What would you do in this situation?

[Hellbender]

Originally posted by mrblaine
Here's a question that some may try to answer for me.

By extrapolation that means to me that everyone is a sinner. Once again, are there degrees of sin?

Not in God's eyes, a murder is just as bad as a little white lie...YOU know it is wrong and have sinned.

MAN has defined the "degrees".

MAN has defined the different methods to get to heaven (different religions).

I am, and was raised, a Baptist, I was saved when I was 10 years old, my kids are in church every Sunday, and I say prayers every night (and sometimes during the day).

BUT, I don't agree with 60% of the Baptist teachings, but I do agree with MOST of thier moral standards, and feel "right" about raising my kids with these standards.

I believe that what you call "God"............"Allah", "Sun God", etc. makes no difference.......

I believe the Bible was "inspired" by God............But written (and translated, many times) by MAN.

No-one but the individual and God can know what is "sin".

And when MAN tries to FORCE another person (through legislation or whatever) to obey what MAN has decided is sin, then that MAN has attempted to play God, and that is wrong.......In this MAN's eyes, anyway.

Do I "like" or "agree" with many of the things we have discussed here (homosexuality, abortion, etc.)------ No, not at all.

But am I (or any mortal) in a position to act as God and tell someone else what is a "sin" and they are going to hell? Sorry, I am just a man, and my thoughts are worth no more than the next guys.

HB

[Hellbender]

Scott--That beer you are drinking is considered a sin by many denominations. Do I think it is a sin? Not for you.

Is it a sin for ME to do it? YES, because, I have promised myself, and God, that I won't do it anymore. Not because a man has told me it is a sin, because I know, for me, it is wrong and I cannot control it.

Would I go to hell if I did? NO, because God is great enough that if I ask for forgiveness, and truly mean it, he will forgive me.

HB

[cbassett]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
For the same reason when we use the word God and spell it with a capitol G.

Run that by me again..


"God" is a noun. It is, by definition, the word used to refer to the supreme being.

"he" and "him" are both pronouns, used to refer to someone who is not a part of the conversation.

Is it written in the Bible that when referring to "God" in text you must capitolize "He" and "Him"? If so, where?

Just one of those things that's struck me as curious.

[cbassett]

Originally posted by Hellbender
Would I go to hell if I did? NO, because God is great enough that if I ask for forgiveness, and truly mean it, he will forgive me.
HB

So at what point is your time up on asking for forgiveness? Supposing there is a "hell", and a "sinner" dies and begins his decent. When his feet start bursting into flame, he's probably very apt to truly ask for forgiveness- and mean it! Is it too late for him? His soul and spirit are still alive, only his physical body has died.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by cbassett
Run that by me again..


"God" is a noun. It is, by definition, the word used to refer to the supreme being.

"he" and "him" are both pronouns, used to refer to someone who is not a part of the conversation.

Is it written in the Bible that when referring to "God" in text you must capitolize "He" and "Him"? If so, where?

Just one of those things that's struck me as curious.

God can variously be defined as:
the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe; or in using the terminology of non beleivers, agnostics/atheists or whatever they wish to lable themselves as, it is the common or generic name of several supposed/invented beings.

When those of us who believe say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. Since God is personal to me and in speaking of Him, I capitalize to confer the proper magnatude of my respect. It is a generally accepted practice, at least amongst Christians.

[cbassett]

That sounds logical, thanks Robert.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by cbassett
So at what point is your time up on asking for forgiveness? Supposing there is a "hell", and a "sinner" dies and begins his decent. When his feet start bursting into flame, he's probably very apt to truly ask for forgiveness- and mean it! Is it too late for him? His soul and spirit are still alive, only his physical body has died.

That is probably the most easily asked yet most difficult to answer question out there I use the NIV Bible and the following is an excerpt from the Book of Revelation 20 12-15;

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The Bible is full of references to mans' ability to repent before God up until this point as Revelation is the last (and some say the most incomprehensable) Book in the Bible. I only refer to it because it is last and do not claim to be even close to an authority on its meaning. I am just trying to point out a verse that may in fact lead you in the search for the answer to your question.

A topic that I have personally done some study on is the reality/existence of hell or the meaning of the term "Lake of Fire". If you care to research that, seach for the terms "light and darkness". My personal conclusion in studying on this topic is that ones' hell would be his/her eternal separation from God, who is typically/often referred to as the Light. This would be the second death. I personally cannot imagine a life without God in it.

My point in all of this is that one has to research and study and be able to discern Gods word for oneself. That is the nature of the personal relationship with God or in other terms, to know God. Again, these are only my own conclusions, I claim no authority on the matter.

[sethmark]

BLAINE'S AN ORDAINED MINISTER???

[Hellbender]

Originally posted by cbassett
So at what point is your time up on asking for forgiveness? Supposing there is a "hell", and a "sinner" dies and begins his decent. When his feet start bursting into flame, he's probably very apt to truly ask for forgiveness- and mean it! Is it too late for him? His soul and spirit are still alive, only his physical body has died.

I believe just sin (or the lack of it) isn't what makes the difference.

We all sin daily.

I believe you have a personal "understanding" with God, he forgives you of ALL your sins, and when this happens you truly attempt to be what HE wants you to be (not what MAN wants you to be).

But I also ask him to forgive me and help me when I fail.

Do I have the proper "belief"? I don't try to force it on anyone else, because again, this is MY choice, and I'm just a man, not God.

HB

[Camaro]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
Heh, think you know all of do you? I am what is commonly referred to as born again. I was baptised 2 years ago in a very public gathering by the pacific in Corona Del Mar and proud of it. I am glad I found Jesus and He has made me a better person. I see His work every day in the healing He conferred upon my daughter.

Being saved however, in no way bestows upon me the ability to stand in judgement of others. If you claim the ability to do so, then you must in fact be without sin. I would think if that were actually the case, that the Revelation would then upon us.

I could be mistaken, but it did not seem to me that he was standing in judgement of anyone, at least by what he wrote. I think we have to distinguish here between judging an action and judging a person. For example, all of us would agree that murder of innocent people is wrong. However, as a Christian, one could not judge even someone such as Hitler, since no one knows for certain that he would not have been the very same, given the same biological makeup and background. So what I am saying is that it appeared to me that what he said echoed the old saying about reject the sin, but have compassion and love for the sinner. It seemed that all he advised Scott to do was to run the situation by his pastor, and also that group called Courage. How do you see him as making a personal judgement on an individual?

[Robert J. Yates]

Oh I don't know, this seems pretty judgemental to me given that nothing of this sort was contained or inferred in the original post.

What you find so objectionable in NAMBLA is the obvious next step, since what society condones now was not condoned by the consensus of those who lived in previous decades. Step by incremental step, society is being transformed right before your eyes. Consider television when it first emerged in the 50s, with innocent fare such as " The Lone Ranger," "I Love Lucy," etc. What do you think the reaction of the viewing public at that time would have been to the shows that appear on every channnel today? This did not occur overnight, but instead required a long period of desensitization. Same with this. NAMBLA is an integral part of the gay movement. And once the gay taboo is broken down, this will be next in line to mainstream. Of course, it is not this alone, but an overall revolution of societal norms which began in the 60s and has gained momentum ever since. My only point is that if one accepts the proposition that there are no moral absolutes, then the envelope will be pushed ever further to the left, such that those things which appear repugnant by even today's liberal standards, will not appear so bad to those in the future.

Automatically insinuating that Scotts friends' next move is NAMBLA and the like seems to me, to be the mind of someone who has already equated the friends sin as greater than his own.

[Camaro]

Originally posted by speaceman
Okay, I see where you are coming from now.

I have a couple of other questions then.

Is gambling a sin?
Is drinking a sin?
Is a woman wearing a skimpy bikini on the beach a sin?
Is me admiring the woman wearing the bikini a sin?
Is pornography a sin?

All of the above are legal, are they on your list of things to regulate or curtail altogether?

I guess my point is that I am wondering why it seems that homosexuality is the linch pin in the defense against your idea that society is degrading.

Doesn't it bother you at all that you are willing to give power to the government to regulate and invade the lives of one group of people who for all purposes are really only harming themselves (if you view what they are doing as a sin?

Just judging from what I have read on this thread so far, I doubt that his replies to your questions would be any different from Scott's answers.

[Camaro]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
Oh I don't know, this seems pretty judgemental to me given that nothing of this sort was contained or inferred in the original post.

What you find so objectionable in NAMBLA is the obvious next step, since what society condones now was not condoned by the consensus of those who lived in previous decades. Step by incremental step, society is being transformed right before your eyes. Consider television when it first emerged in the 50s, with innocent fare such as " The Lone Ranger," "I Love Lucy," etc. What do you think the reaction of the viewing public at that time would have been to the shows that appear on every channnel today? This did not occur overnight, but instead required a long period of desensitization. Same with this. NAMBLA is an integral part of the gay movement. And once the gay taboo is broken down, this will be next in line to mainstream. Of course, it is not this alone, but an overall revolution of societal norms which began in the 60s and has gained momentum ever since. My only point is that if one accepts the proposition that there are no moral absolutes, then the envelope will be pushed ever further to the left, such that those things which appear repugnant by even today's liberal standards, will not appear so bad to those in the future.

Automatically insinuating that Scotts friends' next move is NAMBLA and the like seems to me, to be the mind of someone who has already equated the friends sin as greater than his own.

But from what I can see, he did not give any advice to Scott to avoid his friend. And I do not recall that anyone in the gay alliance has ever condemned NAMBLA, although they may have. It just seems to me that no one asked him to clarify his statement, but instead everyone just jumped on top of him, and used some fairly violent language. As I said before, it looks to me from what he wrote that his position on moral issues is no different from that of Scott. I could be wrong, but unfortunately, no one gave him the opportunity to explain himself.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by Camaro
But from what I can see, he did not give any advice to Scott to avoid his friend. And I do not recall that anyone in the gay alliance has ever condemned NAMBLA, although they may have. It just seems to me that no one asked him to clarify his statement, but instead everyone just jumped on top of him, and used some fairly violent language. As I said before, it looks to me from what he wrote that his position on moral issues is no different from that of Scott. I could be wrong, but unfortunately, no one gave him the opportunity to explain himself.

What??? Can you read and comprehend the English language?

Several times the mystery caller instature insulted people on this board and blurted out names like "christaphobia" etc. The guy slammed every one who didn't think exactly as he/she did. He/she also chose NOT to debate or discuss anything in a mature manner.

I might also add that there is nothing preventing this guy from posting a reply on here. This is a fairly reserved board with a mostly mature audience - had he taken this discussion to POR or JU the response would have been quite different.

Additionally what is the "gay alliance"? Do you know them? Have you studied EVER homosexual statement and platform to know that your statement "And I do not recall that anyone in the gay alliance has ever condemned NAMBLA, although they may have" is true?

Do you know anyone who is homosexual? Why do you assume that a gay person would automatically choose to have sex with a child? Do you want to have sex with children as a "straight" person? I also don't get why "straight" men assume that anyone gay is "checking them out" and wants to have sex with them.

For the record, I am not a minister, not a homosexual, not a homophobe or a christaphobe, although I am afraid of heights.

Robert - thank you for your posts - while I struggle to rationalize religion/God I appreciate what you've posted - it really makes a person think about what "might" be missing without a relationship to God (any God by the way).

Jeff

[speaceman]

Originally posted by Camaro
As I said before, it looks to me from what he wrote that his position on moral issues is no different from that of Scott. I could be wrong, but unfortunately, no one gave him the opportunity to explain himself.

Serioulsy? You can say with a straight face that the jump from a discussion about someone's personal and moral issues with homosexuality to a discussion about insinuating that homosexuality is one step away from pedephelia is an on topic shift in the discourse?

I think he made pretty clear what his position on the moral issues was.

Let me just ask a question for arguments sake.

What if hypothetically, a member of this board posted a thread asking for advice about how to deal with the fact that his girlfriend was sexually assaulted. He wants to be supportive but he is having a really hard time with the idea of the act that took place. What should they do?

Lets say 2 or 3 pages of responses go by, with people offering their own personal feelings and opinions and advice on the matter.

Is it okay for me to then ask what she was wearing because she maybe "instigated" something?

Are you going to get behind that topic shift as well? Do you need a clarification of my opinion?

[mrblaine]

Camaro, I don't know you, but showing up and jumping into a debate such as this is highly suspicious. Either someone enlisted your aid, or you are a troll.

Either way, you are singlehandedly going to be responsible for a moratorium on posters engaging in serious discussions before they have at least a hundred posts.

How's that for some bigotry?

I prefer to get to know someone a bit and this ain't the way to do it in my opinion.

Want to start over with a visit to the introduction section?

[TObject]

As a straight man I would like to say something to Instaurare defense.

I am sure that every woman that sees me, checks me out, and wants to have sex with me. Also, when I was a child women wanted to have sex with me even more!

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by TObject
As a straight man I would like to say something to Instaurare defense.

I am sure that every woman that sees me, checks me out, and wants to have sex with me. Also, when I was a child women wanted to have sex with me even more!

How many gay men wanted to have sex with you?

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by TObject
As a straight man I would like to say something to Instaurare defense.

I am sure that every woman that sees me, checks me out, and wants to have sex with me. Also, when I was a child women wanted to have sex with me even more!

Settle down there my east block stud - she already sent you flowers.

Jeff

[TObject]

Originally posted by mrblaine
How many gay men wanted to have sex with you?

Good question.

[TObject]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
Settle down there my east block stud - she already sent you flowers.

Oh, I thought those were from you.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by TObject
Oh, I thought those were from you.

No - I sent you the McDonalds gift certificates for apple pies!

[TObject]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
No - I sent you the McDonalds gift certificates for apple pies!

Damn! I thought those were from her!

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by TObject
Damn! I thought those were from her!

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
Robert - thank you for your posts - while I struggle to rationalize religion/God I appreciate what you've posted - it really makes a person think about what "might" be missing without a relationship to God (any God by the way).

Jeff

You're welcome Jeff. Sometime if you want, ask me how I came about all of this. It involved a birth defect and an operation on my daughter. To say after that, that God is real, is quite easy for me now.

[Camaro]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
What??? Can you read and comprehend the English language?

Several times the mystery caller instature insulted people on this board and blurted out names like "christaphobia" etc. The guy slammed every one who didn't think exactly as he/she did. He/she also chose NOT to debate or discuss anything in a mature manner.

I might also add that there is nothing preventing this guy from posting a reply on here. This is a fairly reserved board with a mostly mature audience - had he taken this discussion to POR or JU the response would have been quite different.

Additionally what is the "gay alliance"? Do you know them? Have you studied EVER homosexual statement and platform to know that your statement "And I do not recall that anyone in the gay alliance has ever condemned NAMBLA, although they may have" is true?

Do you know anyone who is homosexual? Why do you assume that a gay person would automatically choose to have sex with a child? Do you want to have sex with children as a "straight" person? I also don't get why "straight" men assume that anyone gay is "checking them out" and wants to have sex with them.

For the record, I am not a minister, not a homosexual, not a homophobe or a christaphobe, although I am afraid of heights.

Robert - thank you for your posts - while I struggle to rationalize religion/God I appreciate what you've posted - it really makes a person think about what "might" be missing without a relationship to God (any God by the way).

Jeff

I guess what I find hard to understand is the lack of civility, and the extremely harsh language. Granted, the traditional brand of Christianity that he and Scott have expressed is not popular these days. But we have troops dying daily overseas just to preserve our way of life, with one of the most important areas being freedom of speech. Heck, this guy was treated worse that the greeting George Bush would get at the Berkeley campus. If a gay person had chimed in to express a statement supportive of the gay lifestyle, I don't think any of us would have attacked him personally or threatened him with violence. We may have disagreed, but we would have done so with personal courtesy and respect. But there seems to be nothing wrong with the most unfriendly response given to someone who appears to be an old style Christian.

Let's face it, up until the mid ninties, if someone even so much as let on that they were gay, they would probably have been given a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces. Now, things are more liberal, don't ask, don't tell. How do you expect someone who has been brought up all his life in a traditional view to change in such a short span of time, when even the government is still in transition, grappling with the issue? Frankly, perhaps he did not word his responses as well as he should have, but to desire to shout him down and deny him his freedom of speech strikes me as unamerican. And if this is the way we treat a traditional Christian, what kind of message are we sending to Scott? What difference is there between Scott's beliefs and the beliefs of this guy? All he did was advise Scott to consult his pastor, he never advised him to shun or avoid his gay friend.

I don't mean to provoke conflict over this, since there has already been enough of that, but I really value freedom of speech, and I would hate to see it absent from this forum. Even if we disagree strongly with another member, we can follow the example of members of Congress, who despite their vast differences, address each other with respect and courtesy. And they never attempt to shout each other down.

[TObject]

What?

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by Camaro
I guess what I find hard to understand is the lack of civility, and the extremely harsh language. Granted, the traditional brand of Christianity that he and Scott have expressed is not popular these days. But we have troops dying daily overseas just to preserve our way of life, with one of the most important areas being freedom of speech. Heck, this guy was treated worse that the greeting George Bush would get at the Berkeley campus. If a gay person had chimed in to express a statement supportive of the gay lifestyle, I don't think any of us would have attacked him personally or threatened him with violence. We may have disagreed, but we would have done so with personal courtesy and respect. But there seems to be nothing wrong with the most unfriendly response given to someone who appears to be an old style Christian.

You as well as your alter-ego Instanaure both, confuse what is often quite direct and typically very blunt conversation for a lack of civility when in fact, it is nothing of the sort. You need to realise, most of us know each other personally and not simply as a gathering of net personas. Quite a few of us actually wheel together and there is no need for any of us to mince words with each other or hide behind who we are in real life or what we think.

You need to get over yourself from being offended as the reason why you received the responses that you did had everything to do with your inferences and implications and nothing to do with your religion. Frankly, you are showing it again with your use of th term "old style christian" which quite frankly as a Christian, offends me as you appear to again, be judging yourself as better or more deserving of Christs salvation in some way as compared to others.

[speaceman]

Originally posted by Camaro
All he did was advise Scott to consult his pastor, he never advised him to shun or avoid his gay friend.

That would be true if you ignore all the other stuff he said. It's pretty easy to sound resonable when you are able to ignore the unreasonable.

I think that you wouldn't hear one peep out of anyone on this board if Instature had started his discussion with the advice to consult his pastor and the advice about the ex-gay christian support group.

Instead his discussion went something like this:
Wade into conversation by bringing up pedophilia, a touchy and charged issue for everyone.
Insinuate that all gay people are secretly card carrying members of NAMBLA
Argue that homosexuality and the legalization of it is single handedly unraveling the fabric of this countrry's society, which is certainly debatable.
Finish off with a resonable suggestion to talk to a pastor and seek info on the support group.

Yeah, all he did was ask scott to talk to his pastor.

I don't think anyone on this board is attacking Instature's beliefs or morals, in fact, we are a pretty live and let live group of people.

What most of us on this board were taking issue with were his motives. Double talk, innuendo, and slight of hand in discussions don't fly too well around here. Most of us around here have had enough life experience one way or another to know when people are shoveling it and we aren't afraid to say we aren't going to taking it.

I think if you re-read the stuff he posted that you are conveniently ignoring, you will plainly discover the motive and you will understand where most of us are coming from.

[Wind_Danzer]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
Settle down there my east block stud - she already sent you flowers.

Actually he thinks flowers are gay, just like some of my co-workers.

So he received something else.

Now, that said, can we kill this thread. I think Scott got everything out of it he needed now it's juts fodder for the mystery men and the people willign to knock them down every chance they get.