homosexual invasion

Please do not associate me with Jerry Falwell, even if by accident. I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible to take a position on the Baptist Board and maintain the integrity of that position.

 

JohnV,
You seem to be trying to make the point that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. Who said it was? I see an instance in the bible where two cities are destroyed due to this sin inparticular. You are right that all sin is bad in God's eyes.

However enough is said about this particular perversion to keep it off my favorite sin list.

You would not bar practising, unrepentant homosexuals from joining your church because all have sinned? More power to you. I do believe as Paul states in Rom. 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; that these people are unsaved if unrepentant. God as with any sin will turn us over to it.

But He says it about homosexuality. Let em join your church if you want. We will continue to welcome them to visit. But no membership if openly living in sin.

 

I'll have to read the articles later, Gene, but I know God calls people into specific ministries to reach Mormons, homosexuals, and so on. But for most of us it would seem we should approach the homosexual like any other sinner. Love them, pray for them, etc., etc..

It helps if the Mormon or JW cares deeply for Truth, and it helps if the homosexual is sincerely seeking God and wants to repent of his sin, I suppose. But I wouldn't want to restrict the Holy Spirit to any particular circumstance - what do you think?

 

Honestly, nobody seeks God at all according to both the Psalms and Romans. Nobody cares for truth. They may want peace of mind, but they do not want peace with God. They may want all the benefits of being around God and hanging out with God, but they do not want God Himself. If they are seeking God, then it is because God is working. That said, this does not mean we should not reach out to them. I am simply stating that the homosexual won't stop to listen to the usual diatribe because s/he has been "programmed" by a rather large arsenal, has a community of people behind them, and so forth. Biblically, they are certainly committing idolatry. (Granted, however, ALL sin is idolatry), but as, I think, when you read the articles, it becomes very apparent that this is particularly true of homosexuality.

The problem that I see in most Christians approach is this "I don't want or need to understand" homosexuals in order to reach out to them. Would we say that about Jews? Muslims? Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Just because God calls people into specific ministries to reach Mormons, do apologetics, and so forth, that does not mean the rest of us get to check our knowledge of Mormonism at the door. One does not need to understand all the intricacies of Mormonism to reach out to a Mormon, but one won't get too far without being able to interact with them and their beliefs, thoughts, and feelings in a meaningful manner. We are, like Ezekiel, to present the message of redemption completely and universally, even if nobody listens, even if God saves nobody, since only He changes the heart so that they believe. However, the gospel is not a bludgeon. It, like the Lord Himself, is a scandalon. If they reject it, they stumble themselves, but we are are not to use the scandalon to throw rocks.

We are reaching out to real people with real beliefs and real feelings and we do have a testimony to maintain ourselves. Our Lord called people vipers and did not hold back from pointing out the sins of others. However, He did so in a manner that showed He actually cared for their souls, even when He called them obstinate and told them that they could not hear Him. He also interacted with them and their beliefs. It is one thing to be called "unloving" because you genuinely preach redemption and, in the process, honestly stand up for holiness and the depravity of man while in the process you actually treat the person like a real person. It is another to simply spout the gospel at people without knowing a thing about them or any interaction with them. Doing that much goes a long way.

 

Gene, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I think that is largely true of the culture today, homosexual or otherwise, particularly people under 40.

I believe a Christian should be prepared to witness to anyone and should have a working knowledge of apologetics in general, and specific knowledge as God leads and creates opportunities. At the same time, I think He will use the simple witness of an obedient Christian who is full of the Word. For me, I am working on some specific discernment and apologetic fields, as well as dealing with the issues and philosophies that come from having 4 nieces and nephews in the Atlanta area public schools, homosexuality being one of them. Indoctrinating children with godless philosophies seems to have high priority here.

I agree. But we have a responsibility to defend ourselves and particularly our children, spiritually and intellectually, against those who aggressively proliferate homosexuality, whether organized or on a case by case basis. Do you agree? By the way, what is a 'scandalon'?

Well, any effective witness, it seems to me, must be presented in a loving and caring manner and that means 'understanding' what is going on in the lives of those to whom we witness. I would also say you don't have to know anything about somebody to love (agape) them. Our society has been taught that 'feeling' - how you feel, how you make others feel, how others make you feel, etc.,etc., is what's important in life, not principles of right and wrong, and certainly not sin and righteousness. And it's very unfortunate, IMO, and satanically inspired. To be guided by the feelings of our fallen nature is detriment enough to the human condition without putting stark emphasis on it, as the pop psychology culture does. The ironic thing, I suspect, is the masses who have bought into this will one day find out their 'goodness, consideration, kindness, gentleness, etc., etc.,' was really phony after all, the heart of man being as deceitful as it is. Anyway, the point of this is Christians should share God's love with sinners, regardless of what their primary sins are. And I would think God's love is different than the perceived 'love' of the world. But we have to deal with people as they are today, that's the battlefield God has placed us on. To know and understand how people think would seem to be more important than understanding their particular sin. Thoughts?

 

Well said, IveyLeaguer. May I inquire of your Alma Mater?

 

posted by GeneMBridges

If that teaching was in was in the Bible I would glady support it but sense it is not I have to respectfully question it's origins.

Sorry...

your servant
fishnbread

 

QUOTE
Why do we only promote understanding and compassion toward homosexuals, we don't do it for murderers, rapists, or liers, I condem all the sin.
UNQUOTE

Actually, some of us do work to understand and compassion for murderers, rapists, or liers. For those who are released from prison, they have paid for their sins on earth. All that is left is for them to repent and stand before God in righteous judgement. One example of understanding the murder is a case where a woman killed her husband. Not that we condone murder in any case, I have seen clients who have fought back in self defense or to defend a child go into criminal court procedings. The message we send is that you must either escape or accept the domestic abuse. So, when someone goes to jail for defending themselves, I must help to acclimate them back into a society not so quick to forgive. Rapists, when returned to society, may or may not continue to be a risk. However, working with them and helping to acclimate them back into society, at some level, reduces their excuse to reoffend. "I wasn't loved enough. No one cares about me, why should I care about them." and other statements can be muted. Doesn't mean that you invite them home for dinner. In any case, some of these people have families to return to and others do not. With regard to people who leave the homosexual lifestyle, we must "love" them as anyone else! Agape is not just something that God thought up one day for a few, but for all. I can even introduce you to a man who has left the pornography industry and is now in ministry. He can tell you tales you would never believe.

 

The Trinity as a fully articulated doctrine is not in the Bible. Do you respectfully question its origins? What about the canon of Scripture? Do you have issues with it as well? Perhaps you do not understand what Sola Scriptura really means. It does not mean the Bible in toto is our only authority for how to reach people with the gospel or treat others. Sola Scriptura means the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. What exactly have I written that is not in accordance with Scripture? What part of the articles to which I pointed you is in error biblically?

Where does Jesus not show care for the souls of those that He also accuses of sin? Where does Jesus not show familiarity with the beliefs of those to whom He preached, even the religious leaders? Paul in Acts understood enough about Greek philosophy in Athens to use it as a springboard from which to share the gospel. He did not preach the gospel to them in a vacuum. Moses and Aaron, bold as they were before Pharaoh also understood Egyptian religion and culture. Outside the Bible, men like Justin Martyr boldly stood up against the charges of cannibalism and atheism leveled against Christians and used their understanding of the Roman, Greek, and Persian religions to help the Romans understand the gospel, and yet, they did not compromise the gospel in those years.

Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The Pharisees asked, "Who is my neighbor?" Why have compassion on the homosexual? Because s/he is your neighbor. Tell me, did Jesus have compassion on Samaritans while at the same time pointing out sin? Yes, John 5 teaches that very plainly. You asked "why have compassion?" Ultimately, because Jesus said, ""Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy." The word is eleeo, it is one of the Greek words for compassion as well as mercy. Do a word study on mercy in Scripture and tell us that we should not demonstrate compassion toward homosexuals. Where does God say we should not show compassion and mercy to others? Did you get the memo that tells you who all the elect are in the homosexual community that God is going to sovereignly regenerate and save? I didn't. You'd think that, as a Calvinist, I would be on the mailing list.

Paul repeatedly says we are to be conformed to the image of Christ. Matthew writes, "Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. " The word there is Splagchnizomai, "to have compassion." Homosexuals, even though they put on a proud face, are a distressed people. They have higher than average rates of substance abuse (particularly methamphetimines), there is anecdotal evidence about lesbians possibly having higher rates of domestic violence; many have lost their families since coming out; many are HIV positive and/or have lost many close friends to AIDS, which is a painful, slow death, and they are all sheep without a shepherd. If you want to be like Jesus, sir, have compassion on them. To do less is rank disobedience. Point out their sin. share the gospel at every chance, but never lose sight of the fact of the dirty little secrets in the gay community itself. These people, no matter how much rhetoric they throw out in public, are hurting people inside. Because of this hurt, they are throwing up those walls. I know, I've been there myself.

I pointed to several articles. You need to read them. I myself am a stauch Calvinist who believes regeneration precedes faith and that man is wholly incapable of understanding spiritual things for himself apart from the grace of God drawing Him to Christ. I take "apart from me you can do nothing" literally, but no Calvinist I know would dare witness to a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or a Jew without understanding a little something about their needs. I believe in God's sovereignty over individual salvation. That does not mean I disagree with Paul when he writes that he says that works hard to persuade men. God has ordained both the means and the ends.

No missionary goes to the mission field without understanding the language and customs and needs of the people to whom they are sent do they? Homosexuals are sinners like everybody else. The same gospel that saves us saves them. That is undeniable. However, they have the own language, customs, religious traditions, economic system, political ideologies, (and stereotypes about who we Christians are) too. If these people were of one ethnic group or nationality, they have all the elements that any sociologist, Christian or otherwise, would label a "culture."
You can not preach AT them (or anybody else), you must preach TO them and share the gospel WITH them. They are a mission field to themselves, just as any of these other groups.

To say that "this teaching is 'not' Scriptural" is to undermine the foundations upon which the discipline of Christian missions (missiology) rests. It is to undermine the foundation of Christian Apologetics. It removes the thought underlying even the most sound evangelism tools.

You seem to be looking at the sin and saying, "Its sexual" therefore it is like all other sexual sins and should be dealt with accordingly. Biblically, that is not true. Look at Paul's sin lists where it is included. Idolatry is right there with it. In Leviticus it is condemned, because it, like the wearing of clothes made of two fibers was a practice of the pagan religions. Romans 1 very clearly ties homosexual sin to idolatry (along with a host of other sins), but the image that Paul uses is also drawn from the pagan religious orgies of Rome, which included homosexuality. Homosexuality has always been tied to idol worship and false religion of some form. Even those that profess "progay" theology can not and do not deny the teaching of Romans and I Corinthians regarding matters of adiaphora, that to do something that might be a sin when one is unsure, is itself a sin, along with the act or attitude one is doing or omitting. They then tell homosexuals to continue anyway, thus proving what? They are idolaters. All sins stem from some form of idolatry. Idolatry need not be totem worship. That is true. However, homosexuality, when you get down to it says, "even if homosexual behavior hurts nobody, or nobody but me, even if there is only a remote possibility that the Bible, social convention, and other sources of moral authority might be correct, I will still continue in my sin." Homosexuality is directly not indirectly tied to idolatry for this reason, if no other. Murder, rape, and lying are all forms of idolatry at their core as well, but they are not celebrated as such. Homosexuality is. Therefore homosexuals clearly loosely qualify as "cult" members, e.g. persons entrenched in a social,cultural, economic, belief system with religious dimensions to it. They are population that is suited to missions and apologetics as well as simple evangelism. As I said, read the first article. It speaks DIRECTLY to that issue. How anybody could come away from that first article without understanding that homosexuals are very like those in cults is beyond me.

That's the problem. Homosexuals identify directly with their sin. They are emotionally invested in it as much as any heterosexual person identifies with their sexuality, in fact, moreso, because homosexuals have created a political, economic, social, and religious subculture based on their sexuality, whereas heterosexuals have not had that direct need. Murderers, rapists, and liars do not derive a sense of identity from their actions. They tend to divorce themselves from it. People do not proudly identify as murderers, rapists, adulterers, and thieves. People hide their lying. Homosexuals, however, do exactly the opposite. They derive their identity AS PERSONS from it. From their POV, it is indivisible. Thus when you attack homosexuality, you are attacking, from their POV, homosexuals as well. That does not justify their sin or their point of view. However, that is very important in answering the question of why we promote understanding and compassion toward homosexuals not those committing these other sins. This is also true of Mormons, JW's, Jews, etc. (Again, another common item they share). I'm not saying we should understand all the ins and outs of homosexuality, just I do not believe one needs to understand the Talmud in order to witness to a Jew. I am saying we need to understand that basic fact, because what happens is that we talk AT homosexuals and not TO them. People hate hearing they are sinners. That can be challenging enough, but hearing your cultural values and your core identity challenged is an additional challenge. There are ways to challenge it well and others not so well. The articles to which I linked deal with them very well.

Yes, absolutely, and in Atlanta, having lived there at one time, I can tell you there is a VERY LARGE organized effort against you.

Greek for "stumbling block" Jesus is called a scandalon.

Yes, absolutely, but I question how full of the Word a person is when they make no effort to do the basic things like have some working knowledge of the issues they are trying to address. It is one thing to be ignorant; it is another to refrain from seeking knowledge altogether. There are several good organizations that are conservative, evangelical groups that specifically evangelize the homosexual community and disciple those that are coming out of homosexuality. Harvest USA, run by Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia (one of the most theologically conservative churches in the nation) is one of the best. For anybody to question whether their approach is biblical, is, frankly, absurd.

I have seen less than Christian attitudes about homosexuals on this very board. People will use perjorative language referring to homosexuals without giving a second thought. I complained about it a few months ago when a member did that several times. He refused my admonishments, and Diane herself had to intercede because of it. That's sad.

Conservative Christians lost their audience with homosexuals when Dr. Falwell turned up his rhetoric on HIV/AIDS and directed it specifically at them. To this day, if a person with HIV walks into almost any conservative church they are treated strangely. Christians living with HIV experience three attitudes within the church. Sometimes they are shunned by others out of ignorance regarding HIV transmisstion itself. I know people, otherwise well educated Christian brothers and sisters in a very conservative very large Baptist church in my home town that think that you can get HIV from a swimming pool, TWENTY years since we learned how HIV is transmitted. Others pity them, as "AIDS victims." They are persons living with HIV. They don’t need special concern about their health not similarly accorded to others. Others care more about how they got HIV than the fact that they have it. Their sins were paid for at the cross. They know Christ’s forgiveness and reconciliation. Do those that are hung up on their mode of transmission know God's grace? Believing some deserve HIV and others innocent, they mistakenly apply the same idea to God’s grace. Nobody deserves God's grace, ever. Sometimes if a Christian finds out somebody is HIV positive, one of the first questions is "How did they get it." The standard answer should be, "How is HIV transmitted?" followed by "Yes, I got it one of those ways." When a person finds out he has any other disease, do we quiz them about how they got it, particularly if its been some years since diagnosis? I think not.

Having HIV can be a consequence of homosexual activity. However, HBV (which is more easily transmitted and more deadly than HIV), syphilis, pelvic inflammatory disease (which can lead to cancer in women) are far more common in heterosexuals than homosexuals. I have never heard Dr. Falwell or any other Christian minister spent as much time publicly discussing them as God's judgment on sexually immoral persons as they do HIV and homosexuality. African-American churches, which have a hard enough time dealing with sexuality issues, have responded much more effectively than we white Baptists have responded to this issue. In the town in which I live, the local HIV/AIDS Service Organization had to close last year. Over 200 people were left without case management services. NO evangelical church has stepped up to the plate to help. ONLY the theologically liberal churches have even made an attempt. This is an indictment against us, and I promise, we will answer for this before our Lord Jesus one day for it. It is a sad statement these attitudes have improved so little in the 25 years we have known about HIV.

[ January 17, 2005, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

Thanks. I didn't go to an Ivy League school except, perhaps, in the imagination of my mother. I actually went to school in the south.

 

I didn't mean any offense to you, Don. I actually went back to clarify it but it was too late.

Jerry Falwell is my brother in Christ, I guess, but I don't like him representing me as a Christian and I don't care to be associated with him except to the extent we are both saved by the same LORD. I suppose we would agree on most things but I don't know for sure because I haven't listened to him for more than 20 years. For political purposes I am much more comfortable with say, Ralph Reed, but then again I'm not completely comfortable anymore with domestic politics, unlike a great majority of my brethren.

 

posted by GeneMBridges

That was a nice speach but you still can not provide scripture that states homosexuals need special attention.

your neighbor
fishnbread

 

originally posted by GeneMBridges

I thought this was a Baptist forum meaning only Baptists can post here, is there a moderator out there that can insure the rules are properly abided and our calvinist friend here postes only on the christian thread.

your servant
fishnbread

 

Just out of curiosity, what beliefs of calvinism do you disagree with?

 

And you can not post one that says they do not, just as you can not post Scripture that delinates the exact form of church government (congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal), the doctrine of the Trinity, the contents of the Biblical canon, the actual word "Bible" for the Scriptures, the invitation system, or the sinners prayer, or the exact details of eschatology; yet we all affirm at least one form of church government, the Trinity, the 66 books of the Bible, calling it "the Holy Bible;" most Baptist churches use some form of the invitation system; every evangelism tract has some version of the sinner's prayer (whereas not one time in the New Testament does somebody actually utter such a prayer), and the exactly correct eschatology we should believe is a matter that has not been resolved in 2000 years of church history.

You will not find the words, "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, independent, or immutable" in the Bible, yet all evangelical Christians affirm these as characteristics of God. Using your logic, however, since they are not in the Bible, should we not use them? The cosmological, teleological, ontological, and transcendent arguments for the existence of God are not found in the Bible. Are they invalid? Are Christian apologetes like Norman Geisler, Matthew Slick, and James White, and others wasting their time using them when the speak to atheists and witness to them? Are these men acting in a manner contrary to Scripture? The word "incarnation" is not in the Bible, yet we know it is taught. The word "rapture" is not in the Bible, but a great many of us believe in it.

Furthermore, to say that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have clearly taught it in scripture, is also an invalid argument. In the same way to say that if homosexuals (Or Mormons, JW's, or Jews) require special treatment God would have clearly taught it in Scripture is an equally invalid argument. Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid. Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear. Take a look at the book of Revelation. It contains many things that are cryptic that must be interpreted after examining all of the Bible. Even then, there are disagreements as to what some things mean. Yet, we know that the truths there are true whether or not we discover them. Your argument seems to be built on looking for a way to excuse your behavior.

I'm still waiting for you to answer these two questions: What exactly have I written that is not in accordance with Scripture? What part of the articles to which I pointed you is in error biblically? I have actually supported my position with Scripture. You have yet to do this. That speaks volumes. Methinks your problem isn't biblical, your problem is genuine prejudice. That's sad. You asked a question. I answered you. You then said, "I question its origin, but its not in the Bible." I explained to you that it was and how it was. You then complained that I could not find an exact Scripture. As I have now pointed out, you can not point to an exact Scripture or teaching contrary to it, and you have not offered any Scriptural support for your position.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" He did not say, "Samaritans." He did not give them an exact answer. He told them a parable about need. Frankly, you seem to asking me the same question. No, there is not an exact answer to your question. Did Jesus need an exact Scripture that Samaritans were the Jews neighbors? Do we need exact Scriptures for any of the practices and beliefs that I outline above that give us a quick easy reference? Do you need an exact Scripture that tells you what church to attend, what Scripture to read in your quiet time, or how to treat or evangelize other people that are different from you?

As I posted above, Sola Scriptura does not mean the Bible is our only authority. It means it is the only INFALLIBLE authority of faith for the church, and that other authorities, be they called tradition, confession, or creed are valid fallible authorities that are subject to the Scriptures. I ask again, what have I written that is contrary to Scripture? What in the articles to which I pointed you (have you even read them?) is not biblical? If not, then why do you wish to reject what they or I have to say? On what basis do you do this, if you reject them? Saying, "because nothing in the Bible directly says so," does not wash, just as it does not wash for any of the many things we Christians believe, teach, practice, and do in our churches and evangelism, as I outlined above.

Do you really want to go there? www.founders.org . I am a Baptist, in fact, I am true to the history of the SBC's founders in my beliefs. I do not appreciate snide comments about my beliefs. I have not engaged in personal criticism, despite the presence of two egregious spelling errors in two of your posts on this matter.

[ January 17, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

Gene, again thanks for the dialogue. I've learned from it and appreciate your insight. I don't think I can add much to what I've already said, but here are a few responses:

I'm not sure it's very smart for Christians to attack the sinner or the sinner's sin, if he wants to win the sinner's trust and respect. To do so is to talk AT the sinner, I would agree. It's not smart to soften or dilute what the Word says, either, in my judgement. Certainly we should endeavor to prayerfully gain their confidence so that we can share the gospel WITH them, as you say, for that is where their deliverance (and eternal salvation) exists. I do think there is a need for missions and apologetics to homosexuals, people who understand the inner workings of the vast supportive society which you have described.

I know you weren't speaking specifically about me but after thinking about it, FWIW, I don't know that I've ever 'attacked' homosexuality, or even engaged it personally. Certainly I have never wanted to. But it has been my occasional experience over the past 40 years, out of unfortunate necessity, to have had no choice but to defend myself from its attack. And I am very much on the defensive right now against the attempted seduction, physically and intellectually, of young family members who attend public schools here.

That's certainly fair, I have no problem with that. If what I've been hearing for several years is true, pornography and other sexual sin is on the rampage among Christian men, like a cancer. I fear it is true, because I know the darker stuff has a seductive POWER, and is so readily available to anyone these days. Lord Jesus, help us. So we'll see if Falwell, for example, has the courage to preach to church members in the same manner he has preached to homosexuals in the past. Somehow, I doubt it.

I think you're being too harsh, here. First, I don't believe it's necessary to "address" the issues of the homosexual, or any other sinner, in order to help lead them to the Lord. It is the Holy Spirit that saves, and He can use anyone, regardless of their knowledge or skill level, if they will simply share the Word. "Because faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" .... I realize you're Calvinist - I'm a free will/Calvinist hybrid myself - and may disagree with that. Yet I certainly agree that God will use apologetic evangelists who specialize in homosexuality, and I pray He will raise up as many as He will. We could easily keep several thousand of them busy around here, as you know.

Yes, I'm afraid you're right.

God bless you, Gene, and thanks for your time and thoughtfulness.

[ January 18, 2005, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: IveyLeaguer ]

 

This is likely a bit too radical for some, but important none the less. As a social worker, I once had a student who did his placement for an aids outreach center. He trained men to use condoms for part of his learning experience (Not on themselves, but a display). He stated in one paper that roughly 97% failed to use them correctly. Men are not trained to use, appropriately, contraception. This, in itself, is a major battle to reduce HIV, pregnancy, etc. While I do not condone passing out condoms in school, I do acknowledge that there are non-Christians and Christians both in the colleges who will engage in sexual encounters. This includes both men and women. For those who will engage in such, it is better that they know how to use the tools that will help keep them safe.
Most importantly, they need our prayers! When was the last time you prayed for a college student you know to have strength of character and not fall into sexual immorality? We need to get on our knees!

 

Dear Fishnbread:

When did you become sinless yourself? You obviously think you are. Out of curiosity, how long has it been since you sinned? Or can you remember?

One more question for your mind so perfectly attuned to perfect truth and sinless thoughts:

Can any one be tempted to commit any sin? For example, can you be tempted to commit homosexual sin? I am not so foolish to even think that I do not sin, but I do realize there are some sins I cannot be tempted with because those sins do not appeal to me in any way, such as homosexuality. In order to be successfully tempted one must believe that some pleasure is going to be derived from the sin. So I can be tempted to commit adultery or fornication, but I am so totally heterosexual that there would be no point in any effort on Satan's part to tempt me with homosexuality. SO again I ask a question of WHAT IF. What if homosexuality as orientation is not by choice? I ask you, could you commit a heterosexual act? Are you even capable of being tempted with homosexuality? If so, you have latent homosexual tendencies. If not, consider yourself fortunate to be heterosexual not having to worry about how Christians treat you in the modern era. Do you even know any homosexuals? Have you ever even thought about talking to some of them and to ask them if they can choose heterosexuality over homosexuality?

You are the one verging on heresy here, for you challenge those of us who take Jesus very seriously when he tells us the heart of the law is compassion and mercy. Homosexuality is more complicated than just calling it an abomination and then being so quick to condemn all who suffer from it. The same book of the bible that refers to homosexuality as an abomination says the same thing about shellfish. Had any shrimp lately? The same book that condemns homosexuality as an abomination also calls for the death penalty if found guilty of committing homosexual acts. Are you in favor of rounding up all the homosexuals in America, putting them on trial, and then executing them? Bottom line is you are a sinner and I bet you've lusted after a woman not rightfully yours within the last ten days, and have therefore committed adultery in your heart. You are therefore just as guilty according to Jesus, and have committed an act of immorality the Levitical laws say desrves death.

But then you're fortunate because you obviously do not sin. Please let me know when your in town so I can stay away from you and your bag of sinner killing stones. I say again, the sin of hate is the most devestating of evils. 1 John makes it clear that those who hate do not know God and do not love God. Hate is the very antithesis of love, the very opposit of God's will revealed in Christ. And if you have not learned by now that love demands compassion, mercy, at least an effort to understand what some people are having to deal with, and not by choice, I think you've missed the whole point of the Gospel, and would be a very good 1st Century Pharasee. But you would have had some real problems with Jesus, friend of sinners.