|
Debate rages on hot topics of the day
 After a general hiaitus in posting after the festive season, the Norwich bloggers got going again by mid January on a variety of grey area topics. One of those hotly debated was on gay adpotion reports Network Norwich blog-watcher Heather Cracknell.
The story of the Government not allowing Christian adoption agencies exemption from placing children with same sex couples has stimulated soul-searching and examination of the 'grey areas' contemporary Christians face daily in our secular society.
The usually (self-labelled) conservative Benvolio wonders whether its “more sympathetic to let a child have the genuine love and care of a same sex parentage than to leave its upbringing to a state children's home, or even the risk of them escaping to the streets”, and Monty agrees: “I would rather a child was handed over to a loving set of people that had nothing more in their intentions but to raise a child lovingly, caringly and thoughtfully than be handed over to a care home / foster homes or in fact, a series of them.”“
There seem to be two issues raised in this debate, the first being the Christian response to a secular society and the potential impact our statements and policy decisions have on the way God is viewed by the world. The second is the possible hypocrisy of differentiating between sins and elevating homosexuality above others in the sin 'rankings'.
On the first point Carlos states: “Here's the crux of the matter. If you're going to be a Christian (Catholic or otherwise) in today's UK society - where most people aren't Christians - then you're going to have to put up with the fact that most people's moral beliefs do not match your own. You don't have to like it - but, sometimes, you do have to hold your tongue... After all, if you're a Christian providing a public service, aren't you supposed to be expressing God's immense and unconditional love?”
However, he goes on to say that “Liberalists seem only to be interested in allowing religious freedom when it doesn't contradict the opinions of the masses, and I can't see a justification for this. In fact, I think it has a name: tyranny of the majority.” Joolian adds that “in many ways I want the church to stand up for itself while the world apparently run roughshod over it,” and Tarkmiddy feels that “there's a fine line between loving your neighbour and letting your faith and its views become compromised because of theirs.”
On the second point, Helsalata joins the debate in the comments section: “We live in a broken world. By saying that gay couples can't adopt because they live a sinful life, you are denying that heterosexual couples live a sinful life... Sin is sin in the eyes of God. Tax fraud, pilfering from work, bitchiness and sexual sin are all equal to God.” Carlos is equally critical: “I wonder if Catholic adoption agencies are prone to question couples about whether they lie, steal, have pre-marital sex or covet their neighbour's ass?”
You can join the debate at any of the blogs linked above, or why not comment on this article to discuss the issues raised here? All are welcome in the blogosphere!
 If you have a blog which you would like Heather to cover for the Network Norwich website or you see something which you think deserves wider attention, please e-mail details to Heather
Next time, Lent resources from the blogosphere.
|
|
| | Helsalata (Guest) | 16/02/2007, 07:57 | | Interesting debate so far. The assumption has cropped up that we are talking about perfect little babies that are up for adoption whereas the truth is more about chidren with varied, physical, mental and emotional needs. You would need brilliant skills and possibly the ability to devote all your time to a child with such complex needs. The truth is also that heterosexual couples don't necessarily want to take on those needs so while they wait for their perfect little baby, poor, damaged kids are sidelined. For these children, the luxury of the models of parenthood that you have been describing here are a distant dream. Some are so messed up that even if they are presented with this, they cannot make it work. By rejecting alternative models of family you are denying that child the opportunity to experience their lives with a stable and loving unit.
I'm interested to know if in the pursuit of a male and female couple willing to take on the responsibilities of care for an 8 year old boy with extreme behavioural difficulties, he goes into foster care and a variety of homes numerous times, how is that modelling a pattern of love and family that God intended?
Because of taking the high moral ground, that kid becomes more damaged.That to me is completely unacceptable.
| | | mike J (Guest) | 16/02/2007, 16:14 | | To carl:
Your last entry reads:
mj: "The phrase "homosexual family" would I think be an oxymoron and an impossibility."
C:It just seems to me that the empirical jury is out on this one, and the only justification it has is prejudice.
Empirical Jury? Is this a Scriptural or Biblical term?
What Justification do Christians have to do anything that they do not "see the father doing" ?
Did God create the family Male and Female with the evevitable resulting offspring from their love.Or did he try two people of the same sex discover it didnt work and change his mind, What games are we playing?
You used the word PREJUDICE Prejudice is an abused word I take it to mean unjustified fear of the unknown or unfamiliar, or a prejudgement of a circumstance or a person.
As to judgement on the matter of Homosexuality God has allready passed Judgement on Sin and sacrificed his son to repair the breach, If we seek to justify sin we keep the breach open because no one can repent of a thing they are considering as valid.
A Christian is MEANT TO BE PREJUDICED AGAINST SIN WE ARE REQUIRED TO HATE IT.
WE ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO LOVE SINNERS, PRAY FOR SINNERS OFFER THE MERCY OF CHRIST TO SINNERS AND A NEW LIFE THROUGH THE REDEEMING POWER OF CHRISTS DEATH.
WE ARE NOT TO ENCOURAGE SIN OR JUSTIFY SIN LEST THE SINS OF OTHERS ARE ADDED TO OUR OWN.
These are eternal issues the Catholic Church's sugestion that they would have to close their
operations with childrens homes is a sad but hourable thing as it does not compromise the faith which is their first priority.
The secular world is not ecpected to honour god in the way that THE CHURCH is and those who claim to be the church need to be certain of their actions.
I do not know if you love jesus or if your interest in this is intellectual but Christians should not ignore the requirement of Holiness of life.
I believe there is a Heaven and a Hell that the redeemed are destined for heaven and the unrepentant for sadly, for hell this is not my design but Gods.
This is why these issues are so important.
God bless
MJ
| | | Mike J (Guest) | 16/02/2007, 23:30 | | To Helsalata: I cannot repair the damage done to children by the world. I do not work for social services or have any influence over policy and practice in this area. I am however, a Christian and have been one for over twenty years.
I went to boarding school because I was very ill as a child and was missing a lot of my education.
The school was run by a Christian trust and made no secret of their beliefs and the principles upon which the school was run. We had evening meetings prior to bedtime that usually consisted of a story not necessarily from scripture, but maybe someone's life, and then prayer. We had assembly every morning including Saturday, which would have included some hymn singing.
The trust ran Children's homes also and received children from all over the country to both school and the homes. In the summer break the school was used to give holidays to children from inner city areas.
Now as a young lad I would have dispensed with the religious part of school life quite happily but, in retrospect I came to value the whole experience which generally was very good.
The school no longer operates as a boarding school I believe the facility is now a field studies come conference centre. I don't know if the Homes still operate.
Why am Saying all this I hear you ask?
Well, at some point around twenty-ish years ago the population of the school had dwindled to a handful and part of the reason was that some Social services departments in some areas had refrained from sending children into a organisation that was obviously Christian. I don't know what they were afraid of probably that they may end up believing.
Hundreds and hundreds of kids have been denied a really good environment because of the decision to implement this policy.
I became a Christian after years of rebellion, I did a lot of drugs lived for music drugs and alcohol dabbled in the occult and messed my head up with LSD before I felt the love of Christ call me to a new Life.
Social ills are almost always due to sin, we are riddled with it. The world will make its policy according to its wisdom the church must respond with God's.
William Booth walked the streets of the eat end and was reviled and bottled for preaching; on his arrival home he announced "I have found My Calling!" The difference today is that the equivalent of the Gin soaked east enders do not know they are sinners because over time the movers and shakers of society have removed censure for immorality and redefined what is acceptable ruled on what is relevant and the Christian Church has not lived or believed as it should, has not spoken out, has allowed the truth to be undefended and given away its glory. We have failed to be strong and merciful, we have been harsh instead of strong and weak and indulgent instead of merciful. The church has failed God and Man.
I believe that we live in a world that is fought over day and night It is probably no longer fashionable to believe that there is a devil and that he is our enemy but, as far as I know nothing has changed.
Messed up Children come from rich homes and poor ones. As a father I can only hope that my boys will grow up respecting themselves and others, valuing truth and honesty if they value truth their is a fair chance that they will be good people, their salvation is between them and Christ.
Christians must find the courage to believe God and live in his love and not by the expectations of the world.
God Bless
| | | Timothy V Reeves (Guest) | 20/02/2007, 21:46 | | Most Christains who have brought their minds to bear on the issue of homosexuality seem to understand the difference between sexual impulses and willingness to practice. This understanding is part of a more general cognizance that there is a distinction between motivations that are a source of temptation and the proper management of those motivations. However, let me be frank from outset and say that my own view is that homosexual impulses fall in the category of temptation, and any consequent willingness to practice homosexuality does not fit well with Biblical revelation, psychological, social, or biological realities.
There are, I know, many Christains of good conscience out there who would disagree with my position. Moreover, even if one takes my view of homosexuality as a first premise, such a premise does not immediately provide an off-the-peg answer to all the questions raised by parenting and practicing homosexuals. Helsalata faces us with a choice of having to place “damaged children” either in an institution or with a loving stable homosexual couple. Helsalata successfully presents someone like myself with a dilemma between what may be better for the child and yet at the same time wanting to avoid any appearance of condoning homosexual practice. Certainly, in attempting to answer a question like this the empirical evidence demanded by Carl is very pertinent. Even someone like Mike J admits that practicing homosexual parents may be able to successfully parent children. Mike suggests that Carl’s demand for empirical evidence isn’t Biblical but then in very next sentence contradicts himself by stressing the role of “SEEING what the father is doing”. In this he completely misses the obvious fact that the text of scripture is itself an empirical item in our world and its interpretation is bound up with the palpable world God has created.
Mike J reiterates the wrongness of homosexuality but does not bring to bear that well-known distinction between inclination and practice. Moreover, and even more seriously, he appears to be approaching the issue without acknowledging the Biblical difference between Sin and sins. The Bible makes a distinction between temptation and the “inner man” that has to cope with temptation. Biblical Sin is a state of BEING not a state of doing; our doings are the outcome of the “inner man” and that inner man is blighted by the disease of Sin, a disease that leads to a failure to correctly manage temptation. This failure is manifested with acts that are symptomatic of the disease and those acts are called “sins”, but they are not the Sin itself. I would not be able accept Mike’s statement that “certain behaviors are sin” without acknowledgement of the nuanced difference between Sin and sins
On the mount of temptation Jesus was tempted with the offer to rule the nations there and then. He no doubt experienced a desire to secure that power otherwise it would not have been a temptation. But where Jesus succeeded and where we so often fail is in his self-control, self-denial and ultimately self-sacrifice. He emerged immaculate because His love of higher realities and goals prevailed during the temptation. It is the conflicts inside us that is the big issue (James 4:1-3).
The fact that Sin is a state of personality and not a repertoire of actions presents the legislator with a knotty problem. The New Testament is clear that you can’t legislate Sin out of the social system (although you may be able to suppress it) – that’s what the book of Galatians tries to tell us. Moreover, when legislating, the legislator faces issues like Helsalata’s dilemma all the time; for example in the OT context should one legislate to limit the excesses of casual divorce knowing that the hardness of man’s heart will take that as a signal sanctioning divorce? (Mt 19:8, Mk 10:5) Does one legally attempt to limit vengeance by legalising ‘like-for-like’ punishments knowing that the corrupt heart of man will interpret that as a license for tit-for-tat? (Mt 5:38-39) Yes, the legislator, even though he may be the Divine legislator of Exodus, has his work cut out if he confines himself only to legal means of controlling Sin, which of course really only deals with symptoms rather than causes. Thus, given the difficulties that even the Divine legislator faces without recourse to radical heart conversion, I have to say that from a legislative angle I am unsure, at the moment, just how to answer Helsalata’s dilemma. As I don’t know her work situation I am not even sure I am qualified to answer that question. However, that doesn’t mean to say there is isn’t answer - we seek God’s grace on these issues.
In summary let me say that although I believe homosexual acts to contravene the standards of the Christian faith, I would very much want to distance myself from Mike’s articulations as they fail to do justice to the Biblical perspective and provides an insufficient scriptural basis to tackle Helsalata’s dilemma.
I do not know, Mike, if you fully comprehend the radical nature of the Gospel or if your interest here goes beyond using the Bible as a source book of religious clichés, but Christians should comprehend that the ascetic’s concept of an ostensible holiness is not a sufficient condition for salvation; salvation demands we go beyond symptoms. I have to say that a Jehovah’s witness (a group I studied for some years) would articulate a very similar concept of holiness to yourself. Moreover in the wake of what you say you have succeeded in prompting Gilda to identify approval of you views as evidence of an encounter with God. Unfortunately I don’t approve of your particular articulations of the faith, so according to Gilda that’s my faith written off! Am I really supposed to accept that an authentic encounter with “God the Father, Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit?” would be evidenced by an assent to your apparent conflation of Sins and sin?
A radical change of darkness into light when one is converted from a profligate life style provides no model for the grey areas of social reality - except perhaps when kingdom comes. So it comes as no surprise to me if you find yourself alienated from other Christains who do not share your black and white take on reality and who seem, to you, to be in state of compromise. If the church is forever rankling you perhaps an easier hypothesis from your point of view is that either God’s plan has failed or Christianity is false and our faith vain.
However, for myself I try to be generous and give people the benefit the doubt. In spite of your articulations of the faith, which could just as well be put together by a well versed Christian cult member, I know that you have experienced a radical transition from dark into light, and I am convinced that in your heart of hearts you really know what I am talking about. I am sure that the expression “New Life”, which your capitalize in your text, is your true experience and not quoted just because it’s an acceptable piece of religious cliché surfing.
| | | Mike J (Guest) | 21/02/2007, 13:29 | | To address matters arising from Tim Reeves comment:
SIN is the fallen state of man this is understood. Under the new covenant all sins are provided for by one sacrifice the blood of Christ.
However, we repent of sins one by one, we are forgiven when we believe in the sacrifice of Christ but we die daily moment by moment and keep a short account with God.
Under The old covenant Human Beings were the same as toady and there was an order to life and the relationship with The Father sin was something The Law made the Jews painfully aware of.
Whilst SIN is a state some sins attracted a higher penalty than others it appears they are the ones that rent and tore at the heart of Gods design rather than simply stained the heart of an individual not that did not grieve God and still does. The differentiation for the example set by "Gross sin" is because it could lead many astray if unpunished or undefined. Where "smaller" sins were common to all acknowledged by all through the law and not so powerful in their hold over and individual.
The issue is not could the scenario of an homosexual couple raising children be made to work it is simply that such a relationship has been judged by God to be wrong and unacceptable and therefore can not be condoned by Christians or legitimised by the raising of children.
We (Christians)should not be "tempted" to test this Empirically or in any other way.
The circumstance is not Biblical because it has no scriptural precedent so we cannot "see the Father doing it".
The subject at the heart of this has been an homosexual couple and the legitimacy of that premise, the distinction between Inclination and practice is I think pointless as if there were no practice presumably there would be no homosexual "Couple" practice is implied by the relationship and I do not believe anyone becomes a homosexual without practicing it. It is the practice that qualifies the term.
Adulterers are not called so because they were only tempted to be one but because they committed adultery.
But our view of Homosexuality has been rejigged by the revisionism of the lobby that says on the one hand it is a lifestyle choice and on the other that it is "normal" and as legitimate as other relationships.
Scripture only gives Marriage between a man and a woman as a context for sex and in this confine there is sexuality proper, outside of this context there is only lust and fornication and dare I say it?perversion, these things are sins offspring.
so there is no room for our modern darkened understanding that some people are Heterosexual and that the other relationship is as equally valid in the different inclination and practice.
The word Homophobic which is a very recent invention and used to cast shame on anyone taking a contrary or pro scriptural view shows the nature of the "politics" behind this whole subject goalposts are moved in society as society fails to object and then acquiesces to the change and no longer objects.
Thirty years ago the soft porn market was "topshelf only" now far more extreme items are found at children's eye level in any newsagents or supermarket why? because as a society we like it and we want it or at least we don't care enough to resist it.
If we are not Married we are expected not to give action to our sexual desires.
So strongly is this held by St Paul that he says to the effect "if you cant be honourable get married be satisfied but be holy. "It is better to marry than to BURN"
You say: "Am I really supposed to accept that an authentic encounter with “God the Father, Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit?” would be evidenced by an assent to your apparent conflation of Sins and sin?"
I hope that you can see the "conflation" that you refer to was indeed "apparent" and not actual.
We do not live under The LAW written on tablets but Grace and Forgiveness which follows repentance which is available through faith in Jesus as being who He says He is and because he is "we are more than conquerors" over what? OVER SIN all of it!! but if we are not then we must seek it and not assume a worldly life and that we are waiting for the Kingdom to arrive, Scripture says that "the Kingdom of God comes down out of heaven" It is received in the heart of man and we dwell in it by the spirit of Christ as we live under his Kingship".
I do find myself alienated from a Christianity that is not convinced that "the Kingdom of God IS within you" or "in your Midst" "In Him we live and breathe and have our being" We are to build the kingdom and live in the kingdom the question is, IS Christ our king? If he is then we are part of His Kingdom not the worldliness around us.
Peoples lives get changed, healed and repaired INSIDE the KINGDOM we are not charged with mending the world in the way this debate has suggested, we are to offer an alternative to the SIN and corruption of the present age.
I thank you for your generosity and that you are "convinced that I know what I am talking about" if this is the case however why did you take nine paragraphs to suggest that I might not?
However, (yes again) we are called to "peace as far as it depends on us" but also "to not let what you believe is good to be spoken of as evil"
I hope that debate like this will provoke a desire to find the voice of Christ and that the unity of the spirit will answer contentions in the intellect.
God bless
Mike J
| | | Timothy V Reeves (Guest) | 23/02/2007, 12:48 | | Thanks very much for the reply Mike! I think we can safely assume that we now have this little thread to ourselves because everyone has been yawned off! Suits me; the more server space, the better!
Glad to hear your confirmation of the Sin/sins distinction. My nine paragraphs were well worth the effort needed to establish this common ground. Let me return the compliment and have a look at your twenty-five-paragraph response and see if further advances can be made. (BTW: in your last paragraph I am not quite sure I can accept your spirit versus intellect paradigm – it sounds suspiciously dualist/gnostic/fideist, but that’s by the by, I’ll let it lie)
Like yourself I believe homosexuality is pathological on several counts; the current social attitude to pedophilia may have some parallels. Also, I wouldn’t disagree with your descriptions of the way changes have insidiously crept across society and bit by bit thresholds of acceptance have been eroded.
However in spite of this common ground, there still remains for me the force of Helsalata’s dilemma - presumably you don’t feel that force as you have completely ignored this dilemma in your last comment. So where is the departure point in our views? Here are some issues:
THE EMPIRICAL: Firstly we have a little problem over the empirical. For me, the empirical is an utterly (although IMPLICITLY) Biblical category. For a start, the Bible itself is clearly an empirical artifact that interacts with the senses and requires, like all perceptible evidence, searching, observing, and interpreting. Moreover, one’s interpretation of the Bible is resourced by a host of perceptible encounters with the palpable world, from experience of our physical setting to an intuitive grasp of the nature of personality. You just can’t factor out the empirical component in our encounter with God. One can even argue that sublime experiences (like say Paul’s 3rd heaven experience in 2 Cor 12:1-4) are also empirical in as much as they impinge upon the created stuff of our humanity. And of course I hardly need stress the observational component of miracles. The role of the Holy Spirit in all this is to choreograph these encounters and interpret their meaning to us. Where do you get the expression “What justification do Christians have to do anything that they do not see the Father doing”. It sounds as though it is based on a well-worn homiletic cliché that might grab the uncritical sermon junkie, but when examined closely is simply found not to be absolutely and universally applicable. It is little more than a rule of thumb – there are a host of valid things that I do as a finite sinful being that the Father does not do in anything other than a metaphorical way – like repent, learn, eat, breath, marry, copulate. And there is a host of things the Father does that I cannot or should never do in anything other than a token metaphorical sense – like creating and maintaining a cosmos, dying for sin, or forgiving sin, dealing out eternal punishment, accepting worship etc. Make my day, try and convince me that your encounter with the Divine is devoid of empirical experience, and I‘ll show you that you can’t escape what God has made you to be: unless of course you are going to try and disconnect from reality via Gnostic escapism.
| | | Timothy V Reeves (Guest) | 23/02/2007, 12:49 | | THE CHICKEN AND EGG QUESTION: Which comes first: inclinations or homosexual practice? Because your assertion of the irrelevance of the homosexual practice/inclination distinction depends on an answer to this question, (see your Paragraph 9) we have here a matter that is crying out that for that thoroughly Biblical activity of empirical investigation. I personally don’t know the answer to this one – at the moment. If you have any relevant Biblical OBSERVATIONS (I’ll repeat that: OBSERVATIONS), let me know. In this connection I once pointed out to a JW (and I have it writing), how Romans 1 does seem to describe some kind of vicious circle whereby practice inflames desire and desire in turn generates practice. However, the picture described in Romans 1 is too low resolution to provide information about specific cases. I have a sneaky suspicion that anecdotal evidence suggests that there are cases where homosexual inclinations get locked in at an early age. Moreover, whatever the cause, once the inclination has set in, what ever the history that lead up to that point, one is then faced with the inclination/practice distinction, and therefore the challenge of managing temptations. Have you ever had testimony from anyone of homosexual orientation or who has experienced such temptation? Have you ever had a friend with homosexual inclinations? Empirical testimony would certainly be very relevant here.
I am rather worried about the underlying rationale for the proposition that homosexual inclination cannot be separated from homosexual practice: If in error it is a view with the potential to justify some pretty heavy handed counseling should a person with homosexual inclinations seek help. All the more reason then why your position cries out for empirical investigation, both Biblical and otherwise.
THE LEGISLATIVE QUESTION: You seem to have by-passed this one completely. The OT is observable textual evidence of the failure of legislation to provide the ultimate fix to the problem of Sin. However, legalisation and its concomitant of enforcement are nevertheless required to expose Sin, control fallen human nature and protect humans from other humans. This much ought to be obvious from anyone who claims to study the Bible. In fact you describe something of the legal process of exposing and inhibiting the excesses of fallen humanity in your paragraphs 4 & 5. Of course, the New Church Kingdom should not itself depend on legal mechanisms, but New Life – I know you will agree (see your paragraph 21). However, in the wider world legal mechanisms are essential and Christians can serve well as agents of legislation such as politicians, sociologists, judges, policeman and soldiers - these are ways Christians can be salt in society. So, whilst it is true that Christains cannot be expected to mend the world (see your paragraph 22) they can legitimately be involved in the creation, maintenance and enforcement of legislation and even in war - as God Himself did in various OT histories. (Perhaps we have here an application of the “seeing what the Father is doing” rule of thumb!!!)
So given the foregoing background we have a question: What should we do about Helsalata’s dilemma? How should we legislate round it? The dilemma, as I expressed it, was “a dilemma between what may be better for the child and yet at the same time wanting to avoid any appearance of condoning homosexual practice.” Granted that legislation is not so much a tool of spiritual renewal but a tool of social enhancement and maintenance what is the right choice? Well, I know your answer to that question because you have already answered it: In your paragraph 6 you say “The issue is not could the scenario of an homosexual couple raising children be made to work it is simply that such a relationship has been judged by God to be wrong and unacceptable and therefore can not be condoned by Christians or legitimised by the raising of children.” Fair enough, that’s your feeling, and as a Christian you have a duty to do all you can to that end for your conscience’s sake. But please get your categories right – this is not an internal church issue about holiness but a societal issue tackled by socio-political means and those means can be used by Christains to run in parallel with their witness to the new life in the Gospel. Perhaps we have here another of Mike’s great apparent conflations – this time conflating church and society. It is naive to treat the society of the unconverted as if they were some kind of extended church. Although I largely agree with your paragraphs 20 & 21 they are out of order if they are being used to badger Christians who attempt to resolve social issues in a way different from our own, and I would resist any attempt to apply them to Christains simply because they may have a different view on how to resolve Helsalata’s dilemma. This dilemma plays off one requirement of holiness against another – quite a common occurrence in this perverse world. Given the perverse double binds thrown up by Sin, we see the Divine player engaged in a similar weigh up in the OT. (See paragraph 5 of my last post). Faced with this play off some Christains may feel that a child’s life is the better part of holiness, and above all has prior claim to the social protection of legislation, resulting in a different resolution to that favoured by yourself.
As far as I can tell, most of the contributors to this debate ALREADY have a desire to seek the voice of Christ, and it would be grossly unfair to suggest otherwise. As God inhabits the interstices of reality that voice may pop up just as well in debates artificially categorised as “intellectual” as anywhere else.
|  | Mike J (Guest) | 23/02/2007, 19:24 | | To Tim:
It appears that perhaps we start from a different premise.
We (Christians) can only live our lives as we relate
to god, We are (meant) to aprehend the leading of the spirit in our life and have the reference of scripture as a help for teaching and confirmation of our discernment.
If there is a substantial divergence one from the other, thatis to say; that the sense in the spirit is not immediatley acceptable to the individual it usually means that we need to work with god to a clear conviction or acceptance of the will of god.
We are charged with the need for holiness and neglect it where our preferences and social circumstance make us uncomfortable then we compromise what we knew in our hearts and eventually do the thing God was saying NO to. The more this happens the weaker our conscience becomes and it becomes harder to live according to the spirit because we have grieved him away.
Our senses and spiritual discernment are not always as developed as they should be and only prayer will chage that.
I cannot indulge comment in some areas of this discussion because it is hypothetical (to me) in essence and I do not have the reference for that.
In such situations we have to rely on what has been established by God in scripture and submit to God's will.
Post Modern thinking loves to adjust and take the kingship of Christ and subject it to its own desires I am saying this is unacceptable God Has ruled on Sin and Sins and Homosexuality. It is my place to agree with God and comply.
If I met a person who wanted help with any sin the only remedy is Christ; prayer and ministry to repentance if we keep sinning we are simply disbedient because there is a way in christ to overcome. We are free from sin because of Christ unless we choose not to be. It just costs us our will and our life.
Jesus said "What is it easier to say "Get up and walk" or "your sins are forgiven" to indicate that the healing was not the greater work but the remision of sin. This is so radical an event that our world is turned upside down and a relationship with God begun in the eternal life of Christ.
The Truth is we cannot change the world without the world being willing to change it if one particular sin has the upper hand in the life of an individual and it can be legitimised then Sin will be given more power and there will appear less reason or no reason to change or deny oneself.
Whatever we say about Homosexuality in inclination and how people become convinced to behave that way in their life it is not due further comment I belive that this Sin is subject to the sacrifice of Christ and that If an individual comes to love JESUS they will flee the immorality in their life whatever it is.
On evrything else God has legislated and He Speaks with ONE voice we hear it and agree with him or we reject it and grow worse than we allready are.
Helsalata's
Dilemma is the dilemma of all time: My mother was a medium I wanted tpo talk about the love of Christ and to offer prayer when she got cancer but she did not want HIM so could not recieve the the love.
I was unable to change it and she died it was tragic but tht is how it was PRAYER IS THE KEY to all the dilemmas.
We are not to know the knowledge of good and evil if you remember that is where the trouble started.
|  | Timothy V Reeves (Guest) | 24/02/2007, 23:27 | | You are a persistent chap Mike; an admirable quality though – one I try to cultivate. Thanks very much again for your reply.
I wouldn’t say I can find much to disagree with your last post, but it’s more counseling room stuff than the socio-politics of the fallen.
As you, like myself, are starting with the pearl of great price then we don’t have any mutual quarrel about fundamental premises – Trust me.
Sorry to hear about how things were left with you mother.
I think I’ve overstayed my welcome here. (Nothing to do with you I hasten to add - it’s all them others). Time to move on. Hope to meet you some day.
Your brother in Christ,
Tim
| | | Mike J (Guest) | 25/02/2007, 01:19 | | Try Norwich Vineyard Sunday mornings!!!
WWW.norwichvineyard.co.uk
Best regards
MJ
|
(page
1
2)
|
|
| |
