80sU2isBest said:God doesn't take sides. But we certainly have the resonsibility to choose His side.
Which is precisely what I am doing.
Melon
80sU2isBest said:God doesn't take sides. But we certainly have the resonsibility to choose His side.
Scarletwine said:[BI do have an idea what BVS means. My family and my husband's are Lutherans. My father-in-law died several years ago and my mother-in-law remarried a Southern Baptist. He is a wonderful man, however she is floored by what comes out of her Sunday school teachers mouth (no offense meant to others here, just repeating what they told me last weekend). They are always taking about "are you saved" ect. But he told his class that he has been taking to his neighbor and he hopes "that Roman Catholic" can still be saved.
She was absolutely floored. I'm not saying they are typical of all SB, but they are for the ones I've met. Even though they are some of sweetest nicest people I've met. They maintain a religious superiority that is very repugnant to me.
She is leaving the church and as it so conservative is risking her marriage. They don't wear pants in church and women don't talk back, ect. She will be seen as a slur on Duane. Her husband thinks I'm horrible for contrdicting my hubby in public.
I'd appreciate Nb's or 80's thoughts. (seriously as I have no idea how to counsel or help her). [/B]
paxetaurora said:So there's no overarching problem with Roman Catholics being saved in general? As long as Catholics seek the forgiveness of God for their sins and want to follow Christ, just as the Christians that 80s is describing do, then they are just as saved as their more conservative brothers and sisters?
BonoVoxSupastar said:80's,
Until recently the Church turned their back on the plague of AIDS because it was thought of as a gay disease. Christians should have been the first to reach out and help these people, but instead they turned their back and judged these individuals.
They've excluded them as leaders in the church.
Lobbied in the banning of gay marriage.
How can you not see why people feel the way they feel.
paxetaurora said:Okay, cool.
I wasn't being sarcastic, just so you know. I really wanted to know what you thought about that.
Scarletwine said:This is why I believe fundamentaltist are thae farthest from God as you can get.
You still didn't answer my question about other religions vs your own.
paxetaurora said:It's not fair to generalize all fundamentalist Christians that way, Scarletwine, and you know that.
80s is doing the best he can with limited backup.
80sU2isBest said:
You're right, Christians should have been the first to help with the AIDS disease, rather than judging...and I've got a luittle secret for you...man many Christians are involved in fighting AIDS.
And as far as what you've seen "in the south", do you forget that I am from the DFW area, also? I have seen what you are talking about, but is not the dominant spiritual behavior in this area.
As far as excluding gays from leadership in the church, I have to say I agree with that. If I believe that homosexual sex is wrong, I could not support a sexually active homosexual for a leadership role in the church, just as I would not support a sexually active unmarried person for a leadership role in the church.
Scarletwine said:The definition of "fundamentalist Christian" is a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I'm curious then as to why you think fundamentalists are "the farthest thing from God".
Because the Fundamentalist I know negate the New Testament for the old Testament.
80sU2isBest said:Deoends on the cause for the divorce. If he/she is divorced because the spouse cheated on them, no, I would not exclude him/her from a leadership role, if he/she is the right person for that role.
80sU2isBest 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...
I am very committed to integrity in the leadership positions at church. And I would be equally as hard on heterosexuals as I would be on homosexuals. Leadership in the church is very important.
BonoVoxSupastar said:I agree integrity in leadership positions at a church is very important to me as well. But given you're definition above, you are for using a hierarchy of sin in your judgement as to if this person is fit for the position. If you had a position that was being sought after by two individuals; one a homosexual that all his life has been active in the church and a highly committed Christian and a divorcee who recently got remarried and just joined the church after his divorce, you would vote for the divorcee because you would feel his sin is less than the other man. Even though the other man is obviously the higher qualified.
I believe this to be one of the biggest differences between a "liberal" and a "conservative" Christian, is that the conservative side seems to not be able to get past labels and judgements. Christ spoke about not having a hierarchy of sin, being all God's children, he who's free of sin cast the first stone, all of this and so much more. After all of this and how so many speak about being Christ-like, they use man's judgements to base these types of decisions on. Look who Christ chose as his disciples liars, thieves, betrayors, etc. and we can't choose our church leaders the same way? Out of love, rather than judgement.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I agree integrity in leadership positions at a church is very important to me as well. But given you're definition above, you are for using a hierarchy of sin in your judgement as to if this person is fit for the position. If you had a position that was being sought after by two individuals; one a homosexual that all his life has been active in the church and a highly committed Christian and a divorcee who recently got remarried and just joined the church after his divorce, you would vote for the divorcee because you would feel his sin is less than the other man. Even though the other man is obviously the higher qualified.
Klaus said:1st of all "liberal" and "conservative" wasn't a political direction for me in this discussion, just values.
And i have no problem to feel liveral and conservative at the same time.
Klaus
Christ had an ability to do something we can't do...look in to the heart and see what a man is all about. Paul gives guidelines on who can be in Elder and Deacon positions, and men of no integrity are out. If a person shows no sign of being a man of integrity, there ain't no way I'm voting him into a leadership role. Put a thief into a deacon role - The man who handles the offering? No way. Put an ex-thief in another leadership role? Possibly, depending on the kind of man he is now.BonoVoxSupastar said:
Look who Christ chose as his disciples liars, thieves, betrayors, etc. and we can't choose our church leaders the same way? Out of love, rather than judgement.
80sU2isBest said:Christ had an ability to do something we can't do...look in to the heart and see what a man is all about. Paul gives guidelines on who can be in Elder and Deacon positions, and men of no integrity are out. If a person shows no sign of being a man of integrity, there ain't no way I'm voting him into a leadership role. Put a thief into a deacon role - The man who handles the offering? No way. Put an ex-thief in another leadership role? Possibly, depending on the kind of man he is now.