The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

JustHalf wrote:

Nah, it's basic biology. I mean, if you are instructed in abstinence-only sex education, and you end up having sex without a condom due to your shallow knowledge of such matters... well, eventually the evidence will be startling.

That kinda logic is why everyone in modern Ireland from a certain generation seems to think that the single mother birth rate is climbing in modern years compared to the 60,70 and 80 when in fact it isn't. Its just that we notice it more because it has become less social stigma attached to it and it is not being hidden.

I would imagine that in deeply religious communities the social stigma a illigitamate children is still quite strong, and as such it is still hidden. Mary isn't really visiting her aunt in England for 3 months to help on the farm ....

Son Goku

Aside from JC do any creationists reject the Big Bang on genuinely evidentially based grounds?

Scofflaw

The Lancet has published a series of papers on sexual and reproductive health (very large statistical survey is included, covering 1 million men and women from 59 countries). You can find them here.

Articles require registration, but it is free.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JustHalf

I think from now on I shall have to label all of my jokes with more than one smiley, and follow it with the words "PS: This is a joke!". I shall also be more specific in my jokes; in this case, this would involve mentioning all possible forms of contraception.

I know the humour would be completely destroyed, but that seems to have been lost anyway.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I find that very hard to believe considering the standard of sex education in most western countries, including Ireland. I'm not quite sure how you would know either way?

Asking is the best way. Finding out what the Church Youth Leaders teach/establish their young folk know. Finding out what their schools teach. Even from my own experience as a non-Christian adolescent, I knew enough to be responsible for both pregnacy and STDs if they occurred. And I was just a working Class boy going to Secondary School.

Naivety, thy name is the Christian church ...

Not really. The youth grapevine is very proficient.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

It's certainly true that with the right definition of "religious" you can prove almost anything.

For example, if we take as Christian only those who never have sex outside marriage, then Christians, by definition, never have sex outside marriage. We could therefore argue that Christians will benefit from lower STD transmission rates, and we will almost certainly be right - but this is simply a characteristic of the way we have chosen to define Christians.

That is not my definition of a Christian, however. Christians may fall into a sin, but they will not be characterised by a life of this sin. Sin will be the exception.

I think that is a fair definition, as well as being a true one. Just like saying an atheist may fall into prayer (in a fox-hole, for example ) but will not be characterised by a life of prayer.

Here's the article.

To quote one of the relevant bits - "...plots include Bible literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as absolute belief in a creator, in order to examine religiosity in terms of ardency, conservatism, and activities. Self-reported rates of religious attendance and practice may be significantly higher than actual rates (Marler and Hadaway), but the data is useful for relative comparisons, especially when it parallels results on religious belief."

In essence, then, the stats show self-reported believers. I accept that many of those who would consider themselves Christian would not meet your standards, but then we are dealing in any case with relative levels, not absolute - so you would need to show that the proportion of outward believers who meet your criteria differ significantly from country to country.

I sympathise with the researchers' problem. Especially in the USA there is a social advantage/acceptance of religiousity, and this makes for many self-reporters of Christian faith who do not live by basic Christian standards. A clue to this can be seen there and in the UK by the widespread acceptance of homosexuality as Christian. It certainity is a new definition of Christianity, utterly opposed to the Biblical one.

So I'm sure it is possible for many young 'Christians' to be sleeping around. Just that they are not Christian in any authentic way.

Indeed not, because they will have been excommunicated from it. Unfortunately, this is not helpful - it is is simply the execution of the discussion of definition above.

No, that would be the case if such excommunications were common, but they are very exceptional.

That would seem to be an exceptional result. Perhaps your local church is at the high end of the scale - but then, statistically, someone has to be. Also, how does it fare over the longer term? What if, in 15 years, your local church has become a black spot?

My local church has been in existence for over a century, and the moral condition has little varied. The exceptional case has been deal with, sometimes with debate over the extent of the guilt. If we came to the place where sexual immorality became a significant problem, we would just have to deal with it in the same manner - expelling the immoral brother. In doing so, the church would retain its purity.

The question then would be whether this attitude takes you as far as the promotion of condom use for young Christians? Or is it the case that they should not need it?

Young Christian should never have sex outside marriage. In marriage they are free to use condoms as they wish. If some one says they will have sex regardless of their profession of faith, I would treat them as an unbeliever and warn them about the spiritual, psychological and physical consequences. Using condoms will moderate the physical ills, but if it makes them feel freer to have sex, then it may well be counter-productive.

A wide swathe of fundamentalist Christians are nearly as rigorously anti-condom as the Catholic Church. Again, this might not apply to your specific denomination or community.

I know only a few who have objections to contraception. I accept there have been various views on this over the centuries.

By the way, which churches do you consider Christian? You don't have to answer, as I cannot guarantee not to work it into an argument sometime.

Any Church that holds to and practices the fundamentals of the faith - the deity of Christ, for example - especially the Solas as stated in the Reformation: Salvation by Grace alone; received by Faith alone; in Christ alone. And the Bible as the sole and final authority for the Christian. These things commonly define 'Evangelical', but that term is greatly abused of late.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

That is not my definition of a Christian, however. Christians may fall into a sin, but they will not be characterised by a life of this sin. Sin will be the exception.
....
Young Christian should never have sex outside marriage.

How do those two statements match up?

What if a young Christian does have sex outside marriage? One, twice, three times ... at what point does sin go from being the exception to being "characterised by a life of sin"?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

How do those two statements match up?

What if a young Christian does have sex outside marriage? One, twice, three times ... at what point does sin go from being the exception to being "characterised by a life of sin"?

Good question. It will vary with the understanding of the individual, their consciousness of the wrongness of their sin. Sometimes the fall is so evident that they cannot excuse it to themselves and will immediately repent and not repeat it. At others, mitigating circumstances will be pleaded with the conscience and repeated occurrances will be tolerated. Only God's intervention in judgement will bring them to repentance/remove them from the sin.

What cannot happen is for them to continue to fornicate and get away with it. If they do, it is proof that their profession of faith is false. God either brings us to repentance or removes us from the sin. The false Christian continues merrily on his way, the true Christian turns from sin or God strikes him with sickness or death to remove him from it.

The Church also plays a part in this: it disciplines those it knows are sinning, with a view to their recovery from the sin. It does not tolerate them in their sin.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

Good question. It will vary with the understanding of the individual, their consciousness of the wrongness of their sin. Sometimes the fall is so evident that they cannot excuse it to themselves and will immediately repent and not repeat it. At others, mitigating circumstances will be pleaded with the conscience and repeated occurrances will be tolerated. Only God's intervention in judgement will bring them to repentance/remove them from the sin.

What cannot happen is for them to continue to fornicate and get away with it. If they do, it is proof that their profession of faith is false. God either brings us to repentance or removes us from the sin. The false Christian continues merrily on his way, the true Christian turns from sin or God strikes him with sickness or death to remove him from it.

The Church also plays a part in this: it disciplines those it knows are sinning, with a view to their recovery from the sin. It does not tolerate them in their sin.

So, if we take a church community, we will find that it contains only good Christians, because anyone who is a sinner will either (a) have been expelled as a "false Christian", (b) removed themselves the better to sin freely, (c) repented, or (d) died of something.

Interesting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

That is not my definition of a Christian, however. Christians may fall into a sin, but they will not be characterised by a life of this sin. Sin will be the exception.

So you're saying that anyone for whom sin is the exception is a Christian....even if they don't actually believe in a Christian God, or indeed actively believe in a non-Christian one?

Interesting definition. But hey...if you want to think of it as fair and true, you go right ahead.

A clue to this can be seen there and in the UK by the widespread acceptance of homosexuality as Christian. It certainity is a new definition of Christianity, utterly opposed to the Biblical one.

To borrow a line from John Scalzi : My Jesus forgives the homophobia of your Jesus.

I know only a few who have objections to contraception.

Given your rejection of homosexuality, based on its acceptance not being a biblical trait of christianity....I'm wondering if you could show me where the bible actively supports the notion of contraception.

Or is this just another case of cherry-picking when the bible is and isn't meant to be actually literally interpreted, so as to arrive at the conclusion that the bible supports whatever it is that you want it to support.

I accept there have been various views on this over the centuries.

I wasn't aware the bible had changed so many times.

Any Church that holds to and practices the fundamentals of the faith - the deity of Christ, for example - especially the Solas as stated in the Reformation: Salvation by Grace alone; received by Faith alone; in Christ alone. And the Bible as the sole and final authority for the Christian. These things commonly define 'Evangelical', but that term is greatly abused of late.

You left out the big one : forgiveness. Any church that doesn't hold to this particular fundamental of faith should be ashamed to call itself Christian.

But its ok. My Jesus forgives your Jesus.

jc

Diogenes

Scofflaw wrote:

So, if we take a church community, we will find that it contains only good Christians, because anyone who is a sinner will either (a) have been expelled as a "false Christian", (b) removed themselves the better to sin freely, (c) repented, or (d) died of something.

Interesting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its kind of brilliant. A reverse catch 22. Ted Haggart can sin for decades as a leader of a fundamental sect, but because he was sinning he wasn't a real christian, so the rest of church and what he and they advocade is still the word of god.

Zombrex

Diogenes wrote:

Its kind of brilliant. A reverse catch 22. Ted Haggart can sin for decades as a leader of a fundamental sect, but because he was sinning he wasn't a real christian, so the rest of church and what he and they advocade is still the word of god.

Its the classic "get out of jail" card that religion (not just Christianity) has used for thousands of years.

It goes like this:- The religion is the message. If someone chooses to ignore the message or pretend to follow it, and then do bad things then that is their choice, the religion itself should not be blamed for this.

The point that most (if not all) religious people either don't accept or simply don't get in the first place, is that the message itself can lead to negative situations that allow for these things to happen.

The whole concept of the "good Christian" is an example. While I'm sure Christians would say that if they put their faith in someone who appears to be acting as a good Christian and it turns out that they aren't it is the person that is to blame, not their inital faith or the religious concepts that form the foundation of that faith. But the climate that such unquestioning faith creates allows the deception and abuse in the first place.

The example is clearer in something like Communism, which I doubt I will find many defenders here. In repressive Communist states the inital ideology and dogma put forward that the State is all important. Those that claimed to serve the state created an atmosphere where you could not doubt them, as that itself would be seen as being going against the state. If Stalins 5 year plan was serving the state how are you to say that it is the wrong action to take.

Many modern Communists will say that it was Stalin that was bad, not communism. The important point though is that it was not just Stalin that allowed this to happen, it was the dogma of Communism itself that facilitated and provide an atmosphere for Stalin moving into this position of power.

Religious systems work in very similar fashion, and it is hard as an athiest not to view religion as simply a social construct to control and manipulate the masses.

pH

Similar to :
The No true Scotsman Fallacy is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

So, if we take a church community, we will find that it contains only good Christians, because anyone who is a sinner will either (a) have been expelled as a "false Christian",

I would rather say that the church and the person would recognize their need for help and thereby accept all the help from a loving and willing church family.

Scofflaw wrote:

(b) removed themselves the better to sin freely,

Quite possible, I have seen it happen, a person would rather live in a sinful lifestyle that they know is wrong, instead of facing up to their sin and doing something about it.

Scofflaw wrote:

(c) repented, or

The best. Then my response to (a) kicks in.

There are those within the Christian community that look upon church as a place for those who have made it as opposed to church being a place for those in need of help.

My opinion is of the latter and I fit into that group of those needing help. Romans 8:28 (or thereabouts) talks about the Holy Spirit transforming us into the image of Christ. i will not get there in this lifetime, which means that I will forever be needing help.

That to me is a healthy church. one that ministers to all poeple regardless of sin.

Scofflaw wrote:

(d) died of something.

And that would be sad.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

So, if we take a church community, we will find that it contains only good Christians, because anyone who is a sinner will either (a) have been expelled as a "false Christian", (b) removed themselves the better to sin freely, (c) repented, or (d) died of something.

Interesting.

Mistaken. It will contain also sinning Christians who have not been found out by the Church (they may already be under the chastisement of God, but only they will be able to recognise that); and false Christians who appear genuine.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Mistaken. It will contain also sinning Christians who have not been found out by the Church (they may already be under the chastisement of God, but only they will be able to recognise that); and false Christians who appear genuine.

Sorry wolfsbane, but i wouldn't go near your church if they tossed me because of a sin I committed.

If that is the case, then there wouldn't be anyone attending.

Can you clarify your stance?

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

So you're saying that anyone for whom sin is the exception is a Christian....even if they don't actually believe in a Christian God, or indeed actively believe in a non-Christian one?

No. Many religionists may be free from the outward sins, such as sexual immorality. Their inward sins are a different matter: idolatry; rebellion against the True God; pride, etc.

To borrow a line from John Scalzi : My Jesus forgives the homophobia of your Jesus.

Obviously your Jesus is not the one in the Bible. It is quite a common name in Hispanic countries.;)

Given your rejection of homosexuality, based on its acceptance not being a biblical trait of christianity....I'm wondering if you could show me where the bible actively supports the notion of contraception.

It does not condemn it. It is a freedom inherent in our humanity. The Bible does not forbid or command many things: french-kissing; oral sex; shaving of body hair, for example.

Or is this just another case of cherry-picking when the bible is and isn't meant to be actually literally interpreted, so as to arrive at the conclusion that the bible supports whatever it is that you want it to support.

Maybe you can point me to where the Bible forbids contraception?

Quote:
I accept there have been various views on this over the centuries.

I wasn't aware the bible had changed so many times.

Read carefully: I said views, not the Bible have varied. Men try to understand the Bible on particular issues, not always getting it right. Doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.

You left out the big one : forgiveness. Any church that doesn't hold to this particular fundamental of faith should be ashamed to call itself Christian.

It is included in the whole concept of salvation. I also did not mention loving God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself. These absolute commandments exist in the framework of God's gospel. I'm surprised you should think it otherwise.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Mistaken. It will contain also sinning Christians who have not been found out by the Church (they may already be under the chastisement of God, but only they will be able to recognise that); and false Christians who appear genuine.

Fair enough. So noted, although it's hard to see how you can spot the latter until some kind of crisis occurs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Obviously your Jesus is not the one in the Bible.

Why? Because he forgives? Or because he's not homophobic?

The Bible does not forbid or command many things

And some of the things it commands....we've generally decided we shouldn't really take literally anyway.

Or do you think its a sin for women to wear men's clothing?

(The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.)

...
Read carefully: I said views, not the Bible have varied. Men try to understand the Bible on particular issues, not always getting it right. Doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.

What you're saying is that while the bible itself doesn't change, interpretation of what the words contained therein actually mean has changed and will change and thus that there is never a guarantee that any given interpretation is right or wrong.

Fair enough. I would point out that at the same time you are offering interpretations of the bible to argue that your stance is correct, and also want me to provide my interpretations of same in order to support or refute a point about what is right and wrong!!! What use is that? I can simply say "your interpretation is wrong", and you can say it of mine. I can tell you that you're taking something too literally, or not literally enough, and you can do likewise. So what do these interpretations gain us?

If the bible is open to interpretation, then your argument against homosexuality based on a biblical definition is inherently false. It is - at best - an argument based on biblical interpretation which may or may not be correct.

On the other hand, if the bible isn't open to interpretation, then your argument about views changing over time because we may not have interpreted the bible correctly is inherently false.....and women shouldn't be wearing men's clothes to boot.

Maybe you can point me to where the Bible forbids contraception?

I can point you to where Christian scholars have interpreted the bible to mean that artificial contraception is against God's will. But seeing as that interpretation may or may not be correct, and I've no way of knowing whether or not it is, I can't really see what it would benefit us.

Instead, I'll quite happily accept your suggestion that such Christian scholars have misinterpreted the bible and that your interpretation is correct....if you in turn will accept that the implication of this is that any Christian group which believes differently to you on this issue have shown that they have misinterpreted the bible. I'm sure they'd argue, of course, that you are the one misinterpreting the bible.

Gosh...who to believe.

So....there having been a reason for this....I'll head back on-topic.....

Thankfully, when it comes to issues like that which sparked off this thread, the interpretation of the bible isn't as unverifiable as (say) it is when it comes to deciding what does and does not constitute a sin.

Nope...when the bible makes claims about the physical world, we have the ability to independantly verify them. We should not verify on the grounds that "disagreement with our interpretation means our tests are wrong", but rather "we have failed to support this interpretation of the bible, and must remain open to the possibility that said interpretation is wrong".

Would you not agree? That when it comes to creationism etc. there is the chance that the bible has been misinterpreted, and that we're not supposed to take it literally? And if this is the case, and our body of scientific evidence increasingly suggests that the creationist aspects of the bible are not meant to be taken literally, that we should seriously consider that it is the literal-creationist interpretation which is incorrect?

I'm just asking, because I've see no such openness in what I've read (from creationists) of this thread, but rather an insistence that if its in the bible, its true and not open to any discussion.

wolfsbane

Brian Calgary said:

Sorry wolfsbane, but i wouldn't go near your church if they tossed me because of a sin I committed.

If that is the case, then there wouldn't be anyone attending.

Can you clarify your stance?

Sure. Suppose I have an affair with the my neighbour's wife. I'm found out and it comes to notice of the church. The elders come and ask me if this is true. I say, Yes. They ask what am I doing about it, have I repented and confessed this to God? I say, I'm sorry for the hurt caused, but see no need to repent as it was a very loving relationship we had. They point out that it was a grievious sin against God and my neighbour but I refuse to acknowledge that. They report this to the church, with the recommendation that I be expelled from their fellowship until I repent. The church agrees and I am shut out from participating as a Christian in any of their affairs.

Does that not follow the Biblical order? It is not so much the sin that is the issue, but unrepented sin.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Fair enough. So noted, although it's hard to see how you can spot the latter until some kind of crisis occurs.

Exactly. We cannot tell until something brings it into the light. Just like Judas, who walked with Christ and the disciples for over 3 years, yet none but the Lord knew him for the reprobate he was - until he betrayed the Lord. After that it was revealed he had be a thief from the beginning, stealing from their common purse.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Exactly. We cannot tell until something brings it into the light. Just like Judas, who walked with Christ and the disciples for over 3 years, yet none but the Lord knew him for the reprobate he was - until he betrayed the Lord. After that it was revealed he had be a thief from the beginning, stealing from their common purse.

Presumably part of the Divine plan, though. It's sort of hard to imagine that Christ was unable to judge character!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

They report this to the church, with the recommendation that I be expelled from their fellowship until I repent. The church agrees and I am shut out from participating as a Christian in any of their affairs.

And that I find a problem with.............They ask what am I doing about it, have I repented and confessed this to God? I say, I'm sorry for the hurt caused, but see no need to repent as it was a very loving relationship we had. I am expelled from their fellowship until I repent.

Now we have people acting as Gods. The sin is with the person who committed it and his/her God. The person repented, yet some people have the audacity to believe that their word is greater than that of their God's.
Why do you need intermediaries?

Scofflaw

Interesting to consider wolfsbane's posts in relation to the discussion about the authority of Scripture. It often seems to me that the Protestant churches are in a bit of a bind, as regards authority. The Catholic Church, after all, claims to be Apostolic - that is, inheriting the mantle of authority directly from the Apostles through succession. The same claim is made by the Orthodox Church - and it's worth remembering that those two do have a direct line of inherited authority right back to the men who sat with Christ. For that reason, the Cathloic Church has always been able to sideline the Bible - to treat it as authoritative, but requiring interpretation enlightened by the Apostolic tradition - they would consider themselves, if you like, as inheritors of both the written and unwritten traditions of the early Church and the Apostles.

Now a Protestant Church, on the other hand, denies the authority of the Catholic Church, in more or less flamboyant terms. They therefore cannot partake of the Apostolic authority, and require some other source. There are,as far as I can see, only two other sources of religious authority available to them - direct personal revelation, or the Bible.

Of these two, particularly for larger organisations, and those lacking a single charismatic leader,the Bible is unquestionably the safer bet. However, we run into problems with the Bible.

The Bible, while authoritative, is not a rulebook covering all aspects of life. So while the basic thrust of Protestantism is that all should read for themselves, we can see that they repeatedly run into issues that aren't covered - stem cell research, contraception, evolution, etc. These issues, because they are not directly dealt with, require interpretation.

The issue of interpretation is dealt with in various ways. One route is to accept that everyone can, and should, interpret the Bible for themselves, and accept along with that the constant fission of churches as individuals and groups disagree. In a macro sense, this is how Protestantism operates - hence the sometimes bewildering variety of denominations and sects.

The second route is to say that while everyone can read and interpret, it is best to be guided to a greater or lesser extent by interpreters. At the upper end, of course, this approaches the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Bible, but without the backing of an Apostolic tradition. At the lower end, we find a far greater amount of fission.

How is it possible, then, to build large and effective Christian churches while retaining the Protestant ethos of personal Bible study and a personal relationship with God?

The best answer, funnily enough, is to insist on the literal truth of the Bible. This immediately cuts out a vast number of possible areas of fission, while retaining the core strengths of Protestantism. It becomes possible to shepherd the wayward back into line by pointing out how they have "over-interpreted" - an appeal to the meta-doctrine of their faith, if you like. Of course, in certain areas, interpretation is always needed, but the central doctrine - the literal truth of the Bible - is both a strong and attractive message in its own right, and simultaneously a more or less explicit claim that no two believers can really get too far from each other, since all accept the literal truth of Scripture.

The implication of this is that Creationism represents, not an aberration likely to be left behind, but a guiding principle of those Protestant churches that are most likely to grow above a certain size.

Just my two cents, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

Now we have people acting as Gods.

Well said ... wolfbanes line of thinking is a on a very slippery slope back to the dark ages of 1950s Ireland where the church had immense power peoples lives, and people hid everything from each other in fear that it could be turned against them. I am glad to see BC is as trouble by it as the atheists here, there is some hope

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Presumably part of the Divine plan, though. It's sort of hard to imagine that Christ was unable to judge character!

Definitely part of the Divine plan:
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

and

Acts 4:27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

Now we have people acting as Gods. The sin is with the person who committed it and his/her God. The person repented, yet some people have the audacity to believe that their word is greater than that of their God's.
Why do you need intermediaries?

Not sure what you mean. The sinner repents toward God, confesses to Him and is forgiven. The sinner has to let the church know that this has happened, if he is to continue in fellowship with them. No priestly mediatorship involved.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Asiaprod said:

Not sure what you mean. The sinner repents toward God, confesses to Him and is forgiven. The sinner has to let the church know that this has happened, if he is to continue in fellowship with them. No priestly mediatorship involved.

Possibly confusion between church-as-hierarchy and church-as-community>

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Suppose I have an affair with the my neighbour's wife. I'm found out and it comes to notice of the church. The elders come and ask me if this is true. I say, Yes. They ask what am I doing about it, have I repented and confessed this to God? I say, I'm sorry for the hurt caused, but see no need to repent as it was a very loving relationship we had. They point out that it was a grievious sin against God and my neighbour but I refuse to acknowledge that. They report this to the church, with the recommendation that I be expelled from their fellowship until I repent. The church agrees and I am shut out from participating as a Christian in any of their affairs.

Does that not follow the Biblical order? It is not so much the sin that is the issue, but unrepented sin.

And if it was your son, and the neighbour's son....would he be kicked out of the church until he repented his homosexuality? If they married, would that be ok then, or would it still be unacceptable?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

The sinner has to let the church know that this has happened, if he is to continue in fellowship with them.

Why?

Why is it the church's business if the person has or has not repented to God for all his sins? A persons sins are surely a private matter between him/her and God. Not only does the church not need to know what sins someone has or has not repented for, but even if they knew they are not in a position to condemn the person. What moral authority does the church to turn someone away?

Ye without sin throw the first stone ....