MennoNet.com

temporal1 wrote:This topic is about What Would Jesus Do? ...

Indeed.

temporal1 wrote:i’ll reiterate, now years ago, i began to see a distinct difference between individual human sinners, in this case, sodomites and lesbians; and non-human, wealthy, powerful political blocs.

i cannot fathom Jesus having much interest in big political blocs known for pirating laws of the land for their express interests; bullying their way into gov schools, with taxpayer funds to demand normalizing their particular sins among everyone’s children; bringing lawsuits against any not in cheerful support of their sins, commandeering corporations, meddling in every country’s politics, etc.

Let's try to take this back to Jesus. There were powerful political factions in his day - Roman armies, Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, people like tax collectors who collaborated with these groups, and less powerful out groups like Samaritans, prostitutes, lepers.

How did Jesus relate to representatives of these groups? The Centurion? Herod? Pilate? Matthew the Tax Collector? Simon the Zealot? The woman caught in adultery? If we want to know what Jesus would do, I think it helps to start with what Jesus did.

Josh wrote:Do less-acceptable death sins get a free pass here (eg unrepentant, child molesters, hateful racists, etc.?)

I don’t see many people focused on “loving their neighbours” and focused on “listening” to such people, either on the left or right.

So I’m curious why a societally-acceptable death sin such as sodomy or fornication gets a free pass. Jesus was rather upfront with sinners.

Important point.

However, and I may just be quibbling about words, "sodomy" is a poor name for homosexuality, although it does have a history in the English language that way. It comes from the city of Sodom. The Bible is clear on the sin of Sodom:

[bible]Ez 16,49[/bible]

The attempted homosexual rape of the angels was after God had determined to destroy the city. This certainly does confirm its iniquity, but was not the determining factor.

Page 3

.. The really bad turn was the formation and growth of this Almighty Political Bloc.
It’s now a serious international tragedy.

Treating other humans, sinners, enemies, with respect and Christian love is important.

Financially supporting, voting for, the Almighty Political Bloc, no.
i don’t believe this is something “Jesus Would Do.”

Humans, sinners, enemies, have souls (important to Jesus Christ).
Political blocs do not have souls.

temporal1 wrote:Page 3

.. The really bad turn was the formation and growth of this Almighty Political Bloc.
It’s now a serious international tragedy.

Treating other humans, sinners, enemies, with respect and Christian love is important.

Financially supporting, voting for, the Almighty Political Bloc, no.
i don’t believe this is something “Jesus Would Do.”

Humans, sinners, enemies, have souls (important to Jesus Christ).
Political blocs do not have souls.

I agree with that.

But surely Rome was an Almighty Political Bloc, and so were several of the other groups I mentioned. I think Jesus was living in a world just as complicated and messy as ours. That gives us a lot to look at when we ask what Jesus would do in our world.

Bootstrap wrote:

temporal1 wrote:Page 3

.. The really bad turn was the formation and growth of this Almighty Political Bloc.
It’s now a serious international tragedy.

Treating other humans, sinners, enemies, with respect and Christian love is important.

Financially supporting, voting for, the Almighty Political Bloc, no.
i don’t believe this is something “Jesus Would Do.”

Humans, sinners, enemies, have souls (important to Jesus Christ).
Political blocs do not have souls.

I agree with that.

But surely Rome was an Almighty Political Bloc, and so were several of the other groups I mentioned. I think Jesus was living in a world just as complicated and messy as ours. That gives us a lot to look at when we ask what Jesus would do in our world.

Other than souls, what was Jesus interested in?
Even in Rome, an empire, even on the Cross, Jesus was here for souls. Wherever He found them.
He left the responsibility of converting souls.

This particular political bloc is laser-focused on normalizing egregious sin. No variation.
It’s harming lots of people. Jesus was protective of children and the innocent, without exception.
The bloc has no soul.

i appreciate everything HK posts on it. great wisdom for Christians.

JimFoxvog wrote: However, and I may just be quibbling about words, "sodomy" is a poor name for homosexuality, although it does have a history in the English language that way. It comes from the city of Sodom. The Bible is clear on the sin of Sodom:

[bible]Ez 16,49[/bible]

The attempted homosexual rape of the angels was after God had determined to destroy the city. This certainly does confirm its iniquity, but was not the determining factor.

Why stop at verse 49? Verse 50 continues:

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

I think we know what the abomination was.

temporal1 wrote:This particular political bloc is laser-focused on normalizing egregious sin. No variation. It’s harming lots of people. Jesus was protective of children and the innocent, without exception. The block has no soul.

I think that this is the opposite of what Dan Cathay modeled in the original post.

As a liberal, I would find it threatening if you really believed I was part of some sort of soulless, faceless political block. It’s a really dehumanizing position.

Szdfan wrote:

temporal1 wrote:This particular political bloc is laser-focused on normalizing egregious sin. No variation. It’s harming lots of people. Jesus was protective of children and the innocent, without exception. The block has no soul.

I think that this is the opposite of what Dan Cathay modeled in the original post.

As a liberal, I would find it threatening if you really believed I was part of some sort of soulless, faceless political block. It’s a really dehumanizing position.

hmm. i do not see it like this, at all.
i’ll try to explain.

Christians have a responsibility to share Truth. The Gospel.
i believe Jesus was profound in His ways of doing this, He role modeled this as a remarkable gift for us to help us after He returned to His Father.

In my view, knowing i am a soul He wants, is miraculous. It’s joyful.
He’s not interested in my house. He wants me. My soul, my heart, my mind.

A house has no soul. Neither do unions, federations; secular groups do not have souls.
It’s not possible. How could it be possible?

Members have souls, supporters have souls, every one of them should understand, they do have souls, and Jesus wants them. To me, this is The Most Beautiful Thing. The Good News.

i cannot control whatever threatens you. With Jesus, you can.
If you belong to any secular group, i won’t say that’s wrong, or forbidden,
but, it’s not what Jesus is interested in.

You deserve to know, Jesus wants you in eternity, not any secular voting/power bloc.

Find a way to tell your friends, and enemies (or, in Jesus’ order, tell your enemies, and friends).
They deserve to know. That’s the job Christians have.

i’m not opposed to Dan Cathy’s words, as far as i’m aware, CFA has been falsely accused for years, and they’ve been persecuted for it. i believe CFA has been fair to their employees and customers.
In this last year, they’ve been deliberately damaged in San Antonio, in England, and elsewhere.

i object to voting for and financial support of a political bloc with the single purpose of promoting egregious sin “throughout the world.”
i see no scenario in which Jesus would do this.

Christians are to spread The (Authentically) Good News” throughout the world.
Not sin. Not secular political blocs.

On a personal level, from your posts, i believe you are human. sincere, misled.

RZehr wrote:

JimFoxvog wrote: However, and I may just be quibbling about words, "sodomy" is a poor name for homosexuality, although it does have a history in the English language that way. It comes from the city of Sodom. The Bible is clear on the sin of Sodom:

[bible]Ez 16,49[/bible]

The attempted homosexual rape of the angels was after God had determined to destroy the city. This certainly does confirm its iniquity, but was not the determining factor.

Why stop at verse 49? Verse 50 continues:

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

I think we know what the abomination was.

Both verses matter, of course. We don't have to choose just one.

Szdfan wrote:

temporal1 wrote:This particular political bloc is laser-focused on normalizing egregious sin. No variation. It’s harming lots of people. Jesus was protective of children and the innocent, without exception. The block has no soul.

I think that this is the opposite of what Dan Cathay modeled in the original post.

As a liberal, I would find it threatening if you really believed I was part of some sort of soulless, faceless political block. It’s a really dehumanizing position.

Romans 1 is fairly clear about those who not only practice immorality, but encourage others to do so as well. That’s the “bloc” that I see. I agree with you tho that it’s not soulless or faceless.

It’s unfortunate you’ve chosen to be part of that bloc. I hope the words of Jude, Hebrews, Romans, 1 John, and 2 Peter eventually lead you out of darkness and back into the light, as they did me, and some of my friends.