Arkansas Church Kicks Out Young Gay Man For ‘Choosing A Sinful Lifestyle’

[Angel4Truth]

Nor does forgiveness = condemnation and punishment for sin choices. Especially, not those.

Then you believe paul is wrong. Show me biblically how he is wrong. Your feelings do not = scriptural authority. Show also where it says he cannot attend church (in fact they invited him to come in the letter) just because his membership was removed?

(membership - ability to act within the church on church matters, examples: voting on funds, leadership, sunday school, heading events, etc...)

membership and attendance ability are not the same thing.

 

[PureX]

The way I see it is if I join a chess club, the rules state that I shall act in such a way that maintains the good name of the club. People who go around rubbishing other club members or deliberately throwing games to make the team lose in matches or who persistently arrive drunk to a match against another club - that sort of thing - will be thrown out of the club.
This is only normal. This is only what you would expect in any club. In a paid employment, the rules of conduct are even much stricter than in clubs.
So what did this guy expect? Every association has this rule, whether explicit or implicit, that you maintain the good name of the organisation. The church is no exception. If he had a problem with the rules he should not have joined. Instead he now goes around expecting that he is supposed to be the exception to these rules. That the rules don't apply to him.
I will tell you who the rules don't apply to. The rules don't apply to animals. They don't apply to young children. They don't apply to unicorns. They don't apply to idiots. Society would not function if it were not for these basic rules. He is arrogant enough to think he is the exception.

I agree that this is all about group dynamics, and is not especially about representing Christ. And I also agree that if someone wants to join a group they ought to understand that they will be expected to respect the groups ethical and moral imperatives, whatever they are. And I also suspect that someone who wants to remain a part of a group that does not want him to be a part of, is deliberately trying to be an irritant.

But that's not always wrong, or a bad thing.

It's not something I would choose to do, except in perhaps some very rare circumstance, but there are people who are more inclined that way. They like being the social irritant. And they are 'God's children', too. In fact, they may even be God's lesson for the rest of us. Who knows?

My only real objection to any of this would be that too many "Christians" are trying to use Christ to justify their own false sense of self-righteousness. And they are giving Jesus a bad name.

 

[PureX]

Then you believe paul is wrong.

I don't believe Paul is wrong in this specific quote, but I think you are wrong in the way you're interpreting it. I also believe Paul is capable of being wrong about any number of things, just as you or I are.

In the quote, you are assuming that "sexual immorality" refers to homosexuality. I believe this is false. I believe Paul is referring to immorality that is being expressed sexually, toward others. Like lying to, cheating on, and using people for the purpose of one's own sexual gratification. I don't believe Paul was specifically referring to homosexuality, here, and if he was, then I believe he is wrong to assume that homosexuality is by itself, a sin.

I'm not going to argue with you about "scriptural authority" because the scripture has no more "authority" than you, or I, or anyone else chooses to ascribe to it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I don't believe Paul is wrong in this specific quote, but I think you are wrong in the way you're interpreting it. I also believe Paul is capable of being wrong about any number of things, just as you or I are.

In the quote, you are assuming that "sexual immorality" refers to homosexuality. I believe this is false. I believe Paul is referring to immorality that is being expressed sexually, toward others. Like lying to, cheating on, and using people for the purpose of one's own sexual gratification. I don't believe Paul was specifically referring to homosexuality, here, and if he was, then I believe he is wrong to assume that homosexuality is by itself, a sin.

I'm not going to argue with you about "scriptural authority" because the scripture has no more "authority" than you, or I, or anyone else chooses to ascribe to it.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

yes, he was including homosexuals in the "sexually immoral" but thanks for sharing that you believe scripture has no authority.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Anyone who claims christianity and receives that scripture is authoritative -willing to show biblically how paul is wrong here (that object to this young man being disfellowshipped)?

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

 

[Desert Reign]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here Purex. I will analyse your response in detail below. However, perhaps I am over egging it.

I agree that this is all about group dynamics,

I would not say this. I would say it was about the freedom of association. Clearly, as had been already made clear, one of the aims of this particular church involved treating homosexual relations as sin. No one was unaware of this fact. It was not hidden. It was perfectly in the open.

and is not especially about representing Christ.

Well of course we, the Christians I mean, would say that. But there is no need here to get into what the Bible teaches. Clearly the church taught it and that is the end of the matter.

And I also agree that if someone wants to join a group they ought to understand that they will be expected to respect the groups ethical and moral imperatives, whatever they are. And I also suspect that someone who wants to remain a part of a group that does not want him to be a part of, is deliberately trying to be an irritant.

Sure. This is what a free society means. If people want to gather to worship Satan, then that is their prerogative. So long as what they do is lawful of course. If I joined in order to subvert the group then I would expect at least eviction if I was found out.

But that's not always wrong, or a bad thing.

But now you are backtracking! The freedom of association is enshrined either explicitly or implicitly in every free society. It is central to the notion of freedom. How can you now say that activity which opposes this freedom it is not always wrong?

It's not something I would choose to do, except in perhaps some very rare circumstance, but there are people who are more inclined that way. They like being the social irritant. And they are 'God's children', too. In fact, they may even be God's lesson for the rest of us. Who knows?

Sorry, but as I said, God's children doesn't come into it. The guy knew the rules.

My only real objection to any of this would be that too many "Christians" are trying to use Christ to justify their own false sense of self-righteousness. And they are giving Jesus a bad name.

So are you now saying that the church is to blame instead of the homosexual? If you have a problem about the hypocrisy of church members, should you start a separate thread about that? But none of that takes away from the fact that the church was totally justified in what they did. On the contrary, this church were not being hypocritical at all. They were being straight down the line. WYSIWYG I believe is the term.

 

[Idolater]

And this is just the secular view, which vindicates the church's decision all on its own.

As an Idolater of Christ, I try to pattern my life on what Christ said: forgive.

To sin, to embrace the sin, and then to condemn those who expel you from their church (rather than forgive them), where they worship Christ, drink his blood and eat his body, looks too much somebody who doesn't actually believe in Christ. It looks more like somebody who doesn't.

The way I see it is if I join a chess club, the rules state that I shall act in such a way that maintains the good name of the club. People who go around rubbishing other club members or deliberately throwing games to make the team lose in matches or who persistently arrive drunk to a match against another club - that sort of thing - will be thrown out of the club.
This is only normal. This is only what you would expect in any club. In a paid employment, the rules of conduct are even much stricter than in clubs.
So what did this guy expect? Every association has this rule, whether explicit or implicit, that you maintain the good name of the organisation. The church is no exception. If he had a problem with the rules he should not have joined. Instead he now goes around expecting that he is supposed to be the exception to these rules. That the rules don't apply to him.
I will tell you who the rules don't apply to. The rules don't apply to animals. They don't apply to young children. They don't apply to unicorns. They don't apply to idiots. Society would not function if it were not for these basic rules. He is arrogant enough to think he is the exception.

 

[Idolater]

Should somebody who doesn't even believe in Christ be allowed to worship in church's who do? Don't the churches have the right to expel an unbeliever/non-seeker from their midst?

Nor does forgiveness = condemnation and punishment for sin choices. Especially, not those.

 

[Cruciform]

We send them to your church.

No need, since they're already present in your preferred recently-invented, man-made sect---and, very possibly, in you as well.

 

[genuineoriginal]

your statement is not congruent with scripture. Repentance is not needed for forgiveness.

Of course repentance is needed for forgiveness.
Whoever taught you differently was either mistaken or deliberately trying to sabotage your salvation.

Well how many times have you had sinful desires?

You like to move the goalposts?
The man in the OP left God to embrace a sinful lifestyle.

by your logic of only gaining anything from the church or God till you turn away from sin you can't get anything till your perfect.

No, you have accepted the doctrine of the Pharisee as your own doctrine, and just like the Pharisee you apply it to everyone except yourself.

If you actually read and understand the Bible, you would find out that you can't get anything until you humble yourself and beg for forgiveness.

The beauty of Christianity is that God will accept anyone despite their sin because he already paid for it on the cross and that he will work his will and change them in his time

Find out what the Bible actually states about when God will accept someone.

Acts 10:35 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

How about those who are saved, the Lord is using them, but for the life of them, they are struggling with smoking?

How about those who are saved, the Lord is using them, however, they are struggling with drinking?

Some people like to invent sins that are not in the Bible, like smoking, drinking, and dancing.

But, they can't come up with a single verse that shows that any of them are worthy of the death penalty.

Here is what the Bible says about the choice of the man in the OP:

Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

When people live 'in Christ', they have no need to judge and condemn others.

The verse says

Romans 8:1 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

However, the man in the OP was not walking after the Spirit, but chose to walk after the flesh.

 

[genuineoriginal]

My only real objection to any of this would be that too many "Christians" are trying to use Christ to justify their own false sense of self-righteousness. And they are giving Jesus a bad name.

The man in the OP seems to believe he is righteous while embracing a homosexual lifestyle.

People like him are giving Jesus a bad name.

The church in the OP is stating that the members of the church must maintain a standard of righteousness that excludes actively embracing a sinful lifestyle.

They are not being self-righteous by applying God's standards of righteousness and they are not giving Jesus a bad name.

You seem to think that the people in the church should hate the man in the OP by allowing him to remain in his sin.

Leviticus 19:17-18 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.​

 

[serpentdove]

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

God's way is best (Mt 18). :thumb:

 

[TracerBullet]

awww, poor poor traci

another fail

care to try again?



what were His last three words to her?

Considering that the story was added to the bible in the 3rd century it seems likely that nothing was said.

 

[TracerBullet]

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

yes, he was including homosexuals in the "sexually immoral" but thanks for sharing that you believe scripture has no authority.

the inclusion of homosexuality in that passage is entirely dependent on the translation of the ancient Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. Unfortunately there isn't any evidence to back up this translation. Over the centuries the word has been translated as masturbation, kidnapping, employing a prostitute and a dozen other things

 

[PureX]

I would say it was about the freedom of association. Clearly, as had been already made clear, one of the aims of this particular church involved treating homosexual relations as sin. No one was unaware of this fact. It was not hidden. It was perfectly in the open.

But this aim has nothing in particular to do with "freedom of association". It just happened to be an aim of this particular group. Freedom of association means these people are free to associate with each other based in part on their similar aims. But that same freedom also means that they are free to associate with people who have different aims, if they so choose. So the aims and the freedom to associate are not particularly or directly contingent.

If I joined in order to subvert the group then I would expect at least eviction if I was found out.

Not necessarily. If you joined to "subvert" the group's anti-homosexual aim, and you did so successfully, then you would not expect to be evicted if you were then 'found out'. My point is that the person that's intent on such subversion would likely be hoping to be successful at changing the group's minds, and intentions.

But now you are backtracking! The freedom of association is enshrined either explicitly or implicitly in every free society. It is central to the notion of freedom. How can you now say that activity which opposes this freedom it is not always wrong?

Not all groups seek or require such uniformity of belief. And not all those that do, are considered appropriate. And that freedom of association also allows us to associate with them when we don't agree, if we so choose. And it even us to subvert their 'inappropriate' intentions if we are able.

Freedom allows for both courses of associative behavior.

Sorry, but as I said, God's children doesn't come into it. The guy knew the rules.

Which may well have been WHY he was there. And WHY he wanted to associate with that group. Which is exactly why everyone else was there, and why they wanted to associate with that group, too (minus the intent to subvert). The only difference was that most of them wanted to follow their anti-homosexual agenda, while this guy wanted to subvert/change their anti-homosexual agenda. That didn't mean he didn't care about the group any less, or respect ten any less. It only meant he didn't agree with their agenda.

So are you now saying that the church is to blame instead of the homosexual? If you have a problem about the hypocrisy of church members, should you start a separate thread about that? But none of that takes away from the fact that the church was totally justified in what they did. On the contrary, this church were not being hypocritical at all. They were being straight down the line. WYSIWYG I believe is the term.

Well, they certainly "justified" themselves. But then everyone does that. Including, I'm sure, the homosexual fellow that they ostracized. So this isn't really about justification. Justification is cheap and easy to obtain. All it takes is a little sophistry, and there it is.

But I don't think judging and condemning and ostracizing one kind of sinner while BEING ANOTHER kind of sinner, exemplifies Christ. In fact, I'd say it does just the opposite when such hypocrisy is practiced in the name of Christ, as these "Christians" and many others are doing.

 

[Desert Reign]

I don't think you understand what freedom of association is. It's a legal term. It means that people of like mind have a right to associate with each other to pursue their common aims. If someone came with a different aim then he is infringing on their right to associate.

 

[jzeidler]

and Judas informed Christ of his intention to do this and Christ still accepted him as an apostle?

Christ knew without Judas informing him.

 

[PureX]

I don't think you understand what freedom of association is. It's a legal term. It means that people of like mind have a right to associate with each other to pursue their common aims. If someone came with a different aim then he is infringing on their right to associate.

No, he's not. To infringe someone's right to associate one would have to impede their ability to do so. Disagreement, even with an intent to impede their common aim, does not impede their ability to associate.

You're still inextricably conflating common intent with the ability to associate freely. And there is no logical reason to do so.