From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 21:20:56 EST
Sure, but I don't think I said all judgement is wrong. There was a
context for my comment. JimA
sheila-mcginty@geotec.net wrote:
>Jim,
>
>You are definitely correct in that we are not to alienate people. God called
>us while we were yet sinners - imperfect, sinful, and wrong. We are like
>fish, men help catch us but God always cleans us.
>
>Judging, however, is not always prohibited. Matthew 18 gives a very clear
>definition of when we are to judge, who has the right to judge, and how we are
>to judge. For example, I am not allowed to judge you because you have not
>wronged me nor am I a spiritual leader in your life. When we make ourselves
>accountable to spiritual leaders, we give them the right and responsibility to
>judge us. Prohibiting judgement of any kind is wrong because judgement and
>consequences is what allows us to be reconciled and restored to proper
>relationships with each other and God. We are, in fact, responsible for
>judging wrong behavior in ourselves and others so that we can maintain our own
>spiritual walk without stumbling. The problem is when we judge
>inappropriately.
>
>Sheila
>
>
>
>Quoting Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>:
>
>
>
>>You've touched on the heart of the issue in your last sentence. So what
>>
>>will you/we do with and toward these who are also part of God's
>>creation, also "neighbors", also brothers & sisters, and fellow
>>participants in our domain of stewardship in His creation. Oh, and I
>>suppose we must also be mindful of those "judging" prohibitions, and the
>>
>>egalitarian nature of sin (in the view of many of us). "Just as I am"
>>comes to mind.
>>
>>This is not an easy or trivial matter. However, I am persuaded at the
>>end of the day that attitudes and actions that result in alienation do
>>not reflect the patterns modeled for us in the life and teachings of
>>Christ, which often transcended the traditional and written heritage.
>>Because we live in the light of the additional revelation afforded us
>>through the life of Christ, I'm pretty sure that we are now held to that
>>
>>higher standard. Also, best I recall, conviction is not our job. We may
>>
>>be amicus curii, but we are notably neither judge nor jury. We are left
>>
>>very little wiggle room by the relational examples Jesus, uncomfortable
>>
>>or not. JimA
>>
>>Jan de Koning wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>At 09:50 AM 22/01/2003 -0700, John Burgeson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, John Burgeson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>and I, Michael, did not "choose" our heterosexual orientation, we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>acquired
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>it either by nature or by nurture. Likewise, my homosexual friends
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>did not
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"choose," but found themselves to be simply different from the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>norm.
>>
>>
>>>Being different from the norm does not mean that you are now allowed
>>>to do anything that comes up in your mind.
>>>As a defence for homosexual relationships I think the defence is not
>>>sufficient. Many of us have sinful wishes, that we must contain all
>>>our life. I do not necessarily want to throw out all homosexuals, but
>>>
>>>
>>>thus far I did not find a biblical, and logical defense of even
>>>"committed" reationships.
>>>
>>>Jan de Koning
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Sheila McGinty
>sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>This mail sent through GeoTEC Webmail: webmail.geotec.net
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 21:21:01 EST