Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Christianity, sex Message-ID: <179@usfbobo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 03:30:17 EDT Article-I.D.: usfbobo.179 Posted: Tue Sep 18 03:30:17 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 03:28:58 EDT References: <171@usfbobo.UUCP>, <894@houxm.UUCP>, <1180@pucc-h> Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa Lines: 100 [] > = Jeff Sargeant >> How is it possible for people "living together" to claim to be "Born Again"? >> Or to talk about "being led of the Spirit"? Why are such persons *allowed* >> to attend church? [David Brunson] > >As C.S. Lewis remarked in "The Screwtape Letters", a Christian might well >ask himself, "If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a >Christian, why should the different vices of those people in the next pew >prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention?" This provides an excellent opportunity to correctly divide an interesting scriptural question: that of *judgement*. The point you are making misses mine. I have no interest in sitting across an aisle from a fornicator and dreaming up all kinds of useless and hateful condemnation against him. The problem I am addressing is the same one Shaul (Paul to the greeks) addresses in Corinthians: that of a known fornicator being accepted as a brother by the church. The judgement of Shaul: "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or covetous, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler". Note that this is not talking about those who do not make a pretense of being believers. And of course, the person so shamed is to be welcomed back with open arms when he demonstrates repentance. I suspect that many of the comments on my posting are the result of *bumper-sticker Christianity*. To wit, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven", etc. My good friend Michael Edward Sentz (the funniest visual comic I have ever seen) suggests an alternative bumper sticker: "Christians aren't perfect, they're just a bunch of stupid jerks like everybody else". Actually, if you aren't perfect, you *ain't* living in the Kingdom. "Read the Bible, and see what you've been missing." Another common problem involves the veneer of banality which passes for *niceness*. To wit: Yeshua said that if your brother offends you, you are to *REBUKE* him. This is the correct approach and saves all kinds of misunderstanding. Instead, because they are unwilling to violate the tenets of banality, many Christians will forgo the rebuke and resort to a very unhealthy and peculiarly venomous kind of martyrdom -- actually waiting for an opportunity to *nicely* slander the offender. I'm just throwing this in for free -- it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about or any other articles or reading between the lines or anything else. >> Remember, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." (I don't >> remember where that comes from.) [Greg Skinner] "don't remember where that comes from." -- doesn't this demonstrate the real problem? >From John 8 -- the incident where the Jewish authorities haul a woman caught >in adultery in front of Jesus and say that the Law says she ought to die (I >wonder why they didn't bring the man, too? But that's another topic); Jesus >says that quote and starts writing on the ground; gradually all the woman's >accusers slink off, beginning with the oldest. When Jesus and the woman are >left alone, he says, "Where are they all? Has no one condemned you?" She >replies, "No one, Lord." Jesus says, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and >do not sin again." What about the *command* of Yeshua here? Do you suppose it was obeyed? More importantly, do you suppose it was important for her to obey it? >> >> ...discipleship involves coming closer to God, and if along someone's >> path lies some sex without marriage, then it's that person's responsibility >> to examine his relationship with God, not ours. [Skinner] > >Definite agreement from this corner. Remember that God works ALL things >together for good for those who love Him, who are called according to His >purpose (note that phrase "HIS purpose", and remember the famous saying >"My ways are not your ways, nor are your thoughts my thoughts" -- even if >you are the most faithful Christian you're nowhere near God's level). >I believe that God can bring His grace into any situation -- even, and >particularly, those involving intimate relationships. For instance, since >sex (if the participants have any humanity about them) involves nakedness of >soul as well as body, a sexual experience might afford one an invaluable view >of oneself that one might not be able to get so quickly any other way -- e.g. >it might bring to the surface some great fears of and/or bad attitudes toward >the opposite sex, which it is much better to discover and get rid of while >one is still single, rather than having them poison the wedding night. This is complete confusion. First of all, fornication is evil. Period. Fornication destroys personality, weakens the conscience. It is *inhuman* and totally unbecoming for one made in the image of God and much more so for one who lays claim to the Family. I'm at a complete loss of words or ideas on how to approach the misuse of scripture here. I don't know what else to say. This is the first time I have been really upset with an article. Is Yiri Ben-David right? Is "Christianity" just a thinly veiled excuse for pagans to sin? -- David Brunson Too astonished to think up anything cute to say here.