern day times. It was very harsh and graphic as well. My brother and I were visiting with a cousin, we walked out with our jaws dropped just looking as each other. I still can't believe it today that a Christian church in these times would preach something like this. It explains a little bit about this small town which my cousin use to live.

Which is why I get confused sometimes with religion-if it's supposed to be about love and acceptance and all that good stuff, why would that whole "eye for an eye" thing be preached?

Angela

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well, Christianity really isn't about acceptance at all.

Actually, I take that back - it is about acceptance. It's about being accepted by God...not for what you do, but for what Christ has doen for you on the cross.

The "eye for an eye" is preached because it was in the Old Testament. Just because Christians are under the new covenant doesn't mean that the Old Testament was wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, God didn't go through some massive "change of heart" between the Old and New Testament. What did change was his way of dealing with mankind's sins, and some of his laws on how we are to deal with those who sin. But it was all part of teh plan. The beauty of the Old Testament law is that it served its purpose divinely. ..it showed us how sinful we are and that we cannot live up to God's holy standards. It pointed the way to Christ, the only one who could take our punishment upon himself.

While "an eye for an eye" is not the way we are to live now, it once was, and it was all a part fo God's plan. There's nothing wrong with preaching about the role that "eye for an eye" played in leading us to our need for a savior, but it should not be preached as something we should practice.

 

[BVS]

Well, Christianity really isn't about acceptance at all.

Actually, I take that back - it is about acceptance. It's about being accepted by God...not for what you do, but for what Christ has doen for you on the cross.

The "eye for an eye" is preached because it was in the Old Testament. Just because Christians are under the new covenant doesn't mean that the Old Testament was wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, God didn't go through some massive "change of heart" between the Old and New Testament. What did change was his way of dealing with mankind's sins, and some of his laws on how we are to deal with those who sin. But it was all part of teh plan. The beauty of the Old Testament law is that it served its purpose divinely. ..it showed us how sinful we are and that we cannot live up to God's holy standards. It pointed the way to Christ, the only one who could take our punishment upon himself.

While "an eye for an eye" is not the way we are to live now, it once was, and it was all a part fo God's plan. There's nothing wrong with preaching about the role that "eye for an eye" played in leading us to our need for a savior, but it should not be preached as something we should practice.

I don't believe the Old Testament to be wrong, just not applicable in a lot of instances. This man preached the "eye for an eye" as a way to live life today and like I said made some very graphic examples to go with. It was ridiculous.

You are right it's not about acceptance. It's about love. Love your neighbor, love your enemy, love God, and love your mother

If more people could do that today the world wouldn't be in the place it is and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[80sU2isBest]

You're right!

 

[pax]

The beauty of the Old Testament law is that it served its purpose divinely. ..it showed us how sinful we are and that we cannot live up to God's holy standards. It pointed the way to Christ, the only one who could take our punishment upon himself.

While "an eye for an eye" is not the way we are to live now, it once was, and it was all a part fo God's plan. There's nothing wrong with preaching about the role that "eye for an eye" played in leading us to our need for a savior, but it should not be preached as something we should practice.

Great points, 80s.

Christianity, I think, has a lot to do with love and forgiveness and beauty, yes. But I think focusing on only those things oversimplifies it. Christianity--and other religions too--also point up ugly things that go on in the world and wants to make people cognizant of the fact that sin is real and dangerous. A big part of Christianity is accepting the limitations and failings of humanity, as well as our capacity for good--because if we all were perfect we'd have no need for Christ. You have to know you're a sinner before you can really get into a relationship with God, methinks. That doesn't mean, for example, that God doesn't love babies or people who haven't heard the word of the Gospel, or even that they're going to hell. It's just that I don't think the sacrifice of Christ really *means* anything to someone who doesn't understand that their peace and eternal life depends on the perfect love of Christ.

Then once one becomes cognizant of sin and decides that a life of repeated, thoughtless, unrepentant sin is not for them, *then* I think we move out into these ideas of growing in love and acceptance. Because I do think that above all, God loves everyone. But any religion that doesn't acknowledge the occasional ugliness of humanity and equip its followers to deal with it and improve on it is pretty useless.