Matt Shepard v Jesse Dirkhising

That's just silly. Who is to say that he would not have accepted Jesus Christ 5 years later? If only someone would have reached out to the guy instead of killed him, his place in eternity may be different.

To take it to the sublime, can you really see him writhing in Hell, saying, "Wow! Thanks for not letting me live longer God! I can only imagine how bad it would be if I had lived a few years longer!" Seriously... </font>[/QUOTE]shepard is not captain of his own destiny, and more time here on earth is irrelevant, i see no biblical example that those who die in their sins may have had a chance to be saved had they lived longer. shepard no doubt will receive justice from Gods judgment who knows it is not impossible that mathew shepard called upon the Lord in his remaining consciousness, but it is highly doubtful that he did. it is not good that he is considered the poster child of up coming hate crime laws that i believe will be most punitive to true Christians. as time goes on i see the liberal religionist defending more of the politically correct liberals views and standing against the real Christians. the politically correct liberals will love their so called liberal christians (religionist) who will affirm their making real Christians strange and consider them evil.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

Only Calvinists would agree with this statement.

Maybe he did. We just do not know.

The only way that hate crime legislation becomes punitive for Christians is if they are the ones committing the crimes. If they are, then they should be punished.

Only if the Christians are doing something outside Christianity.

And what does that have to do with hate crime legislation?

 

Maybe he did. We just do not know. like i said but most likely he didnt

The only way that hate crime legislation becomes punitive for Christians is if they are the ones committing the crimes. If they are, then they should be punished. you will be with the world against Chrisians when they will be punishing Christians on how they preach against sin.

Only if the Christians are doing something outside Christianity. the world knows nothing of what true Christianity is. do you?

And what does that have to do with hate crime legislation? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]it has everything to do with it sense the world is against Christians

 

will the world be fair?

if hate crime legislation goes full circle can we Christians expect fairness?

CHICAGO, November 21, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A homosexual teen stabbed a
middle-aged devout Catholic woman to death, apparently after she suggested that he try to change his sexual orientation.

many liberal religionist believe the system will do just fine. i know that Christians will be marked and they will be targets for persecution, liberal religionist will soothe the worlds view and justify their actions to pick out Christians as being hateful.

 

Scott I found most of your post to be extremely pointless and desperate attempt at refuting my arguements that mostly just wasted forum space. Therefore I choose to respond only to a few points which seem pertinent.

And that illustrates my arguement perfectly Scott. Common sense would tell you that the chances are much higher that you could run afoul of such circumstances at such an hour when most people are at home in bed (where they should be)and the park could be frequented by individulas who are doing things that they don't want people seeing them do in the daylight hours. It seems that you are trying to cop all responsibility for your actions by saying that you have the right to enter into any situation regardless of risk and then when something happens its someone elses fault. I stand a greater chance of getting in a fight at the local bar than I do at the grocery store and if I stay out of bars then the chances are much less that those circumstances will happen to me.

The difference is that one person needs the automobile to function in their daily lives. The person who is base jumping is doing it for kicks and as such placing themselves in an unecessary high risk situation.

It is not irrelevant as it is an example of the reckless and irresponsible way Mathew conducted his life. Again you are trying to shirk responsibility. You did'nt happen to work damage control for the Clinton administration did you?

If that just person was murdered by a random act of cowardice such as a break-in or mugging then we blame the perpetrator. If that same "just" person is murdered because they placed themselves in a comprimising situation and I'm sorry if we disagree here but I believe that Mathew did, then they are, in part, to blame. You seem to be saying that Mathew had the right to conduct his lifestyle as recklessly as he wanted and should be absolved of all responsibility for the actions that ensued.

Item 1. If Mathew had not been in the bar, where a disproportionate number of less savory people tend to congregate, then he would probably still be alive.

Item 2. If Mathew had not irresponsibly conducted his personal life and sought out sex with any Tom, Dick, and Harry (no pun intended)that would consent to it, he would probably still be alive today.

I still can't piece togather your philosophy concerning blame.

 

I am not sure how 3:00 p.m. is such a time as you describe. Where do you live?

It's not about risk - it's about responsibility.

Ad hominem, but I'll let it pass. You are bringing AIDS into a discussion out of the blue. That's a red herring.

Very good.

But what you consider a compromising position in this case is not one that leads to being tortured and murdered, and that is where your case falls. A homosexual hitting on another male is not something that commonly (or even rarely) leads to being tortured and murdered. That's where your argument falls.

Should he be absolved of the responsibility of being tortured and murdered? Yes. The blame should fall completely and squarely on the attackers. If you deny that previous statement, then you are saying that Matthew somehow deserved what he got, even in just a little way. You take 100% of the blame off of the people who made a conscious choice to torture and murder Matthew.

Let us take your argument to its logical extension: X gets hit by a drunk driver on the way to work. If X did not leave to go to work in his car (instead staying home), he would probably still be alive. Therefore, it is X's fault that he died. That's just silly.

Let's make it simple. The act of choosing to torture and murder someone falls squarely upon the perpetrator. 100%. To say that Matthew was to blame in this situation makes a mockery of that sinful choice - to kill another human being.

 

Sorry Scott, but I misread the time as A.M.

So where does personal responsibility actually fit into your worldview Scott? Apparently nowhere.

How is it a red herring when the situation I described was used to illustrate the lack of self control on Mathew's part which I still contend played a part in this situation? Regardless of your opinions - character counts.

Mathew led a deviant lifestyle and conducted himself in a reckless manner. When you lead such a lifestyle in such manner you open yourself up to the opportunity that you will meet a higher proportion of deviant people who are much more likely to do things to you that violate the typical mores of society as their warped worldview usually lacks various moral constraints. MAthew's situation illustrates my point.

I never said that Mathew deserved what he got. Mathew's murderers did deserve what they got and even worse. But I will say that Mathew's lifestyle in the end leads to emminent destruction (both physical and spiritual)and that lifestyle played a part in his demise.

Your whole sad defense is completely silly Scott. You are making light of the context in which the situation exists. Lets expand uon the logical extension:

A: X gets hit by a drunk driver on the way to work. If X did not leave to go to work in his car (instead staying home), he would probably still be alive.

B: X goes to a swinging cowboy bar, gets in a fight and is stabbed. He bleeds to death before emergency crews arrive on the scene. If X chose to go to the theater to see a movie instead of a place where lots of attitude is flying around, thus fostering an environment where such hostilities can occur, then X would probably still be alive.

C: X solicites the services of a prostitute and when he goes to the motel an accomplice of the hooker who is hiding in the bathroom robs him and beats him to death. If X would have tried a less risky and more responsible method of dealing with his desires, such as making friends in a good church and developing normal relationships that would satisfy his need for companinship then X would probably still be alive.

Anyone who can't see the difference between the first example and the two latter cannot be helped.

 

Hey, you...."sodomite whore," let me tell you about my Lord. Let me share with you how much he loves you, Fag...

Somehow, I don't think you would reach him for Christ with that approach....what do you think?

 

How about we share the love of Jesus and how HE changed OUR lives and then let God do the cleaning up?

Our previous preacher liked to say...'You catch 'em, HE'LL clean 'em!'

Diane Tavegia

 

Well said, Diane.

 

I absolutely agree ByGrace. But there is a caveat in this situation and that is the impasse created by the gay community's demand for unconditional and universal acceptence of their lifestyles. The gay lifestyle will never be compatible with the worldview and mores of born again, believing, Christians who are set free and washed clean by Christs blood sacrifice. And yes, Diane we should love gay people as Christians we are called to love all God's children, but as a parent and myself a child of parents I know from experience that loving a person does not mean telling them what they always want to hear. Gay people do not want to hear that what they are doing is wrong because that in itself is a condemnation and to accept that would be acknowledgement of a resonsibility on their part. Thats a big problem nowadays as evidenced by Scott E's attempt to claim that no one is responsible for anything bad that happens to them. Well the Bible that I read supports my belief in the passage that states ......as you sow so shall you reap. Or in other words if you are engaging in immorality and irresponsibility, don't be surprised if you recieve like results in your endeavors. And yes sometimes the reults can seem unfair and pretty harsh, but keep in mind that someday God is going to let loose with his wrath on the unbelieving world and if you think some things seem unfair now...wow baby are you in for a shocker. At the point where I and everyone I know became a born again Christian we all basically had to do the same thing. We got down on our hands and knees and confessed our sin and asked God to forgive us. The big problem I see with the gay community is just that - pride and rebellion. They wont admit that they are leading a sinful lifestyle in open defiance of scriptureal teachings. And if they do allude to the fact that it is wrong they claim that they can't help the way that they are (sound familiar "My wife gave me the fruit and I ate it" - passing the buck.) None of us can help the fact that we are born into sin but since Christ has already provided a way of escape, both in this life and the next, we really have no excuse now do we? God hates excuses, but he loves obedience.

[ November 03, 2003, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Xingyi Warrior ]

 

This is also not true. The personal responsibility in this case lies specifically on those who did the beating and the torturing. Why would you want to justify their sin?

AIDS is a consequence that comes with homosexual activity. We do not know about Matthew and how he chose to protect himself from AIDS. What we do know is that being tortured and killed is not a consequence that is associated with homosexuality. That is why this is different.

But how does this give him any responsibility at all over what the two people did when they tortured and murdered him? The two people who did this did so of their own volition - of their own choice. Had you or I been in that situation, we may have handled things differently, perhaps in a Christian manner. They did not. They chose to kill him. The guilt is 100% upon them. Not Matthew. Don't make the two men victims.

Matthew's lifestyle may certainly lead to physical and emotional destruction, but that comes in the form of STD's, broken hearts, and so on, and definitely leads to spiritual destruction (not because it is specifically homosexuality, but it is sin, and without Christ, ALL sin leads to destruction.) However Matthew's actions in this specific incident do not lead to his being murdered and tortured. He holds none of the blame - that blame lies squarely upon those who chose to perform the heinous act.

The difference in this case is that the scenario seems to insinuate that he instigated the fight. Getting into fights at bars often leads to the actions that result in someone getting seriously hurt. However, it is a very, very, very rare thing for someone to get into fights at swinging cowboy bars. It's the straight bars in which these fights are seen.

Had he gotten an STD in this case, he would most definitely be to blame. However, blame in this case still falls squarely upon the person who beats the man to death. It is his choice to attack the man.

Helped to do what? Be forced to see things the way that you do? Matthew Shepard was sinner, exactly like you and I were before Christ saved us. What happened that night was a tragedy, and occurred specifically because two men made the choice to torture and murder a person.

 

So you're finally admitting that there are consequences to sinful behavior? STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There may be hope for you yet.

I don't believe that anyone on this thread, including myself is flag waving for the murderers. I beleive that I said they deserved what they got and more. So tell me how is that justifying their sin?

In 1994 I spent about six moths waiting for a judgement in a civil trial that was eventually thrown out of court. What happened was that I was in a bar and I got into a fight with a guy. He started it. I had practiced Xingyichuan internal kung fu for 13 years and.. well, lets just say I could defend myself if I had to. When he realized that he was on the losing end he whipped out a knife and tried to disembowel me. I deflected his hand and struck him near his heart very hard. The problem was that he quit breathing. There was a paramedic on hand and she was able to resucitate him so by the time the cops and ambulence arrived he was ok. He was arrested and I didn't press charges. But I was sued by him over the incident. A few days later my father gave me some sound advice that I have never forgotten to this day. He said: Son, why don't you try staying out of bars and places where things like this can and do happen and you might avoid a situation like this in the future where you might not be as lucky. You know what? I took his advice to heart and to this day I have not had another knife pulled on me or been in a fight.

As I mentioned in the post above, it is wriiten in God's word " ...as you sow so shall you reap".

Through his life and actions, Mathew glorified fornication, homosexual sin, and lewdness. Any person who leads a similar lifestyle or any lifestyle based on unrepentant sin is open to the curse of the law as they refuse to accept Christ's pardon through his sacrifice. Some will recieve more consequences, some less. The measure of mercy in that situation is met by God himself and will never be fully understood by us in this life, as also why some of those same bad things happen to good people. The difference is that the Christian covered by the blood of Christ will go to heaven and the sinner to hell.

And what kind of experience do you have to make this claim?

You're habit of passing the buck is becoming more infantile. What kind of excuses for the sin in their lives are people justified in making before Almighty God when he sentences them to a fate worse than death (depart from me for I never knew you)? Does the responsibility for their sentence rest solely on God because he has chosen to send them to hell?

No helped to see that we are stewards of our lives and wether saved or not, are responsible for conducting them in a productive manner if we want to live productively and have positive results from our pursuits. Mathew did not deserve to die the way he did, lets just leave it at that. If I swim in the Florida everglades it would be ironic for me to blame the alligator that chomped my leg off now wouldn't it. But not according to you, I mean come on... no dismemberment is not the normal outcome of a person going swimming is it? It boils down to common sense and that "four letter word" that you keep dodging - responsibility. Not much more I can say that has not already been said.

 

Oh, that's sarcasm, right? I've never denied that there are consequences to sinful behaviour. However, in this case, a natural consequence of what Matthew did is NOT death. That's the crux of the argument.

Because you are making the claim that the primary reason Matthew is dead is because he hit on two guys. That's the cause of all of this.

And looking back, were you just sitting there, minding your own business and this guy comes and begins hitting you?

And had you continued to go to bars, you may still not have been in a fight.

All who do not know Jesus Christ glorify sin in their actions. It is not just homosexuality that does that.

Anyone who does not know Christ is open to the curse of the law as they refuse to accept Christ's pardon through his sacrifice. Why single out homosexuality? Do you think it is worse than other sins in God's eyes?

And why did Matthew face judgment in this area? We know that God allowed happen what happened. Matthre faced more consequences not because of his behaviour, but because of the actions of the torturers and murderers.

Unlike many people on this board, I have several homosexual friends and ahve also studied homosexual research as needed for masters and doctoral work. From their testimonies (and research confirms it), homosexuals tend to be less violent than heterosexual males. And have you ever seen anything in the newspaper about fights or murders that happen at gay bars? I never have. I've seen a great deal of newspaper stories about fights and murders in straight bars, though.

The wages of sin is eternal death. This I'm not denying, nor ever have I denied it. They choose to sin, and a natural consequence of that is Hell. That's the difference - it is a natural consequence. A natural consequence of going to a bar is not that you get killed. A free being has to do something for that to happen. A natural consequence of having relations with a hooker is not that someone comes out kills you and takes your stuff. A person with free choices has to do something for these things to happen.

You have no argument from me there. However, we must also realize that the only people responsible for Matthew's torture were those who did the torturing. Matthew cannot be held culpable for the actions of others. Being killed is not a natural consequence of what he did, whether it was sinful or not. And that is the moral of the story.

A natural consequence of swimming with alligators is that your limb may get cut off.

It's about consequence. What is natural and what is not. That's the crux.

 

Not a natural consequece but a consequence nontheless. Just as dieing in an automobile accident is, statistically speaking, not a natural consequence of driving to the store to buy groceries. What is at issue here is weight of the circumstances in each given situation. You have a greater chance of being injured driving in a demolition derby than you do driving to the store to buy some bread. IN comparison Mathew's sexuallly deviant lifestyle and the reckless manner in which he conducted it opened the door for what ensued.

Mathew's murderers are suffering the consequences for their sinful choices of murdering him by serving life in prison. Mathew's consequence for living sinfully in such a flagrant manner is that he is dead. You can debate the issue of wether it is fair or not till you are blue in the face but it really doesn't matter one way or another.

As a matter of fact yes I was. The guy was drunk and he was trying to impress his buddies and the skanky woman who accompaied him. He kept claiming that I had been passing rumors about him that weren't true. I had never seen this guy before in my life. My friends and I moved to the other side of the bar and I tried to keep an eye out for him but he snuck up on me and doused my head with a stien of beer. When I whirled around his fist was swinging in a circular motion aimed right at my face. I blocked it, and the rest you already know about.

I seriously doubt your assertion that had I continued frequenting bars that I could have stayed clean as it was not my first altercation in a bar. I was in many before I committed my life to Christ and stopped going to such places. Attitude flies around pretty freely in there. The significant factor in this arguement is that there is a marked relationship between my stopping frequency of those places and the lack of incidents that occured. If you stick your hand into the hornets' nest then dont be surprised when you get stung. You seem to advocate when that sort of thing happens that the hornets are to blame.

No but consequences are sometimes meted in proportion to the behavioral aspects of the sins we committ. It is written that he who lives by the sword also will die by the sword. A habitual murderer will more likely suffer the fate of such. Now Mathew was not a habitual murderer, far from it, but his immoral acts in the way he led his life were met with immoral and sinful ends. In the bible when the children of Israel strayed from Gods laws they were punished by God allowing them to be susceptible to foreign invasions, plagues, etc... People died and were murdered in such judgements which were meted out by God the father. So you want to tell me that in light of such an example that an Isrealite who died at the hands of raiding invaders wether Phillistine, Ammorite, or Persion were innocent or their fates? I beleive that God tells us otherwise. You can philosophically debate this all you want but your judgement of percieved fairness and mine is subjective. God is the final authority.

Because the sin of homosexuality is the primary issue we are discussing here pertaining to the situation, not adultry, lieing, coveteousness etc...

Thats the million dollar question and one that has troubled anyone who has lost someone to circumatances percieved to be unfair. I'm not God, you should be asking him.

So now we're getting to the crux of the matter aren't we. I sensed an emotional bond somewhere in your rhetoric but I figured that sooner or later you'd draw the wild card if given enough opportunity. I have many friends who have done things that are sinful and they know that I do not approve of their actions. If your stance is truly Christian and you convey your convictions to them in your relations with them and in the way you generally live your life (which Christ gave us a mandate to), I'd wager that they probably won't be friends for long. I've been in the company and aquaintence of many gays as well.

But the frequency of that consequence is greater at the bar than it is in other places where sin is not so openly celerated and embraced. The person with free choice to sleep with a hooker made a choice to make himself vulnerable to a person of bankrupt morals. You're saying that he's got a "get out of jail free card" with respect to responsibility? Please.

We are at a philosophical impasse that is not going to be resolved by further bickering. Lets just agree to disagree.

Very good.

So hanging out in less savory places and mingling with immoral people do not have naturally bad consequences? You've got some moral philosophy Scott.

 

I'm not disagreeing. I could walk outside and have a piece of a space station fall on my head, killing me. Is this a natural consequence of walking outside? Nope.

The choice to torture and kill another person is the ONLY thing that opened the door for what ensued. How far back should we place the blame? Perhaps it is Matthew's parents fault for not punishing him when he was younger. Perhaps it is another person who did not share the gospel. Let's blame anyone except for the person who did the murdering shall we?

but the way in which he died is not a natural consequence of his behavior. Sound like a broken record yet?

So you could have just blocked it and walked away? Why did you choose to continue to attack? Sounds like a choice that would lead to being attacked back.

And someone came up and just picked a fight on you every time? Wow.

Which is interesting that it happens so less frequently in gay bars, but that's neither here nor there.

If you were minding your own business and someone came up and punched you for no reason, how is that your fault?

God allowed these things to happen, but I don't "blame" God for these things, do you? Are you saying that what happened to Matthew was an example of divine punishment? Do these things happen after the cross?

I think that God allowed it to happen. I don't think that God randomly picked out Matthew to exact judgement upon while 50 milllion homosexuals make it scot-free. God allowed the sin of the two men to exist - the result of that choice was the death of Matthew Shepard.

I would hope that we as Christians would have an emotional bond with all of the lost people - that we would sympathize and empathize with them, and work to bring them to repentance. I could be wrong here, but I don't think so. Jesus Christ sure seemed to have an emotional bond with all of the sinners that he dealt with.

But do you count them as friends? Mine know my standing on the issue of homosexuality. I know what they believe as well. Did you know there is a difference between letting people know your beliefs about things and judging them? Did you know that if you spend time with "sinners," they are much more likely to be open to what you have to say if they see that you love them - even while you are letting them know of their sin - than if you just let them know of their sin. I've never had a gay person say that I was judgemental that I know of, and I have never counted as my friend a gay person who did not know where I stood on the issue of homosezuality.

But statistically insignificant.

Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the result of him getting killed is 100% the fauly of the person who killed him.

Very well.

Well, because he did, Jesus got killed. But it wasn't the people He hung out with who killed Him. It was the religious people. There's a parallel for ya, huh?

 

Hee hee hee! Haven't been in too many fights have ya? It's not always that easy and if you don't think so then lets get together sometime and I'll show you firsthand just how easy it is to walk away from someone that is bent on causing you physical harm at all costs (evidenced by the eventual introduction of the knife in my encounter).

There are an estimated 10,000,000 filesharers worldwide who daily log onto any one of several online programs and illegally download music. Now the RIAA has issued somewhere in the range of 900 subpoenas laeding toward the prosecution of those individuals implicated. 900 subpoenas against 10,000,000 file sharers and an estimated 4,000,000 living here in America. So by those numbers you could make the claim that being prosecuted for copyright infringement by downloading music files is not a natural conmsequence of that form of sinful activity (breaking the law) since it will never happen to most people who do it. But is it the RIAA's fault if you are one of the unlucky individuals who gets one of the dreaded letters? News flash! God has proclaimed that immoral, sinful activity can be hazardous to your heath (physical and spiritual).

Sorry to break it to you Scott, but life isn't always fair and is full of unintended consequences. You see thats a direct result of man's original sin in the garden when A&E disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. Or wait a minute......was it their fault? It could have been the serpent's you know sounds kind of like an unfair situation to me. Come on how far back do you want to take this? Anyway you can argue your unwavering beliefs to God someday when you two finally meet. A hint - wether you're right or wrong at that moment, what you think will be irrelevent.

Not every time but at a greater frequency than when I am in Church(never) or over a a friends house fellowshipping with good people(never) I know and trust or anywhere else God would reccomend that a person go and spend their time instead of places where sinful people abound.

You're right and honestly I don't know why that got brought up in the first place.

If you don't tread through snake infested hollows - the chances of you getting bitten are much less. And don't play near the behive if you don't want to get stung. God warns us to flee from the very appearence of sin not for his benefit but for our own well being (both physical and spiritual).

Nope I blame the murderers (as you do) and Mathew for not conducting his life in a more responsible manner. Every bad thing that happens to any of us is a form of divine punishment since we live in a fallen, corrupted world that we are the original authors of. OR wait...maybe it's not our fault........... sorry I'll go with the Bible on this one. Mathew was a sinner who championed perversion and immorality in the openly sinful way he conducted himself. He lived a sinful life and that life was met with sinful ends, pretty harsh ones. Solomon encouraged the "youth " to eat, drink, and enjoy the revelry of youth but also warned that there would come a payday. Some get it worse than others. But like I said before, if you are looking for fairness in this life you're in for a big dissapointment. Case closed.

Yes he did, but Christ came to this world to bring sinners to repentence - not to turn a blind eye to their sins. And he didn't conduct his ministry in a feel good manner, he stepped on lots of toes. People didn't flock to Jesus because "he was cool with tthem and they were cool with him" or "Jesus is just alright with me". He offered them salvation from their sinful lifestyles that culminated in eternal damnation and seperation from God for eternity. It was his way or the highway - straight to hell.

Yes they are still my friends but I do not condone or take part in any activity that is promting that sin and if they continue in a manner that shows me that they are uninterested in resolving the matter the way God teaches us to, them they can call me but I wont call them. I have had a few friends actually come to a conviction of their ways by my mere desire not to be around them when they conducted themselves in such a manner. Let me ask you how many of your friends who are gay have given up their lifestyles and got down on their knees and repented? I would hope that eventaually all of them would. Because if they don't then regardless of your ideas Scott,of fair vs. unfair ALL of your gay friends are going to hell. I want to be a friend as much as anyone but being a friend as you said means loving a person and how can you say that you love someone and stand idly aside while they self destruct? Listen, if my rejection of that way of life and my unwavering denunciation of sin in general (and if its done right then its eventually going to offend some, more than not)coupled with my prayers for those people eventually leads to their brokeness before God and salvation... then by God, let me offend the whole world because I'd much rather head into the afterlife knowing that I'd done all that I could rather than have the burden of knowing my friends were burning in hell because I didn't want to hurt their feelings.

No it's not.

Jesus wasn't hitting on guys and drinking booze. The Christian lifestyle is obviously creating some conflicts for you in your current state. But in the end, just remember it's his way or the highway. And you can argue that with him.

 

Examine his rhetoric carefully. Whose toes does he step on? That of the religious people. Ask people like Zaccheus, the woman caught in adultery, the invalid at Bethesda, or the woman at the well and ask them what Christ did for them and how He did it. When they saw the love of Christ, they realized what they needed to do. That was the conviction that was needed. In fact, one can argue that he was the only one among the religious people who wasn't condemning people (John 8:11).

Jesus was popular because he met the needs of the people. He had Truth. He met their physical needs. He met their spiritual needs. I can't see one instance where Jesus told the general population, "It's my way of the highway" in so many words. The only people in which he acted that way towards was the religious population.

Two of them. But they got saved first. They could not be set free from their sin without the Spirit in their life first.

Because to stand to the side would mean to avoid them all together and not engage them at all. Loving someone goes much farther than letting them know how evil they are.

Again, I use the illustrations provided by Christ to examine how a witnessing relationship should go. By living a life above reproach and by loving them, I can be Christlike in the way I interact with a non-believing world.

There is no conflict at all. I just do my best to follow the example set by Christ. And I get on the case of the religious people in the Church who act like the Pharisees.

 

Hi Diane,

I agree, but it's kinda hard sharing the love of Jesus when you're calling someone a "sodomite whore."

God will do the cleaining, I agree with that also....too bad some Christians expect the "cleaning" to happen first....

 

Jesus didn't come to moralize the uncoverted - He came to convert the immoral.