People who can actually identify sin.....

[Tarheel Baptist]

Just get on my nerves....legalists all!
The only sin is to actually name a sin!

I once said that tounge in cheek, but I actually believe that's what some believe...I know that's what they practice!  :-\

 

[Castor Muscular]

Which did Jesus spend more time doing?  Identifying and judging the sins of people, or condemning people who used the scriptures to dictate their own interpretation of rules and regulations that believed everyone should follow? 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Which did Jesus spend more time doing?  Identifying and judging the sins of people, or condemning people who used the scriptures to dictate their own interpretation of rules and regulations that believed everyone should follow?

Not tryin' to tweak ya bro, but the rationale employed in the above statement is similar to the gay-friendly crowd that say "Jesus never said anything in all his time on earth about homosexuality being sinful".  Trying to set the Red Letter words against Paul's (and the rest of Scripture), or ignoring epistles/teaching of Scriptures before and after Jesus' earthly ministry in the gospels is an unhealthy hermeneutic.  Being salt and light in a dark world means we need to be clear about naming sin as sin, and that is for their sake, so that they might become aware that they have the wrath and judgment of God abiding on them.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Not tryin' to tweak ya bro, but the rationale employed in the above statement is similar to the gay-friendly crowd that say "Jesus never said anything in all his time on earth about homosexuality being sinful". 

All that is, is tweaking.  That is arguing from silence.  I was not arguing from silence.  Jesus identified sin, but He did it with mercy, i.e., the adulterous woman to be stoned.  And the whole episode was focused more on the hypocrisy of her accusers than her sin, which only illustrates my point. 

 

[Aviator]

Not tryin' to tweak ya bro, but the rationale employed in the above statement is similar to the gay-friendly crowd that say "Jesus never said anything in all his time on earth about homosexuality being sinful".  Trying to set the Red Letter words against Paul's (and the rest of Scripture), or ignoring epistles/teaching of Scriptures before and after Jesus' earthly ministry in the gospels is an unhealthy hermeneutic.  Being salt and light in a dark world means we need to be clear about naming sin as sin, and that is for their sake, so that they might become aware that they have the wrath and judgment of God abiding on them.

But he made a good point; Jesus focused much less frequently on specific sins than pharisees do.  Whether the "gay-friendly" crowd uses the same rationale or not is irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Which did Jesus spend more time doing?  Identifying and judging the sins of people, or condemning people who used the scriptures to dictate their own interpretation of rules and regulations that believed everyone should follow?

You mistake sin for preferences.....homosexuality is a sin.....not a legalist's preference.
It seems to me that we are loathe to stand today and call a sin a sin....

Except for calling those who stand against sin intolerant sinners!

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]All that is, is tweaking.  That is arguing from silence.  I was not arguing from silence.  Jesus identified sin, but He did it with mercy, i.e., the adulterous woman to be stoned.  And the whole episode was focused more on the hypocrisy of her accusers than her sin, which only illustrates my point.
[/quote]

There's nothing more merciful than telling a lost sinner of their impending judgment due to real sin and offense against a Holy God, especially when you give them the remedy/gospel for their sin/judgment.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Aviator]

But he made a good point; Jesus focused much less frequently on specific sins than pharisees do.  Whether the "gay-friendly" crowd uses the same rationale or not is irrelevant to the point being made.
[/quote]

Pharisees mischaracterize sin, and live hypocritical lives.  Neither of those things are what Tarheel is advocating in the OP.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Not tryin' to tweak ya bro, but the rationale employed in the above statement is similar to the gay-friendly crowd that say "Jesus never said anything in all his time on earth about homosexuality being sinful". 

All that is, is tweaking.  That is arguing from silence.  I was not arguing from silence.  Jesus identified sin, but He did it with mercy, i.e., the adulterous woman to be stoned.  And the whole episode was focused more on the hypocrisy of her accusers than her sin, which only illustrates my point.

Your argument is from straw......with deference....im merely pointing out the way some in today's church use 'grace' as an excuse for sin or sinful behavior. Again, if you want to argue legalism, start another thread. You can rebuke sin and love the sinner....if fact if you don't rebuke sin, you're merely doing social work!

 

[Aviator]

There's nothing more merciful than telling a lost sinner of their impending judgment due to real sin and offense against a Holy God, especially when you give them the remedy/gospel for their sin/judgment.

That would depend on the manner in which it is told. 

Sin has, for the most part, tragic and long-lasting consequences.  I don't understand the enthusiastic way some pastors approach sin in general in their preaching.  They often seem eager to cast a spotlight on sin, not to help but to expose and condemn.  Little, if any, compassion and mercy is present.  It doesn't remind me of how Jesus tended to deal with sinners (except the Pharisees, of course).

 

[FSSL]

I will name a sin... let's see how this one flies

It is a sin to waste time discussing issues on a forum, with people you do not know, when you are to be preparing for a sermon that same day.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I will name a sin... let's see how this one flies

It is a sin to waste time discussing issues on a forum, with people you do not know, when you are to be preparing for a sermon that same day.

Sermon preparation?
Perhaps you should expound on that sin.....but I'll admit, it's a start....for you! 

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Aviator]That would depend on the manner in which it is told.  [/quote]

Agreed.  I've heard Tarheel's sermons, and neither he nor I are advocating a Fred Phelps styly of spit and slobber preachin' about sin. 

Sin has, for the most part, tragic and long-lasting consequences.  I don't understand the enthusiastic way some pastors approach sin in general in their preaching.  They often seem eager to cast a spotlight on sin, not to help but to expose and condemn.  Little, if any, compassion and mercy is present.  It doesn't remind me of how Jesus tended to deal with sinners (except the Pharisees, of course).

Yes, compassion ought to accompany the gospel for sure.  No disagreement there at all.  I have a feeling that Tarheel is talkin' bout those who would be a bit more Osteen-ish, or Robert Shuller-ish in their approach to the subject, with their power of positive thinking tripe.

 

[samspade]

people who can actually identify sin


whatsoever is not of faith    is sin

Thus the dilemma. If a preacher focuses on specific sins instead of the heart attitude behind all sin, then people can adopt the attitude that "as long as I'm not doing ___________, I'm righteous."  That is the path to phariseeism.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=samspade]Thus the dilemma. If a preacher focuses on specific sins instead of the heart attitude behind all sin, then people can adopt the attitude that "as long as I'm not doing ___________, I'm righteous."  That is the path to phariseeism Hell.[/quote]

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If there is no certified sin, then man isn't so bad...and doesn't need a savior...and we don't need all of this religion nonsense......

The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.....gay marriage is a civil right.
Abortion is a choice.....women are being deprived of their rights.

Sin is black, hell is hot, heaven is sweet and Jesus saves!
I'm just old fashioned, I guess!

 

[Izdaari]

If there is no certified sin, then man isn't so bad...and doesn't need a savior...and we don't need all of this religion nonsense......

The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.....gay marriage is a civil right.
Abortion is a choice.....women are being deprived of their rights.

Sin is black, hell is hot, heaven is sweet and Jesus saves!
I'm just old fashioned, I guess!

Humans are way messed up, and we do need a savior. Eternity with God calls for us to be the kind of people who are worthy of it, which we will never be on our own. It's an impossible standard... without divine help.

According to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Sodom was guilty of lack of hospitality, cruelty, injustice, and failure to care for the poor. And probably they were perverts of various kinds too, because they were just all around bad people, wicked in every way. But sexual sin of any kind wasn't why they were destroyed, except perhaps as "the last straw".

I do think gay marriage is a civil right, a matter of equal protection under the law. I don't expect conservative churches to perform or recognize them.

Abortion is something I listen to both sides and say, you're right... but OTOH, you're right too. I'm like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. I've got to go with the "safe, legal and rare" group. I would favor limiting it to the first trimester if the Supremes would allow that, but I don't think we'll ever get a consensus to outlaw it again.

 

[samspade]

If there is no certified sin, then man isn't so bad...and doesn't need a savior...and we don't need all of this religion nonsense......

The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.....gay marriage is a civil right.
Abortion is a choice.....women are being deprived of their rights.

Sin is black, hell is hot, heaven is sweet and Jesus saves!
I'm just old fashioned, I guess!

I would agree. My point is that when/if preaching stops there it leaves people with a behavior checklist mentality. We need to go much deeper than behavior (something I believe we agree on).

 

[Biker]

Humans are way messed up, and we do need a savior.

What happened that caused us to need a Savior? Saved from what?

I do think gay marriage is a civil right, a matter of equal protection under the law.

Gay marriage is illegal in California so it is not a civil right here.

Most importantly, 
Who invented/authored marriage?
What is the definition of marriage?

 

[Castor Muscular]

I do think gay marriage is a civil right, a matter of equal protection under the law. I don't expect conservative churches to perform or recognize them.

Abortion is something I listen to both sides and say, you're right... but OTOH, you're right too. I'm like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. I've got to go with the "safe, legal and rare" group. I would favor limiting it to the first trimester if the Supremes would allow that, but I don't think we'll ever get a consensus to outlaw it again.

Gay people have the right to get married anytime they want.  A gay man can marry a woman of any sexual orientation, and a lesbian woman can marry a man of any sexual orientation.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  You can redefine it to include men plus men and women plus women, but that's not a civil rights issue, it's a definition issue.  If government decides to redefine marriage to include men plus men, etc., then all I ask is that they also redefine lesbian to include heterosexual men.  If redefining marriage corrects a violation of civil rights, then redefining lesbian also corrects a violation of civil rights.  If it is the right of every man to marry a man if they want to, then it is my civil right to be a lesbian if I want to.  If that doesn't make sense, then it's because people are confusing definitions with rights. 

Abortion is (constitutionally) illegal -- unconstitutional at any point.  We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among those is the right to life.  Capital punishment kills the guilty, not the innocent, and a newly conceived child is innocent by law.  If you kill an innocent life, then you have violated that person's right to life.  And there is no question that life begins at conception.  Any honest scientist can tell you that.  These are the same scientist who, if they found the most primitive cell on Mars, would call it life. 

I can see law enforcement liberally granting mercy to women who have abortions.  But I do not see how anyone can say it is lawful at any stage of a pregnancy.