Ray Boltz

[DaJudge]

ok ..so is being gay sin or not j/k
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and stop the insulting....
good grief smile a little everyone

Dajudge I am very much against d/r and I am no moron.

He's not a moron for being against d&r. He's a moron for thinking that COGOP will be endorsing gay marriage soon because we accept divorced people who profess salvation.

[one love]

ok ..so is being gay sin or not j/k
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and stop the insulting....
good grief smile a little everyone

Dajudge I am very much against d/r and I am no moron.

He's not a moron for being against d&r. He's a moron for thinking that COGOP will be endorsing gay marriage soon because we accept divorced people who profess salvation.

Who are you referring to? ohhh never mind pastorps.....
Ok I got ya I was confused for a moment

[Pastorbps]

For my part, I didn't write what I wrote to imply the COGOP was going to accept homosexuality (Although, I don't think that is as far fetched as you may think). I wrote it to show you the double speak I keep reading. "Don't judge" has been brought up a thousand times on D&R threads but the minute the topic turns to homosexuality people don't have a problem judging. They had no problem condemning those who believe D&R is wrong for singling out that sin because we all have sin of some kind. Yet they have no problem singling out homosexuality.

Dolfan, I used your wording and even though it may not have been your complete usage, the idea I used it to represent is valid. There are many who believe you should not have any BEHAVIORAL "You Must Be This Tall" signs over our doors (As far as membership is concerned - not attendance). The presence of any criteria amounts to a "You must be this tall" sign. Let me ask you a question. Would you take in a member who was involved in homosexuality and who had no current intention to cease the behavior? If the answer is no, then you have a "You Must Be This Tall" to ride sign. If the answer is yes, then taking in homosexuals as members isn't as far-fetched as some have thought.

[one love]

For my part, I didn't write what I wrote to imply the COGOP was going to accept homosexuality (Although, I don't think that is as far fetched as you may think). I wrote it to show you the double speak I keep reading. "Don't judge" has been brought up a thousand times on D&R threads but the minute the topic turns to homosexuality people don't have a problem judging. They had no problem condemning those who believe D&R is wrong for singling out that sin because we all have sin of some kind. Yet they have no problem singling out homosexuality.

Dolfan, I used your wording and even though it may not have been your complete usage, the idea I used it to represent is valid. There are many who believe you should not have any BEHAVIORAL "You Must Be This Tall" signs over our doors (As far as membership is concerned - not attendance). The presence of any criteria amounts to a "You must be this tall" sign. Let me ask you a question. Would you take in a member who was involved in homosexuality and who had no current intention to cease the behavior? If the answer is no, then you have a "You Must Be This Tall" to ride sign. If the answer is yes, then taking in homosexuals as members isn't as far-fetched as some have thought.

I don't want to stir up anything here at all but I understand this point. If we say anything about D/R it is assumed we don't believe in forgiveness and we have singled out this one sin etc.
Also some seem to judge our intentions when we are (speaking for myself) just giving our opinion on a certain subject.
So if that is the case then is this not singling out one sin? I speak about all sin not just one but will gladly talk about any sin that is brought up.

I just wanted to add that and mean no harm at all, I respect all of your views as I hope you do mine

May God bless you


P.S. I am not referring or implying that any organization is now going to accept Homosexuality as members.

[DaJudge]

[

Who are you referring to? ohhh never mind pastorps.....
Ok I got ya I was confused for a moment

I was actually referring to the guy who posted it in the TCOGtalk forum. Not you one love.

[TW]

For my part, I didn't write what I wrote to imply the COGOP was going to accept homosexuality (Although, I don't think that is as far fetched as you may think). I wrote it to show you the double speak I keep reading. "Don't judge" has been brought up a thousand times on D&R threads but the minute the topic turns to homosexuality people don't have a problem judging. They had no problem condemning those who believe D&R is wrong for singling out that sin because we all have sin of some kind. Yet they have no problem singling out homosexuality.

Pastorbps,
It may be that there is no problem concerning singling out homosexuality, as opposed to D&R because the Bible does indicate that God recognizes various levels of "sin." While all sin is sin, save blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is un-forgivable, and will prevent you from entering into the Kingdom if un-repented. Some sins are an abomination to God.

As defined, abomination means:
1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation:
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.:
To make it even more specific the word abhorred used in the definition means:
to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion; detest utterly; loathe; abominate.

D&R does not make the list of things that God finds to be an abomination, homosexuality does. The Bible teaches us to love the things that God loves and to hate the things that God hates.


TW

[MacUser]

What breaks my heart is not that he has sinful inclinations. We all do, in one way or another--some with pride, some with anger, some with homosexual leanings, some with the love of money; the list goes on and on and on. And we all struggle with our individual temptations. We all have to fight and fight hard, by the Spirit, to resist sinning, regardless of our bent to particular sins.

What breaks my heart is that he has stopped fighting. That is deadly. The mark of a Christian isn't that we never fall, but that when we fall, we get up fighting.

I feel so sad.

Ditto. Sad Time.

[dolfan]

Dolfan, I used your wording and even though it may not have been your complete usage, the idea I used it to represent is valid. There are many who believe you should not have any BEHAVIORAL "You Must Be This Tall" signs over our doors (As far as membership is concerned - not attendance). The presence of any criteria amounts to a "You must be this tall" sign. Let me ask you a question. Would you take in a member who was involved in homosexuality and who had no current intention to cease the behavior? If the answer is no, then you have a "You Must Be This Tall" to ride sign. If the answer is yes, then taking in homosexuals as members isn't as far-fetched as some have thought.

Pastorbps, of course I wouldn't. And, that isn't a YMBTTTR sign (let's abbreviate it ... it's getting too long to type). That's a "you're not serious about Jesus Christ" sign. Now, let's take another one: Would you take in a member who HAD BEEN involved in homosexuality, professes a proclivity with which he needs God's help to over come, and says "I've believe, I've repented, I want to be a Christian and live like Jesus, but I am really having problems with keeping distance from homosexual desires and homosexual conduct. I want to give in, but I don't. I need your fellowship. Will you accept me as a member?" What would you do in that case?

[RaceRunner]

I think you all should quit judging him. He's repented because repentance doesn't mean you have to forsake sin. All churches are the same and if his church accepts him who are we to say he isn't Saved. We all have sin so I guess he's going to Heaven and if he isn't then neither are any of us. Why aren't you talking about those singers who are backbiters, gossips, critical, etc? Why are you singling him out? He should be a member of your church or do you have a "Must Be This Tall Sign" at the door of your church? Hmm!

I'm guessing you agree with the moron who posted this on TCOGtalk:

Reveals the future of denominational christians who start knocking over dominos.

Sympathy becomes more important than the actual Word of God.

This is the downhill direction of ALL denominations (without repentance) who teach that a PROFESSION OF FAITH is the only requirement of membership.

This is why The Church of God will be especially hated, but will especially SHINE as a City set on a Hill.

Tell you what. You go join TCOG(smith) TCOG(nabors), TCOG(Indiana), TCOG(N.C) or The Church of God of Wade (if you haven't already) and leave COGOP to us.

DaJudge

If you are going to call me a MORON...

the least you could have done is also quoted my name.

RaceRunner = Tammy Washburn (same on tcogtalk and jude2)

DaJudge = ???

I like my name to be authored on all my posts thank you.

If I wanted it on Jude2, I would have posted over here.

But that's okay.

I stand by every word I said.

This is the downhill direction of ALL denominations (without repentance) who teach that a PROFESSION OF FAITH is the only requirement of membership.

As to this particular quote of mine....

Neither the name Cogop or D&R was mentioned in that particular post.

However, if the shoe fits the guilty conscience....


The Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. are such great role models to follow aren't they?

[DaJudge]

Okay Race Runner, if it makes you feel better, here goes:

"Tammy Washburn is the moron who posted a moronic post on TCOGtalk, in which she implied that COGOP would be accepting gay marriage soon, and in which she went back to tired old 'the Great Speckled Bird will be despised by the squad' argument. "

Feel better now?

[RaceRunner]

DaJudge wrote:

Okay Race Runner, if it makes you feel better, here goes:

"Tammy Washburn is the moron who posted a moronic post on TCOGtalk, in which she implied that COGOP would be accepting gay marriage soon, and in which she went back to tired old 'the Great Speckled Bird will be despised by the squad' argument. "

Feel better now?

Yes.

Thank you.

[DaJudge]

Yes.

Thank you.

Glad to help.

[RaceRunner]

Yes.

Thank you.

Glad to help.

I'm sure you are. Perhaps I can provide more fodder for your amusement in the near future. Ya'll certainly do provide for mine.

I'll be more than willing to pick this topic back up in about...oh let's say....five to ten years...when all the dominos are down.

Funny thing about "slippery slopes"...they are all very slippery.

[dolfan]

TW, before someone else brings it up, I'll jump in as the voice of the "other side" of the debate and mention this verse.

"God hates divorce..." Malachi 2:16.

Where does that fit in?

I take it as a warning, a serious one, against divorce. The church of Jesus is not, at least in America, serious enough about it. Pastorbps, for as much as I may disagree with his tone and what I suspect to be his approach to the matter in pastoral care terms, has a point. Divorce is serious. God hates it, too.

The real issue here, though, is not so much what the written Word pronounces. It is clear enough that we all see it here. The differences are what to do with it; on that, the Word is not as certain as Pastorbps would have us believe. There's honest room for honest difference of application. Yes, it is a slippery slope, Pastorbps. People are slippery and slimy. Life is.

Pastorbps, you began this discussion about D&R, as I recall (maybe incorrectly), with a question about what to say about it in your local church's context, something along the lines of what to say in a statement of faith. You weren't satisfied that what the presbyters or whoever had written was clear enough for your needs. Therein lies the rub: your needs. You haven't made the argument about what your needs are in a convincing fashion. You've only stated that you need something clearer for people to know the rules. And, that tosses us back into this whole leading by rulebook mentality that, in my judgment, affects your perspective on this thing. Instead of taking people -- living, slippery, slimy people and slippery, slimy lives -- and figuring out how they can move into conformity with Christ, you've aimed your goals too low by attempting to take a rule -- a nice clean, easy to apply rule -- and figure out how you can implement it without due regard for the lives of the people involved.

There is a tension between the written Word and the life of the believer. It is not easy to resolve that tension; maybe it is impossible in this life to do so. Grace has to be extended between us and from us to those with whose lives we're dealing. Discipleship must happen, and you're right to be concerned with it. But, it doesn't happen in a vacuum because God doesn't teach us His ways in a vacuum. We are profoundly and indescribably marred by sin. Being free of its ultimate judgment is not the same thing as being free from its consequences altogether in this mortal body (otherwise, we would be in immortal bodies from the time we are saved --- but we're not). We fight this dying but unyielding shell that frames our being with a power of God that changes us into His children so that we can overcome the frame. We become masters of our own selves. But, that's a fight, a process, and there's no discharge from this warfare. There is the hope of glory who is Christ in us. You are not the gatekeeper for that hope; Jesus is the Door. You're appointed to shepherd it and to protect those whom you shepherd from wickedness.

[RamboPreacher]

discussed in the doctrine forum, somewhat...
divorce does not equate "put away"
the translation in using "divorce" is not an accurate one, in that text God hates putting away. - and now will leave it for discussion in the myriad D&R threads in the doctrine forum.