Saturday, May 19, 2012

COGIC Presiding Bishop and General Board Elaborate on Existing Same Sex Policy | CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST

Here is my denominations official statement on Same-Sex marriage:

COGIC-seal-med
Official Statement
of the
Church of God in Christ, Inc.

Regarding Same Sex Marriages and Civil Unions
 
The President’s position regarding “same-sex marriage” has set off a “firestorm,” unlike any other debate in our civil society, perhaps, since the civil rights unrest of the mid-20th century.   The advocacy for same-sex marriage, while in conflict with our nation’s long-standing moral posture, has indeed, created opportunity for the Church to communicate our unequivocal position about God’s design and foundation for humanity, the biblical mandate for heterosexuality through the bonds of matrimony and, the centuries-old understanding of the only acceptable means of procreation, habitation, and the establishment of the family.

The President suggests same sex relationships and male-female relationships committed to by oath before God and/or witnesses, where formal documents are signed before a civil or ecclesiastical figure.  It further implies that both are equally good and valuable.  In addition to this, it suggests that both equally contribute to the good and advancement of a society.  From a fundamental view of scripture, the same word should not be used to describe both same sex and heterosexual relationships.
Fundamentally, traditionally, and historically, marriage has functioned to unite a man and women together in facing the challenges of life, to sanctify sexual involvement, to authorize the conception of children, provide an environment for the protection and development of offspring and to strengthen and sustain the family unit.  Historically, the sexual coming together of husband and wife produces children who are the fruit of both their bodies and are united by blood to their brothers and sisters.  This coming together of husband and wife is the means by which the world has been populated, and the human race sustained.

A husband, wife and children are the bedrock of a society which also mirrors the universal Church as a microcosm, or domestic church, out of which God’s values are modeled, nurtured, and disciplined.  This divinely-inspired family framework, pronounced in Old and New Testament scripture, is without compromise.  To tamper with the foundation is to disrupt the order God intended.  This order is the intended structure by which all humanity is expected to govern their lives.

The human body is designed by God as male and female to anatomically accommodate individuals of the opposite sex in the conception, bearing, and nurture of children; the human body is unquestionably designed to accommodate individuals of the opposite sex, not of the same sex.

The Holy Bible, which is the authoritative Word of God, clearly prohibits sexual relations between members of the same sex.  Though it does not isolate intercourse between individuals of the same sex as the only sin, it designates this and a series of other activities as sinful behavior from which the Christian is to abstain

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. NKJV (See also: Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; and 1 Timothy 1:8).

The Bible indicates that there is nothing that can excuse or eliminate the sinfulness of sexual involvement between individuals of the same sex.  Neither so called “marriage vows”, civil unions, nor homosexual drives or passions are recognized by the Bible as justifications or acceptable excuses or rationale for sexual acts between individuals of the same sex.  Sinful desires and inclinations must be resisted and overcome by the power of God in Christ Jesus, and by power of the Holy Spirit who strengthens our minds and our wills.

Our vocabularies are made up of thousands of words because there are so many distinctive entities and concepts to be referred to.  Each word designates a category of entities which are unique to that word.  Specific words are most useful when they reflect identical images, and when they do not create conflicting or unclear images in the mind of the speaker and the hearer.  The Bible defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).  To define marriage otherwise is to dilute and destroy its usefulness as a word which denotes what is highest and best about human society.

While we are committed to proclaim and support the tenants of the Bible, and also to persuade others to do so, we recognize that in a free and democratic society morality cannot be legislated.  We oppose violence and discrimination against individuals or groups because of sexual orientation. We do not feel that it is necessary to legalize same sex marriage to provide the civil benefits and civil rights to all regardless of sexual orientation.
 
We proclaim the value and worth of every human being regardless of sexual orientation.
But, we passionately and unapologetically, defend the right of faith communities to maintain the integrity of their message, mission and identity.  We welcome to the church all people who seek to serve and know God and His Word.

I agree.

COGIC Presiding Bishop and General Board Elaborate on Existing Same Sex Policy | CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST

84 comments:

  1. My question is why the need to impose what COGIC thinks the biblical definition of marriage is on people in your state who are not members of the COGIC?

    I don't think anyone else cares what your church believes or what criteria it requires to perform marriage ceremonies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As of now, if you want to have a marriage ceremony in the Church of God in Christ, these are the protocols. You may not care what COGIC believes or how we roll, but some people do. It's important to be clear that we are upholding what the Bible says about marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK, let’s try this again, I asked why you (i.e. you and your church) have a need to impose what your church thinks the biblical definition of marriage is on non-members within your state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why do proponents of same-sex marriage have the right to redefine marriage in such a way that me and my church disagree with?

    By the way my church is international - not just California.

    No one is trying to impose a biblical definition of California. It's already a Biblical definition in California. People are trying to impose a non-Biblical definition of marriage.

    If you can answer why that's ok, then you have a right to ask your question.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why do proponents of same-sex marriage have the right to redefine marriage in such a way that me and my church disagree with?

    Because they are denied a right we currently enjoy. See 14th amendment.

    By the way my church is international - not just California.

    You personally get to vote in Tennessee or Zimbabwe? Awesome...

    If you can answer why that's ok, then you have a right to ask your question.

    I have a right to ask any question any time I want, but see my comment concerning the 14th amendment above.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There are two points that were raised. Let's take the short one first:

    You personally get to vote in Tennessee or Zimbabwe? Awesome..

    This is the first you brought up voting. If you were referring to voting in the first place, you should have stated as such. I was referring to just the right to state a position and support that position Biblically.

    Because they are denied a right we currently enjoy. See 14th amendment.

    Think about that. Does the 14th Amendment really mean redefining marriage? Really? I am also highly offended when people equate the civil rights movement with the legality of same-sex marriage. They are not equivalent. And if we re-define marriage to include homosexual unions, why should we stop there? Would you allow Muslim adult men to marry minor girls like they do in the Middle East? Why? Canada and the UK are literally dealing with this issue now. What about a man who wants to marry his dog? Still okay? Or what about a woman who wants to marry a horse? Still okay?

    I'd suggest reading Mariano's article:
    On the evolution of marriage: on the Bible and traditional marriage

    Listen to James White's webcasts for the past week
    James White Responds to Matthew Vines on Homosexuality

    Today on a Mega Edition of the Dividing Line 05/17/2012 - James White

    Yesterday on the Dividing Line: A Program I Could Never Upload to YouTube
    05/02/2012 - James White


    Video Response to Dan Savage, Along with a Challenge

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, let’s try this again, I asked why you (i.e. you and your church) have a need to impose what your church thinks the biblical definition of marriage is on non-members within your state.

    This is the first you brought up voting.

    Sorry, I thought it was clear given I was talking about imposing your version of something on other people in your state, but of course, you are a moron, so...

    why should we stop there?

    As far as I know, minor girls, dogs and horses are NOT consenting adults, right?

    How about you answer the initial question now?

    ReplyDelete
  8. OK, let’s try this again, I asked why you (i.e. you and your church) have a need to impose what your church thinks the biblical definition of marriage is on non-members within your state.


    No one has the right to re-define "marriage" outside of what God has already defined it. Either you have to show that is not what God has defined marriage to be or that marriage is your definition. You can't.


    As far as I know, minor girls, dogs and horses are NOT consenting adults, right?


    So you want gives you the right to impose your definition of marriage on men or women who want to marry animals, children, or multiple consenting adults? Who says "consenting adults" is in the definition of "marriage" and we should not change it? You? What makes about their 14th Amendment rights (if it indeed can be applied that way)? What about their "love".

    Where and how do you draw the line?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let's outlaw beer since there is apparently no possible way to draw a line between beer and heroin...

    Obviously there is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what is the obvious difference between beer and heroin? Yes, why not outlaw beer?

      And what are you saying is the difference between all the other forms of relationships in redefining marriages that you don't like? What basis do you have for rejecting them?

      Delete
  10. And what is the obvious difference between beer and heroin?

    One uses fermented barley and the other is an extract from the poppy?

    I would imagine even you'd be able to recognize some obviouse differences between a relationship between two consenting adults and adults preying on children

    why not outlaw beer?

    Because it's delicious.

    And what are you saying is the difference between all the other forms of relationships in redefining marriages that you don't like?

    Try rephrasing this for clarity. If I had to guess, I'd say you are asking, why are consensual adult relationship different than non-consensual adult/child (or animal) relationships"?

    If that's what you are asking, the answer is fairly obvious...

    ReplyDelete
  11. One uses fermented barley and the other is an extract from the poppy?

    Both have been known to destroy lives and have detrimental effect on health.

    I asked:

    why not outlaw beer?

    Because it's delicious.


    You said:

    Because it's delicious.

    I'm sure perverts think the same about children.

    Try rephrasing this for clarity. If I had to guess, I'd say you are asking, why are consensual adult relationship different than non-consensual adult/child (or animal) relationships"?

    Look the point is that although you and I agree that there is a difference in that consenting adults is good but otherwise bad, how do you impose on them who think sex with children and animals is okay your standard that it's not. The difference between you and I is that diluting the definition of marriage to include only consenting adults and not consenting man and woman is a redefinition I reject. But you would reject the movements to include the redefinitions that others are calling for and you have no real basis to do so

    You used the term "non-consensual adult/child (or animal relationships)", does that mean you think that there can be consensual non-consensual adult/child (or animal relationships)?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Both have been known to destroy lives and have detrimental effect on health.

    As has Farmville...

    Look the point is that although you and I agree that there is a difference in that consenting adults is good but otherwise bad...

    Um, what? (I'd make a quip about English being your second language, but that would only confuse you).

    how do you impose on them who think sex with children and animals is okay your standard that it's not.

    Again, what in the world are you trying to say? If I had to guess at your meaning, I'd say the law is how we impose the standard.

    The difference between you and I is that diluting the definition of marriage to include only consenting adults and not consenting man and woman is a redefinition I reject.

    Wow, really? I would have never guessed. Or are you just stating this to reassure yourself?

    But you would reject the movements to include the redefinitions that others are calling for and you have no real basis to do so

    I think I made it clear consent is the basis...

    does that mean you think that there can be consensual non-consensual adult/child (or animal relationships)?

    Consensual non-consensual adult/child relationship????

    OK, I can't resist, is English your second language? Or are you just that bad with the copy/paste?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think I made it clear consent is the basis...

    Nope. You really didn't. Who says "consent" is a basis? A child who is raised to think its okay to marry a grown man would give her consent. She doesn't know better, or is it ok if she says "yes".

    Um, what? (I'd make a quip about English being your second language, but that would only confuse you

    No, that'd be you since I already did it earlier and you were confused. Hilarious.

    Consensual non-consensual adult/child relationship????

    yup. a typo. Better a typo than being too stupid realize how corrupt your thinking really is. You writing that there are non consensual sexual relationship between adult/children and people/animals implies that there are consensual ones. Is that what you are say?


    You also say that the law is what you use to impose standards. But what if people decide to change the law, is it right now? I mean all kidding aside - do you really not see how corrupt that is?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Who says "consent" is a basis?

    Um, me? US law?

    A child who is raised to think its okay to marry a grown man would give her consent.

    This is correct, however it's not the case in our society.

    No, that'd be you since I already did it earlier and you were confused.

    Hmmm, I was never confused. Let's see, what do you think my second language is?

    You writing that there are non consensual sexual relationship between adult/children and people/animals implies that there are consensual ones.

    No, it doesn't imply that at all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Um, me? US law?

    No surprise that you don't know.



    This is correct, however it's not the case in our society.

    There are people who want to change that. Are you going to allow them to exercise their rights to have what we enjoy according to the 14th Amendment? What? Doesn't it apply? This the same argument you were using for Same-Sex marriages. Doesn't it still hold? Why?

    Let's see, what do you think my second language is?

    Given the way you understand what you "read" I'd say English.

    No, it doesn't imply that at all.

    Let's stop dancing around the mulberry bush. Flat out: Is pedophilia and beastiality ever okay in any circumstances - in your opinion? If not, then why doesn't the 14th Amendment apply to "protect" such deviant behavior?

    ReplyDelete
  17. What? Doesn't it apply?... then why doesn't the 14th Amendment apply to "protect" such deviant behavior?

    It's almost as if you want to pretend I never mentioned the word consent...

    Given the way you understand what you "read" I'd say English.

    Correct, now why were you so confused?

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's almost as if you want to pretend I never mentioned the word consent...

    And where is "consent" in the 14th Amendment? So if a 9 year-old consents, the can marry a 50 year-old adult? Is "consent" really the only thing that matters?


    Correct, now why were you so confused?


    So it all makes sense! You did teach yourself English!

    ReplyDelete
  19. And where is “consent” in the 14th amendment…
     
    Wow… surely you are aware the states determine the age of consent?
     
    So it all makes sense!
     
    Yes.  And I can only assume you’re a monoglot because you are waiting to be blessed from above with a second language?  In any case, I think it’s obvious that my English is, at a minimum, marginally better than you (at a minimum!!!!!!!).  What is your excuse?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow… surely you are aware the states determine the age of consent?

    So if there was a state where the majority of people in that state set the age of consent at 9, that would be okay with you? Okay.

    Yes. And I can only assume you’re a monoglot because you are waiting to be blessed from above with a second language? In any case, I think it’s obvious that my English is, at a minimum, marginally better than you (at a minimum!!!!!!!). What is your excuse?

    I have nothing to make excuses about. I need to be more careful in my typing. Your problems are more dire. I never said that I thought I would be blessed from above with a second language. You need to be blessed with some more wisdom and understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So if there was a state where the majority of people in that state set the age of consent at 9, that would be okay with you?

    I would not choose to live there.

    I need to be more careful in my typing.

    And your thinking. Given your inability to follow something to its logical conclusion and your inability to apply a consistent standard, your opinion on my level of wisdom is not all that compelling. 
     
    But enough name calling. My original goal with this post was to determine what drives your bigotry in this regard, and you would have it appear, at least on the surface, that it’s entirely driven by the bible.  I suspect there is more to it, but acknowledge that it’s fruitless to try to get you to reveal it. 

    ReplyDelete

  22. I would not choose to live there.


    Yeah, but is it wrong? If it sin;t then why don't you wanna live there?
    lol..funny...seems like you are one with the "inability to follow something to its logical conclusion and an inability to apply a consistent standard". Worthless.

    "Bigotry" LOL. Now that is truly funny. You think that it's wrong for the grown men to marry children in the middle east and in some Muslim countries. Does that make you a bigot?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why is pointing out your bigotry funny?

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's funny because you ignore your own bigotry - that is if you are consistent in your definition of "bigotry".

    ReplyDelete
  25. You can't define "bigot" any better than you can "faith".

    ReplyDelete
  26. OK, let’s assume I’m bigoted against Middle Eastern Pedophiles.  Great.  What does that say about your bigotry against same-sex adults in consenting relationships?   Right, nothing!
     
    Now, my bigotry against Middle Eastern Pedophiles is at least partially rational in that I hold the “western average standard age of consent” to be a determining factor in my bigotry. 
     
    What drives your bigotry?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Let's use Merriam Webster. Granted, that makes my disapproval of Middle Eastern pedophiles more of a prejudice than bigoty, but you are still a bigot...

    ReplyDelete
  28. No under your assertion that I am a "bigot" you are also a "bigot"

    Definition of BIGOT
    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot/bigot

    So How have I shown or written one iota of hatred towards homosexuals? Or prejudices at all?!

    Telling a man he can't marry a minor, is not being prejudice. Is it a prejudice to tell a person he can't steal another person's car? No. Same thing. IT is not hate or prejudice to say that we should not change the definition of marriage.

    You don't know what "prejudice", "faith", "hatred", or "bigotry" are. You said you taught yourself English. It shows.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No under your assertion that…
     
    No, I am not devoted to my own opinion and prejudice on this matter.  However, I am as confident as it’s possible to be in this regard that you cannot be convinced that homosexuality is not a “sin”.  Can you conceive of a situation where you could be?
     
    You should try to remember that “hate” or “bigotry” will not always be obvious to the person who is suffering from it.  I would maintain that your world view causes you exhibit hate and bigotry in a manner that you see as perfectly normal. 
     
    You don’t know what…
     
    You should know these comments go mostly unread.  Continue with pointless comments like this, as you definitely need the practice typing. 

    ReplyDelete
  30. No, I am not devoted to my own opinion and prejudice on this matter.

    So you mean that there are circumstances that you think that sex with a minor is a good thing? I don't.

    However, I am as confident as it’s possible to be in this regard that you cannot be convinced that homosexuality is not a “sin”. Can you conceive of a situation where you could be?

    Am I able to be convinced that stealing and Adultery are not sins? What about you are stealing and adultery wrong? Can you be convinced that they are correct behaviors? Homosexuality is not any worse sin lying, stealing, or any other sin that the Bible condemns. They all lead to death and hell. Your "reasoning" is pointless.

    You should know these comments go mostly unread.

    Even if you are right, so what? You read them!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I can conceive of situations where stealing and adultery would be “correct behaviors”, I can conceive of a situation where fidelity or not stealing or being totally honest would not be a “correct behavior”.  It all depends on the situation.
     
    You read them
     
    Not usually.  I can usually tell within a couple words if it’s just going to be posturing…

    ReplyDelete
  32. I can conceive of situations where stealing and adultery would be “correct behaviors”, I can conceive of a situation where fidelity or not stealing or being totally honest would not be a “correct behavior”. It all depends on the situation.

    Spoken like a true reprobate sinner.

    I can usually tell within a couple words if it’s just going to be posturing…

    Most of what you write is posturing. I know because I read your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I suppose if a Nazi asked you directly if there were Juden under the floorboards, you'd have to answer "Yes".

    ReplyDelete
  34. So you do read my comments. There wouldn't be Jews underneath my floor boards because being a black person means I'd have to be hiding with them. Besides how often would one in Western Culture really be in such a situation today. Now you said that there was situations where adultery would be a good thing, like what, Mr Reprobate Sinner

    ReplyDelete
  35. So you do read my comments

    Wow... of course I read some of your comments. The ones I quickly identify as pointless posturing, like this, You don't know what "prejudice", "faith", "hatred", or "bigotry" are. You said you taught yourself English. It shows. I skip.

    Now, way to totally miss the point. I honestly haven't figure out if you are simply obtuse or dishonest (or both).

    I suppose if, in some scenerio, you were hiding [members of a hypothetical oppressed minority] from the [hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority who intend to kill all members of the hypothetical oppressed minority] under your floorboards and a [hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority who intend to kill all members of the hypothetical oppressed minority] asked you directly if there were [members of a hypothetical oppressed minority] under your floorboards , you'd have to answer "Yes".

    Is that spelled out enough for your limited or dishonest brain?

    ReplyDelete
  36. But you said you taught yourself English and you have not been able to demonstrate that you actually know how to correctly apply those terms. I am not the one posturing. you are.

    As for the hypothetical scenario you are trying to sucker me into, I already answered. I have never in my whole life has telling a lie actually was benefit to anyone. but in the context of the scenario it is just like the hebrew midwives in Egypt and Rahab and the Spies and I doubt you will find yourself in such a situation.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have never in my whole life has telling a lie actually was benefit to anyone.

    What? In English please...

    I doubt you will find yourself in such a situation.

    This doesn't answer the question. 68 years ago, Miep and Jan Gies found themselves in just that situation, but that's not the point, it's a hypothetical!

    However, since the Gies' found themselves in that exact situation, do you think they sinned by "lying"?

    And I'm not sure you would want to put Anne Franke in the same catagory as spies... But hey, who know!?

    ReplyDelete
  40. And do you honestly read Joshue 2 with a straight face? "“I know that the Lord has given you the land...". Right!!! Of course!!! Not tribal propaganda at all...

    You are (possibly) smarter than this.

    ReplyDelete
  41. you smart? Naw. I never said that no one has ever been in such a situation. I said that I doubt you or I would ever find ourselves in the same context. And, yes, they lied, but like Rahab and Hebrew midwives I would hesitate to call it sin; as for the historicity of Joshua 2 you can't prove it didn't happen. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And, yes, they lied, but like Rahab and Hebrew midwives I would hesitate to call it sin;

    So you are a moral relativist. Good to know.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well we can add "moral relativism" , and sin to the list of terms you do not understand. I was real careful in how I phrased that. The reason why it would not be a sin is because you would be trying to protect a life rather than further your own ends. I have NEVER been in such a situation where lying would serve God's purposes and not me. The absolute moral imperative id to serve God's purpose. none of the Biblical examples were conmended for lying but for obeying and honoring God. Not that a reprobate sinner such as you would understand.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The reason why it would not be a sin is because you would be trying to protect a life rather than further your own ends.

    No duh. But you'd still be lying (or do you not understand that term?). It's situation, i.e. "relative"...

    Nice try though.

    I was real careful in how I phrased that.

    You are never real careful in how you phrase anything. Just FYI.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So you are a mind reader? So you show you don't read minds any better than you read what the Bible says. Really sad. the bottom line is that lying is never condoned nor prescribed in the Bible. No relativity there. Sure would like to see your argument for when adultery is the right thing to do - which according to you is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  46. the bottom line is that lying is never condoned nor prescribed in the Bible.

    Can you conceive of a situation where lying is the "correct behavior"? Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No, "correct behavior" is not the term I would use. Lying is never righteous. But in the case of preserving someone else's life it's the right thing to do in that narrow type of situation. Lying is sin.

    You didn't answer my question: Can you conceive of a situation where adultery is the "correct behavior"? Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  48. So the Geis' committed a "sin" by lying to the Nazis, although it was "the right thing to do".

    How is that not moral relativism???

    Rather than try to untangle this mess you've created in your brain, isn't it easier to just recognize that "sin" in a metaphysical or supernatural sense, doesn't exist?

    You didn't answer my question: Can you conceive of a situation where adultery is the "correct behavior"? Yes or no.

    See my comment where I said "I can conceive of situations where stealing and adultery would be “correct behaviors..."

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rather than try to untangle this mess you've created in your brain, isn't it easier to just recognize that "sin" in a metaphysical or supernatural sense, doesn't exist?

    No it isn't easier because in a world where the normal thing to do is against what God's standards you'd expect that there is issue. It isn't moral relativism because I'm not saying that God would be pleased with lying - even if you did it to protect someone else. He is however pleased by us trying to protect others. Like the Hebrew midwives who lied to pharaoh or Rahab lying to protect the spies - there is no commendation for the lies only that they trusted God. God's standard did not change.

    See my comment where I said "I can conceive of situations where stealing and adultery would be “correct behaviors..."

    You did not give a single example where adultery is "correct behavior". You should either concede that there are somethings that are wrong in any circumstances - sin. Or come up with why it's okay for you to commit adultery.

    ReplyDelete
  50. t isn't moral relativism because I'm not saying that God would be pleased with lying - even if you did it to protect someone else. He is however pleased by us trying to protect others.

    God would be simulatiously pleased and displeased? You know this how?

    You did not give a single example where adultery is "correct behavior".

    I didn't, you'll note you were asking me a yes/no question.

    But yes, I would imagine that there could be (has probably been many times) a situation where one party was not upholding it's responsiblity in a marriage, dialogue was not working and divorce was somehow impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  51. God would be simulatiously pleased and displeased? You know this how?

    Exodus 1:15 - 22
    Hebrews 11:31
    John 8:43-45
    Pr 6:16-19
    Ps 101:7

    Notice that the verses against lying are named against liars - those who make it a lifestyle. I don't think Geis could be considered making lying a lifestyle.

    You can be pleased by the motives and results but not with means. Why can't God?

    But yes, I would imagine that there could be (has probably been many times) a situation where one party was not upholding it's responsiblity in a marriage, dialogue was not working and divorce was somehow impossible.

    I reject that. There is never a need for adultery.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Notice that the verses against lying are named against liars - those who make it a lifestyle

    So lying for your own gain is ok, so long as it's not habitual?

    I don't think Geis could be considered making lying a lifestyle.

    I don't know know Jan and Meip did or didn't. I didn't know them. Why do you think they didn't?

    In any case, lying in one situation is wrong and lying in another situation is not wrong. Situaltional! Relative!! Welcome to the club!!!

    I reject that.

    That's fine. I'd imagine though that many "correct behaviors" are not needed in any given situation.

    ReplyDelete
  53. So lying for your own gain is ok, so long as it's not habitual?

    No. The Midwives and Rahab lied to preserve lives - not their own. Didn't you even read those verses?

    Why do you think they didn't?

    Why assume they're liars if you don't know them.

    That's fine. I'd imagine though that many "correct behaviors" are not needed in any given situation.

    We don't know. God does. That's why you should seek God to know what is the right thing to do in a given situation.

    ReplyDelete
  54. No. The Midwives and Rahab lied to preserve lives - not their own. Didn't you even read those verses?

    Situational... relative.

    Why assume they're liars if you don't know them.

    Well, I don't. But I wanted to know why you don't think they were.

    We don't know. God does. That's why you should seek God to know what is the right thing to do in a given situation.

    Gibberish. We're done here. Summary, you are a moral relativist.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Situational... relative.

    Guess context and standards don't mean anything to you.

    Gibberish. We're done here. Summary, you are a moral relativist.

    Didn't understand that? Oh well. I'm not a moral relativist. Lying is sin. Everyone is a sinner and on the way to hell without Jesus. You are an unrepentant and reprobate sinner. Now we are done.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lying is sin

    So the Gies' sinned when they lied to the Nazis? Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Guess context...

    Well of course, that's the situation. That's what makes the ethics realtive to the situation... realtive...

    ReplyDelete
  58. The were sinners before they lied to the Nazis. Good thing God is in control and decides how he judges things like lying to Nazis in order to save lives. ALL of us are sinners! The point you seem to be missing is that everyone of us need the savior. One/several good deeds doesn't balance the scale against the evil we do. The difference between you and a born-again Christian is not that the Christian is no longer a sinner and better than you - its that now he/she repented and you haven't - thereby being judged according to Jesus' righteousness and not their own. Your sins still count against you and they outweigh the few good things you do. The good news is that a good and righteous God judges us. The question is if you are going to get what you deserve or the gift you have been rejecting.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The were sinners before they lied to the Nazis.

    Sure, in your theology, but that's irrelevant to the question that you are desperately avoiding, which is when the Gies' lied to the Nazis, was that specific act a "sin"? Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Exactly my point: It is relevant. The reason you want to know if the Geis' lie to the Nazis was a sin is because you want to know if it counts against them on Judgment Day making them deserving of hell. My point is you, me, they, and the Nazis deserve to go to hell. The lie didn't make them worthy of heaven and it did ensure that they are going to hell. Only your personal relationship with Jesus determines that. God used the Geis' actions to save lives and that is the only thing I am qualified to judge. Instead of worrying about Geis' sins you should be worried about your own.

    ReplyDelete
  61. When the Gies' lied to the Nazis, was that specific act a "sin"? Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I would like for the Theist to at least attempt to answer Ryan Anderson's question.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I already answered the question. The issue here is that Ryan is setting a trap. If I say that the Gies did not sin in lying to the Nazis he gets to opine that my moral standards as relative. If I say that their lie was a sin, he gets to attack me for being either a liar or out of touch with reality.

    I still stick to my answer. It isn't that my standards are absolute. God's standards are absolute and what God says that they are. In the situation that Gies found themselves in I don't really know what I would do. I know what I would like to do. I am not comfortable judging them and I would rather stick to God's judgement whatever it may be. It is not a "yes" or "no"
    question. There is a lot packed into it. So what would I like to do in the given situation? If Nazis came to my home looking for Jews or Homosexuals or anyone whom they consider undesireable, I would be within my rights to just kill them to protect my guest. No need to lie. They want violence, I say give it to them.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I already answered the question.

    You really didn't. Either lying is always a sin, or it is not always a sin, or it isn't a sin at all.

    I would be within my rights to just kill them to protect my guest.

    Good luck with that, it would likely have the opposite effect you desire, especially if your hypothetical situation is analogous to the Geis'.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You really didn't. Either lying is always a sin, or it is not always a sin, or it isn't a sin at all.

    No, I did. You just didn't like the answer.

    Good luck with that, it would likely have the opposite effect you desire, especially if your hypothetical situation is analogous to the Geis'.

    Best I got. I can never be in the Geis' situation because the Nazis would have been coming to take me and family along with any Jews I'd be hiding.I'm black. If I'd just let them take us, we'd all be murdered. If I fought at least some, if not all, would make it. Nazis were just men. And it's not like they sent an army house to house looking for people to roundup and send to house. Secret evacuation and blowing up the house is another option.

    ReplyDelete
  66. You just didn't like the answer.

    Hahahaha, yeah your answer was don't worry about the Geis' and find Jebus.

    That doesn't exactly address the question.

    Best I got.

    Are you saying here that you view a suicidal blaze of glory not only causing your death but the discover and deaths of those you are hiding to be a better option and than telling a simple lie? It's fine if you are, I just want to be clear.

    I can never be in the Geis' situation because the Nazis would have been coming to take me and family along with any Jews I'd be hiding.I'm black

    Wow, remember the part where I replaced "Nazi" with "hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority who intend to kill all members of the hypothetical oppressed minority"?

    Secret evacuation and blowing up the house is another option.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA, the lengths you will go to to not answer a simple question.

    Let's try again. Is it a "sin" to lie if it would save the life of [members of a hypothetical oppressed minority] who you are hiding under your floorboards from the [hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority who intend to kill all members of the hypothetical oppressed minority, but have no problem with african americans]?

    ReplyDelete
  67. And yes, you are a chicken. It's only a "trap" if you don't have a good answer...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hahahaha, yeah your answer was don't worry about the Geis' and find Jebus.

    What are you going to do about your lies?


    Wow, remember the part where I replaced "Nazi" with "hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority who intend to kill all members of the hypothetical oppressed minority"?


    You keep talking about the Geis so Nazis stay on the table.

    Are you saying here that you view a suicidal blaze of glory not only causing your death but the discover and deaths of those you are hiding to be a better option and than telling a simple lie? It's fine if you are, I just want to be clear.

    Lies aren't simple. It does violence also to the liar. Trust me if I took the option to fight, the people I'd be protecting would not have to worry about being discovered. Your not having a backbone means you probably could not conceive of that. And if I fail, they're dead anyway. As for me there are things much worse than dying, like you are going to discover if you don't get right with God.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA, the lengths you will go to to not answer a simple question.

    As least I would not have to lie. The agents of the "hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority" coming to murder the innocent would be going with the house.

    Let's try again. Is it a "sin" to lie if it would save the life of [members of a hypothetical oppressed minority] who you are hiding under your floorboards from the [hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority who intend to kill all members of the hypothetical oppressed minority, but have no problem with african americans]?

    Hypothetical situation is moot if you kill the "hypothetical oppressive and murderous majority who intend to kill all members of the hypothetical oppressed minority" who are in your house that you have determined to protect. I think the fact that you would rather lie that fight shows just how cowardly you really are!!! So you are an unrepentant, unregenerate, reprobate, and sinning coward. Don't take it too hard. God loves you anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lies aren't simple. It does violence also to the liar.

    FINALLY!!! So you are saying the Geis' did wrong? Yes or no.

    Trust me if I took the option to fight, the people I'd be protecting would not have to worry about being discovered.

    OK, tough guy, sure, but in this hypothetical, you are 100% sure to be gunned down along with those you are hiding. Or you could say you are not hiding anyone. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I think the fact that you would rather lie that fight shows just how cowardly you really are!!!

    This shows how truly stupid you are. So being called a coward by you doesn't bother me in the least.

    ReplyDelete

  71. FINALLY!!! So you are saying the Geis' did wrong? Yes or no.


    Are you saying the Geis were liars? I thought that you did not want to bring up nazis and were talking about another hypothetical situation.

    OK, tough guy, sure, but in this hypothetical, you are 100% sure to be gunned down along with those you are hiding. Or you could say you are not hiding anyone. Thoughts?

    I reject that. I know if I do what God tells me to do, everything will work out for the best, even If I am killed.

    This shows how truly stupid you are. So being called a coward by you doesn't bother me in the least.

    You forgot that I called you an unrepentant, reprobate, sinning coward. I know it doesn't matter to you any more than being called "stupid" by an idiot such as yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Are you saying the Geis were liars?

    I am saying there is a document instance where they lied. Was that instance a "sin"?

    I reject that.

    You can't reject a hypothetical situation. Unless you are simply unwilling to participate, which it seems you are, except for the fact that you have a need to respond to each post, even if only with non-answers.

    You forgot that I called you an unrepentant, reprobate, sinning

    I didn't forget, but I skipped them since they are meaningless terms.

    So, back to the question. Is lying always a sin?

    ReplyDelete
  73. I am saying there is a document instance where they lied. Was that instance a "sin"?

    We are all sinners. Check with God to see how he judged the actions of what they did.


    You can't reject a hypothetical situation. Unless you are simply unwilling to participate, which it seems you are, except for the fact that you have a need to respond to each post, even if only with non-answers.


    You keep trying to change the scenario. If you think I'm providing non-answers why you keep changing the scenario? Simple: you have nothing.

    I didn't forget, but I skipped them since they are meaningless terms.

    Translations: You have no idea what they mean. But you are the coward.

    So, back to the question. Is lying always a sin?

    Exodus 20:18;Matthew 19:18; Psalms 101:7

    ReplyDelete
  74. Check with God to see how he judged the actions of what they did.

    That's fine, except for all the other times (always) that you presume to know what your hypothetical deity thinks.

    Exodus 20:18;Matthew 19:18; Psalms 101:7

    So, in your own words, the answer is yes, the Geis' sinned by protecting the Franks?

    ReplyDelete
  75. That's fine, except for all the other times (always) that you presume to know what your hypothetical deity thinks

    Says the fool who fails (always failed) to listen. (Psalms 14:1)

    So, in your own words, the answer is yes, the Geis' sinned by protecting the Franks?

    No, not my words. God's Word. And if you think that is what those verses mean you have confirmed my suspicions about your lack of intelligence and reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  76. And if you think that is what those verses mean you have confirmed my suspicions about your lack of intelligence and reading comprehension.

    How about you drop the charade and answer in your own words as plainly as possible for poor dumb me.

    You are trying so hard to avoid doing so that it's become comic...

    Also, I think you typed the wrong verse for Exodus 20:18, unless people being afraid of a mountain somehow applies to this topic in your fevered head somehow. Did you mean Exodus 20:16 by chance?

    In any case, if you did, that (and Matthew 19:18 and Psalms 101:7) would seeem to indicate that lying is always a sin, unless there is a spin you'd like to add?

    ReplyDelete
  77. You are dumb. The scripture is clear enough if you can read. guess you can't. I did indeed mean Ex 20:16. I made a mistake. What is the excuse for your ignorance and stupidity? The Bible is always correct even if you do not like it.

    But you could learn a lot from Exodus 20:18. You could learn some respect for God like those people had.

    ReplyDelete
  78. So, back to the question. In your own word, a simple yes or no, is lying always a "sin"?

    ReplyDelete
  79. The scriptures tell you. I gave you references you can start from.

    ReplyDelete