Grizzly

"..to stop heresies and wrong teachings..."

Who gets to decide what is heresy and wrong teaching? Some things many will agree on, but there is almost nothing all will agree on. If a Christian believes that drinking alcohol in moderation is not a sin, will they be branded a heretic? If a christian argues that it is always wrong to take another life and there is no such thing as a just war, are they shown the door? Once the board owner starts to decide what is heretical and wrong teachings, then it stops being a "Christians Only" section and starts being a "Believers in Erwinism" section. I'm glad I'm not a participant in that forum.

Stormy

Seebs: Do you really think the rule is targeted at liberal Christians?

Well, you may be right, but the booze-eye is the gay sin.

I do not take the Bible at all literally, and I am not afraid to admit that there are probably numerous human mistakes... as there are in any of the Holy books of man. But God is there within its words. He is speaking. I also believe that he speaks through other means, and to people of other religions. I believe that the sacrifice of his son was for all mankind. I highly doubt that the goal of Christ was to produce yet another religion, but instead to make it universally possible for mankind to come to God. He will judge your heart, not your theological knowledge or practices.

I do not think that Atheists are without morals, not do they lack ability to love. I think that much of the blame for their not seeing God can be laid on the smoke screen that man has produced through religion.

I think that a committed relationship is in fact a marriage. I doubt that God will find it sinful just because a paper of man is not involved... But neither do I believe that a divorce degree always dissolves a marriage.

I think that gays should be allowed to have legal marriages. I believe that gay Christians should be allowed, and even encouraged to worship.

But I stop short of saying that gay sex is not a sin.
I have not been convinced.

That is the line that both you and Annabel has step over.

IMHO That is what has put you outside of the circle.



(If you think this post was preaching, you can remove it. I was not trying to sway anyone, but rather just giving a rough idea of my liberal stance.)

livius drusus

Very nice edit, Stormy. Thank you. It wasn't quite preaching, but it was borderline and I appreciate you rephrasing.

So this rule 6 then, is it really all about whether you consider gay sex a sin?

Birdsmgp

... I usually have never made it an issue and care much about getting into the subject. I don't think Homosexuality is a sin. I think that it is a mutation in the biological and brain make up in a person. By this, I find that with Religion from the Past, goes to show how ignorant people are about our biological make up we are and what goes on to make us different. Assuming all the answers have come from these supernatual occurances like "Good" is of "Deity and God", and "Bad" comes from "Devils".

... I am Heterosexual. The only thing that bothers me about Homosexuality, is that it isn't helping me with my Heterosexual concerns, to be thinking about Homosexuality. I think and feel it is a matter for those that care about it. I have nothing against it. I just don't want any involvement with it. Only as much as I am attracted to the Opposite sex like women, do I find lesbians somewhat attractive also. I am single and my attraction to the opposite sex, almost seems like a barrier in that, that there in keeping those of the opposite sex in finding me, and me in finding them.

... I have found this neat smilie ... (With the way it seems to go... )

Lel

Thanks for the welcome, Annabel Lee!

I know fully well they would never come out and say it, but if the issue is in fact the sinfulness of gay sex, wouldn't it be more honest to come out and say it? I believe Biblical inerrancy is another huge debate in many Christian circles.

*flees back into hidey-hole*

faithful slave pedro

There are many gay sex threads on Christian Forums, and they are very popular among the Christians, who mostly claim to be revolted by the subject.

seebs

That was explicitly stated in one of the threads.

So? I haven't been convinced - I just haven't been convinced that it *is*.

The line Annabel stepped over is that, after Outspoken was allowed to slander her and attack her and lie about her for a year without getting a single warning, she sarcastically agreed with him, and some people didn't spot the sarcasm.

Anyway, once the circle is drawn, it'll just shrink with time.

seebs

No, it's also targetted at two people who have sex within committed relationships that are not currently "marriages".

The ignorance of historical Christian understanding of "marriage" is, frankly, shocking.

But mostly, it's targetted at making sure that, if you're a new Christian, you get the idea that it's all easy sailing with no controversy, so that, when you meet someone in the real world who disagrees, you have no idea what the scope of the debate is, and you've never seen any of the Scriptural arguments before, to make sure you're completely blindsided.

That, I suspect, is the plan of the entity who pushed most strongly for this rule, using fundamentalism and fear as wedges to make sure that the rule got accepted without due consideration of the dangers it poses.

(And please, mods, if we're crossing the line, move the thread out into an open forum; this thread was intentionally started in a forum where theists could say things that sounded preachy, because sometimes we do that when we're talking about our disputes.)

seebs

I think there's several reasons for this. One is that it's become a hot social issue in America. Another is that it's always best to talk the most about the sins you're not tempted by, to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. I mean, think how easy it is for me to talk about the "wrongness" of gay sex; I'm *not gay*. I doubt I ever will be. It is impossible for me to fully understand what it would be like to be attracted to men instead of women. So... it's EASY to condemn that.

Now, if we were to talk about, say, honesty... Oh, that could be a tough one. Because I *do* lie sometimes, and I beat myself up about it, but it's *hard* to come clean once you notice it, and sometimes, the lies just sort of happen before you even make a decision... That's a sin that it's very dangerous to preach about, because you might be condemning *yourself*.

It was precisely because of this that Paul asserted that, when we condemn others, we *are* guilty of their sins; to try to eliminate that perverse incentive to speak only of that we are ignorant of.

faithful slave pedro

Eminently sensible words, as usual, seebs. I am utterly baffled that a handful of what I consider very thoughtful, friendly, and respectful Christians, who for one reason or another have caught this "liberal" tag, are being picked on by the administrators at that board.

Just yesterday someone started a thread about whether or not non-Christians were capable of "understanding" the Bible on the same level as Christians. He specifically requested it not turn into a flame war, and even made a good natured remark about whether or not Jesus was "delivering a pizza" in Revelation 3:20.

It went swimmingly for a short while and then a "Christian" posts some crap about non-Christians being dumb, clueless, and preferring to remain in sin. I highly doubt that this individual received any admonition from the moderators. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was privately congratulated.

My opinion is that this "liberal Christian" deal is inextricably tied up with the overtly partisan stance of many of the moderators. For example, "Christians" (including moderators) can freely and without any references to back it up refer to Bill Clinton as rotten to the core, a thief, and a murderer, yet one is not allowed to call George Bush "Dubya."

I think that is very telling about the mentality of the people that run that board. And I also think that those sorts of moderation policies are at least a constructive violation of their 501(c)(3) tax status.