Question about New Testament (with OT)

[derannimer]

Jumping in with both feet. . . 

Captain Cindy wrote:

 > Personally, I am a Southern Baptist who believes sex outside of 
 > marriage is a sin for everyone and that gay sex is a sin as well. I
 > also happen to believe that my personal religious beliefs should not 
 > form the basis for government policy. So I am in favor of civil 
 > unions for gays etc. to grant to them the legal rights and 
 > obligations that come with marriage. Call it civil union, marriage, 
 > whatever. Those of us who are religious can still be married in our 
 > churches, and our unions will conform with our own personal beliefs.
 > 
 > I just fail to see how allowing two gay men to form a civil union 
 > undermines the strength or importance of my marriage.

And then Joywitch wrote:
 
> So, your friends who engage in gay sex (within monogamous 
> relationships or not), and your friends who engage in straight sex 
> who are not married, are people who you consider to be sinners, I 
> assume. 

Er. I can't entirely speak for Captain Cindy, but I'd have to say that according to any 
definition of Christianity *I've* ever heard, there is no such thing as "people who you 
consider to be sinners." Every human being who ever lived since Adam and Eve -- 
except for Jesus Christ, obviously -- was/is/will be a sinner. Every selfish or hateful 
or proud *thought* that a human being has is an indication of their fundamental 
brokenness, and *everyone* is broken.

> How does that affect your relationship with them? If they 
> are sinners, do you refuse to, I don't know, bring your children to 
> their houses?

I hope not. Apart from the fundamental question of charity, it's hard to see what good 
you would accomplish waiting for dinner invites from the sinless. (Hint: you'll be 
waiting for a while.) Now, if you were concerned that the particular nature of the sin 
could somehow hurt the children -- physically, emotionally, or spiritually -- you 
might hire a babysitter or something, I guess. If you were concerned that it could 
somehow hurt yourself -- for example, if you were a recovering alcoholic and the 
person in question threw an awful lot of kegger parties -- you might decline the 
invitation. Though I hope you would still do so charitably. Which is not necessarily 
always the same thing as politely.

> Or does it not have any practical impact? And if it 
> doesn't have any practical impact, how is it meaningful?

Well. . . define "practical impact," though. The fact is that you *don't* thunderously 
denounce every sin you come across to everyone who is engaging in it, partly because 
of the obvious logistical difficulties, but also partly because, unless you stand a good 
chance of actually improving the situation, you often aren't accomplishing much other 
than being self-righteous. (Being self-righteous is also a sin.) But the fact that you 
don't always publically denounce or disassociate yourself from something doesn't 
mean that you don't consider it a sin, and it *certainly* doesn't mean that it isn't, in 
Fact, a sin.
 
> It seems like you are saying that these acts would be a sin for you, 
> but that other people should be allowed to do what they want, but at 
> the same time you say these things are a sin for everyone, so I'm 
> confused.

No, no, not really. She's saying -- I think, and forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing you 
here, Cindy -- that these acts are a sin, for herself and for everyone, but that there is 
a distinction between spiritual sin and civil crime. Lying is a sin. Envy is a sin. Hatred 
is a sin. That doesn't necessarily mean that lying, envy, and hatred should all be 
crimes. The civil authority is far better at enforcing civil order than at enforcing 
spiritual order, and sometimes ought to stay out of the latter.
 
> I guess I feel a little offended. As a bisexual woman who has had 
> sex with both men and women and has never been married, I am a little 
> disturbed to find out that you consider me to be a sinner. 

Er. She probably considers everyone of her acquaintance to be a sinner, including 
herself. After all, if a person didn't ever sin, they would be perfect, and if you've ever 
met a perfect person, I'd be interested in getting their phone number.

John Stott once wrote that in the eyes of God, we are all sexual deviants.

> snip as it's more a question for Cindy to answer personally <
 
> One time when I was in Mexico, a woman at the place where I was 
> staying asked me about my religion. I told her I was Jewish, and she 
> became very apologetic. Very nice, but very apologetic. She told me 
> that she was very sorry, but that unless I converted to Christianity 
> I would burn in hell for all eternity. She then proceeded to get her 
> 10 year old son to read the Bible out loud to me, which I didn't mind 
> at the time because I needed to practice my Spanish and he read very 
> well. But I did feel her attitude was pretty offensive -- why should 
> her beliefs affect my afterlife?

Yikes. If I had the intelligence of a mollusc, I wouldn't touch this one, but here goes.

Because truth is objective. Her beliefs cannot affect your afterlife, if by "her beliefs" 
you mean "The fact that she believes something." But her beliefs obviously can affect 
*everybody's* afterlife if by "her beliefs" you mean "Some fact about the universe 
about which she is correct." Maybe she was correct, maybe she was incorrect -- but 
she *was* factually correct or incorrect, and you're making it sound like you don't 
believe that a question of Fact even comes into it. But don't you see that if religion 
*is* a matter of objective truth -- and I frankly do not understand what other kind of 
truth there could be -- then what is true is true for everyone, and what is wrong is 
wrong for everyone, and if you or I am wrong, or (and it may be the same thing 
sometimes) *in the wrong,* then that could have immeasurably serious 
consequences? I'm not trying to say here, "Convert to Christianity," I'm simply trying 
to say that Christianity is either true or false and if it's true, then *everybody* had 
better convert to Christianity. And if it's false, then nobody should, at least not in the 
interests of truth.
 
 


Derannimer, who suspects that she is about to become a very lonely poster