The Church has lost its voice in the US

[KingsGambit]

C'mon, this is undergrad stuff. Are you really claiming that anyone took that argument seriously?

Being somewhat familiar with this scholarly debate, yes, I am claiming that. And I don't understand why people get so hung up on the mustard seed thing. It seems like an obsession with hyperliteralism.

Are you going to address my arguments about homosexuality?

[Cerebrum123]

Dude, scripture just goes to prove that "sin" is a relative thing, open to definition (or quite often personal prejudice).

No, no it doesn't.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

As for A.Paul, he points out that if it wasn't for the law (eg: though shall not covet) we wouldn't know what sin was/is (Rom 7:7). Therefore, in that context Saul did not sin in persecuting Christians (in fact he was being faithful to the ordinances of Moses). However, after Christ's intervention on the road to Damascus, if Saul had continued in his previous ways, by his own admission he would have sinned by failing to " love thy neighbour as thyself (cp. Rom 13:8-10).

How on earth was Paul being faithful to the ordinances of Moses, when Moses predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him. You're not really doing that when persecuting said persons followers.

Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.

Killing and persecuting people who aren't breaking God's law isn't exactly a good thing you know. You really need to rethink a lot of this, because right now you are starting to sound .

[apostoli]

No, no it doesn't.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Yes, yes it does!!!

If you are going to appeal to scripture in defense of your opinion, you would have creditability if you cited what the apostle actually wrote and not your personal interpretation, slanted towards your own prejudices.

1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks [God's] law; in fact, sin is lawlessness". (NIV) As I said "sin" is always relative, except when it transgresses God's explicit instructions ie: for the Jew the Law (=the Decalogue not Moses' ordinances). According to A.Paul, Christian believers are not under the Law, but under a law = the law of love. Christian believers can only sin if they transgress the law of love, bypassing Moses ordinances isn't a sin for Christians. As for the Decalogue, well as A.Paul has it, practice the law of law and you have completed God's Law.

How on earth was Paul being faithful to the ordinances of Moses, when Moses predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him. You're not really doing that when persecuting said persons followers.

Moses advocated the genocide of any person or peoples that worshiped anything other than the God of Israel. I have not come across any scripture where Moses "predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him". Deut 18:15 doesn't do it - see below...

ps: Moses gave an instruction that required the execution of certain "prophets" and their followers.

Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.

You aren't big on following scripture are you. Jesus was fond of quoting Isaiah, especially the parts about people with eyes being unable to see, and people with ears being unable to hear.

Of great interest: Moses' expectation was that God would raise up a PROPHET like unto him (Moses) not a prophet. Whats the difference: God speaks to one directly, the other has visions and dreams. And such explains why you should listen to the PROPHET like unto Moses.

Killing and persecuting people who aren't breaking God's law isn't exactly a good thing you know.

As I suggested it is a matter of relativity. A.Paul says Christians are not under the Law (have been freed from the Law). In Saul's eyes the Christians were breaking the Law and that had to be rectified or punished.

Now if you look at history you'll find that Christendom, rightly or wrongly, has been the most tyrannical of all the religions, and is guilty of transgressing the law of love. Throughout history all religions have persecuted whoever is in conflict with them, all have transgressed the law of love. It is all relative: the victims cry persecution, whilst the perpetrators feel justified.

You really need to rethink a lot of this, because right now you are starting to sound .

Have a read of the sermon on the mount where Jesus explains the reality of things. I'm pretty sure you think of him as in his preaching...

[Cerebrum123]

Yes, yes it does!!!

Nowhere is it said in Scripture that sin is relative.

If you are going to appeal to scripture in defense of your opinion, you would have creditability if you cited what the apostle actually wrote and not your personal interpretation, slanted towards your own prejudices.

1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks [God's] law; in fact, sin is lawlessness". (NIV) As I said "sin" is always relative, except when it transgresses God's explicit instructions ie: for the Jew the Law (=the Decalogue not Moses' ordinances). According to A.Paul, Christian believers are not under the Law, but under a law = the law of love. Christian believers can only sin if they transgress the law of love, bypassing Moses ordinances isn't a sin for Christians. As for the Decalogue, well as A.Paul has it, practice the law of law and you have completed God's Law.

You really are

I copied the verse exactly as it is written from this page.

If adding an interpretation lowers credibility, then you have 0 right now with that hypocrisy of yours to boot.

Moses advocated the genocide of any person or peoples that worshiped anything other than the God of Israel. I have not come across any scripture where Moses "predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him". Deut 18:15 doesn't do it - see below...

First, no, Moses did not. This bald assertion id dismissed as such. Second that's a Messianic prophecy, so the prophet spoken of was Jesus.

ps: Moses gave an instruction that required the execution of certain "prophets" and their followers.

False prophets were to be stoned, your point?

You aren't big on following scripture are you. Jesus was fond of quoting Isaiah, especially the parts about people with eyes being unable to see, and people with ears being unable to hear.

Of great interest: Moses' expectation was that God would raise up a PROPHET like unto him (Moses) not a prophet. Whats the difference: God speaks to one directly, the other has visions and dreams. And such explains why you should listen to the PROPHET like unto Moses.

That's the reason this is seen as a Messianic prophecy. Jesus would be the one who "spoke to God face to face" and was "like Moses". Epic fail here.

As I suggested it is a matter of relativity. A.Paul says Christians are not under the Law (have been freed from the Law). In Saul's eyes the Christians were breaking the Law and that had to be rectified or punished.

Sin is not a matter of relativity, neither is truth. Paul even believed himself to be "worst of sinners" because of what he did when he persecuted Christians.

12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now if you look at history you'll find that Christendom, rightly or wrongly, has been the most tyrannical of all the religions, and is guilty of transgressing the law of love. Throughout history all religions have persecuted whoever is in conflict with them, all have transgressed the law of love. It is all relative: the victims cry persecution, whilst the perpetrators feel justified.

Why do you even identify as a Christian if you think they are the worst group out there? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question. You might want to look at the history of Islam while you're thinking over that one though.

Have a read of the sermon on the mount where Jesus explains the reality of things. I'm pretty sure you think of him as in his preaching...

The Sermon on the Mount says nothing about sin being relative, nor does it support your craziness in any way at all. This will be my last response. It's pretty clear that you are and only want to read in your own meaning into not only the past, but into the Bible as well.

[apostoli]

Nowhere is it said in Scripture that sin is relative.

"Sin" simply means "missing the mark", which is commonly understood as operating below God's standard. Whilst the word "relative" is not found in scripture, there are plenty of examples where YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them. Two come immediately to mind: Abraham (Is incest a sin?) and David (Is adultery and murder a sin?).

[Cerebrum123]

"Sin" simply means "missing the mark", which is commonly understood as operating below God's standard. Whilst the word "relative" is not found in scripture, there are plenty of examples where YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them. Two come immediately to mind: Abraham (Is incest a sin?) and David (Is adultery and murder a sin?).

Abraham's case is before incest was considered against God's law. Given that Adam and Eve were the only two people on the planet at one point there is good reason for this not always being the case. However, this assumes that Abraham was being honest about Sarah in that passage. He hasn't been honest about Sarah in recent passages. Not only that, but Sarah isn't mentioned as a descendant of Terah earlier in Genesis. For David, yes it was a major sin, one he was called out for, and subsequently repented of.

2 Samuel 11:1 [

[Thoughtful Monk]

"Sin" simply means "missing the mark", which is commonly understood as operating below God's standard. Whilst the word "relative" is not found in scripture, there are plenty of examples where YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them. Two come immediately to mind: Abraham (Is incest a sin?) and David (Is adultery and murder a sin?).

To me, your making the mistake of saying because the Bible records an event means God endorses it. The Bible is a true history of what happened but not all that happened is endorsed by God. Once I came to understand that God choses us despite who we are and not because of who we are, this makes sense. God is removing any claim that we are saved and in fellowship with Him because of our merit. He's picking badly behaving people and making something out of them. This shows He can do the same with us.

I don't think God ignored any of those transgressions either. Look at Abraham's life and you'll see when Sarah died, he, Isaac, and Sarah were all living in separate locations. I certainly won't want to go through the misery that was David's last years. I think even though God did call them out for a special purpose, He let them suffer the earthly consequences of their sins. As a New Testament example, Jesus forgave the thief on the cross but thief still died that day.

[apostoli]

To me, your making the mistake of saying because the Bible records an event means God endorses it. The Bible is a true history of what happened but not all that happened is endorsed by God. Once I came to understand that God choses us despite who we are and not because of who we are, this makes sense. God is removing any claim that we are saved and in fellowship with Him because of our merit. He's picking badly behaving people and making something out of them. This shows He can do the same with us.

I don't think God ignored any of those transgressions either. Look at Abraham's life and you'll see when Sarah died, he, Isaac, and Sarah were all living in separate locations. I certainly won't want to go through the misery that was David's last years. I think even though God did call them out for a special purpose, He let them suffer the earthly consequences of their sins. As a New Testament example, Jesus forgave the thief on the cross but thief still died that day.

Thankyou ThoughtfulMonk. I agree with everything you say.

I said "YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them". Possibly I should have used a word other than "ignore", "cover" is used by the prophets for what I meant.

[themuzicman]

Being somewhat familiar with this scholarly debate, yes, I am claiming that. And I don't understand why people get so hung up on the mustard seed thing. It seems like an obsession with hyperliteralism.

The mustard seed thing is an excellent example of how to do proper exegesis. Focusing on things ancillary to the topic at hand due to circumstances doesn't constitute "error."

You are engaging in the same kind of hyperliteralism that people do with the mustard seed thing when using the same kind of principle to claim that Jesus validated this woman's 5 marriages when he was more interested in having this woman bring the town out to hear Jesus speak.

Are you going to address my arguments about homosexuality?

What is there to argue? We agree that homosexual acts are sin.

Whether one is convinced or not (and I really am not wanting to into divorce as we are fairly down a tangent), my overall point is that the issue of divorce, remarriage, and adultery is not quite as straightforward as the issue of homosexuality as a hermeneutical case can be made.

Not sure what's not straightforward about divorce. The only "hermeneutical" questions are whether adultery is a valid reason for divorce, and whether marrying a divorced woman is an ongoing act of adultery.

Paul is quite clear in 1 Corinthians 7 that a separated couple should remain single or be reconciled to each other, unless one was not a Christian and unwilling to be married to a Christian.

The woman at the well argument is a non-starter.

[apostoli]

Hello themuzicman,

I've been thinking on your original post...

It's been happening for a very long time, but I think this week put the final nerve stimulating the figurative final vocal chord to rest. The Church is irrelevant in our culture. If the ending of traditional marriage happens with barely a whisper of discontent, what else is there?

...So, how about you? Are you uniting or dividing?

I agree with you that "The Church is irrelevant in our [modern Western] culture". In my experience, in the Protestant world, for those that still go to Church, it has become more of a social experience than a devotional thing (consider the enormous popularity, across the world, of the meta-church Hill Song). As for the Catholic and Orthodox churches, because of its resistance to modern trends, things are static. But the reality is these Churches are declining in line with the aging of their congregations. Though in my country, the RCC is experiencing a bit of a resurgence amongst young professionals.

I detect that the reason you raised this thread is the recent legal recognition of "same sex marriage" in the USA. Imo, if it is worth the paper it is written on, a natural consequence of the USA's Bill of Rights. Hence your high courts resolution...there was no other choice...

In my country we do not have a " Bill of Rights", our rights and responsibilitiesporneia against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits porneiahttp://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...?strongs=G4202

[hedrick]

If you want to know why we've lost influence, read the Barna organization's book "unchristian." They document pretty clearly why the change in public attitude towards Christianity has occurred. It's because Christians are widely perceived as being unchristian. A couple of generations ago, people felt that while the idea of God may be unprovable, Christians supported things that mattered such as justice, forgiveness and reconciliation. Today they no longer feel that way, and the Barna folks feel the accusations are justified. I do think that what the non-Christian public sees of us justifies it.

The public perception is that we were on the wrong side of every major moral battle in the US: slavery, integration, the role of women, abuse of women and children, and the rights of gays. Why should such a group have any influence? Of course the whole Church wasn't on the wrong side of any of that, but enough were (and still are) to make one wonder just how much supernatural influence is really present in the Church. Here's a pretty good statement of the situation from a non-Christian perspective: http://weeklysift.com/2015/07/06/you...to-be-a-bigot/.

I'm old enough to have been around during the civil rights era. The parallelism between conservative statements and actions today and during that period is really embarrassing. You can say "this time we're right," but it's hard to see why anyone on the outside should pay attention to it. Look at the statements today about abolishing marriage rather than allowing gays to participate, compared to the old let's close schools rather than integrate them. Yet another confrontation between Alabama leadership and the Supreme Court. You couldn't have constructed a scenario to discredit conservatives better than this if you tried.

[Cow Poke]

If you want to know why we've lost influence, read the Barna organization's book "unchristian." They document pretty clearly why the change in public attitude towards Christianity has occurred. It's because Christians are widely perceived as being unchristian. A couple of generations ago, people felt that while the idea of God may be unprovable, Christians supported things that mattered such as justice, forgiveness and reconciliation. Today they no longer feel that way, and the Barna folks feel the accusations are justified. I do think that what the non-Christian public sees of us justifies it.

That, of course, is a generalization. There's still a remnant.

The public perception is that we were on the wrong side of every major moral battle in the US: slavery, integration, the role of women, abuse of women and children, and the rights of gays. Why should such a group have any influence? Of course the whole Church wasn't on the wrong side of any of that, but enough were (and still are) to make one wonder just how much supernatural influence is really present in the Church. Here's a pretty good statement of the situation from a non-Christian perspective: http://weeklysift.com/2015/07/06/you...to-be-a-bigot/.

According to the world, we're on "the wrong side" of moral issues like sin and repentance.

[Cow Poke]

I'm old enough to have been around during the civil rights era. The parallelism between conservative statements and actions today and during that period is really embarrassing. You can say "this time we're right," but it's hard to see why anyone on the outside should pay attention to it.

So, to be clear, which side of the "homosexuality is sin" side are you on?

[hedrick]

So, to be clear, which side of the "homosexuality is sin" side are you on?

I'm not responding to this because it's going to derail the discussion. The question isn't whether same-gender sex is always sin, but why people aren't paying attention to Christian voices. My point is that the impression is that Christians don't have the kind of track record that would encourage people to pay attention.

Don't you see why people see parallels between the confrontations in Alabama on civil rights and the current one? You don't have to accept homosexuality as OK to realize how it looks.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not responding to this because it's going to derail the discussion.

So, "by not responding" the way you did, you answered the question.