Not a Real Christian, etc.

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
I didn't start the thread to debate homosexuality again. I used to be a fundamentalist - it was prayer and study that led me away from a position condeming homosexuality. It was my strong sense of obligation to God and my call that led me to publically support GLBT Christians. It's very unlikely that you're going to change my mind there.

God never leads anyone to disobey his word. You did not change your position from prayer and study. You did not change it out of obligation to God.

1 - Jesus did clearly address the social issues of the day (not to the extent that Dominic Crossan might argue - but he still did). He did not address homosexuality, and even Paul only mentioned it in passing.

Jesus and the apostles did not address the social issues in terms of giving a mandate for the church, Joshua. You should know your Bible better than that. He addressed the spiritual needs of people and the focus of the church is primarily on the spiritual needs of people.

2 - Even Paul did not confuse his own words with the words of God. They do represent the authoritative tradition of the Christian Church, but they are not the words of God.

You pride yourself on being scholarly and then make the most unscholarly statements possible. Paul wrote under the inspiration of God. God breathed out the words that Paul wrote. He constantly affirms this. Your words only show a lack of rudimentary knowledge and acceptance of bibliology.

3 - Jesus himself told the rich man that his wealth would keep (Mark 10:21-23) him from inheriting eternal life.

Right, because he showed that his riches were too important to him to follow Christ in faith.

4 - I agree that we should work to bring all of our desires into obedience to Jesus. However, the way to bring homosexual desire into obedience is the same as with heterosexual desire: by limiting it to a monogamous, committed relationship.

This is simply disobedience to Scripture. You condone what Scripture condemns. That is not the position of a "thinking Baptist." You submit the mandates of Scripture to your own mind. That is far from scholarly and educated. That is spiritual suicide.

As much as I have talked with you, you ever cease to amaze me with how far out of the orthodoxy of biblical Christianity your positions are. For all of your kindness, you do not show any sensitivity to the words of God in Scripture. That is disappointing for the cornerstone of Baptist thought has always been the authority of the word and rejection of tradition. Oh that Baptists would return to that and abandon this way.

Scott is certianly right on this one. There are other sins that we should be equally strong with, calling for repentance. Joking, derision, and humiliation is not the biblical approach. Consistent loving admonition from God's word is the proper approach.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Larry,

- Good, faithful Christians have felt led in opposite directions on many different controversial issues. The apostles, for instance, were led to teach in direct contradiction to the Law - an issue that created some discord among them. I may be wrong, but it is not for lack of study and prayer.

- Jesus did, clearly, address the social as well as the spiritual issues of his time. As I'm certain you realize, the social gospel/spiritual gospel debate is one that is heavily prooftexted on both sides; and we're not likely to resolve it here. The short answer, I believe, is to recognize that Christians have both temporal and eternal obligations; and the the life of Jesus bears both out.

- My words do not demonstrate a lack of knowledge, just a disagreement with your premise. Neither ancient Jews nor early Christians demonstrated a belief in a single, divinely authored canon of writings (see Lee McDonald's The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon for a baptist treatment of the subject). Recognizing that the Bible is our authority on the Christian identity is not inherently synonymous with claiming that it was written verbatim by God.

- Isn't the traditional reading of this text that wealth itself is an imediment to Christian faithfulness?

- It is strongly debatable whether or not the Bible condemns monogamous, reciprocal relationships between same-sex couples. Again, this debate is like many, many others in the history of the Church where sincere believers have wrestled with the interpretation and application of Scripture.

The disagreement itself in no way invalidates the salvation or faith of the parties involved.

Joshua

P.S. You wrote, "Consistent loving admonition from God's word is the proper approach." You demonstrate this well, albeit perhaps with a little hyberbole.

 

[Ruth]

This message may be a little off-topic, but there is something that I wish for everyone here to consider.

I know that feelings on both sides of this issue run very strong; I am no exception. But what is glaringly obvious to me is the public attitude of those on both sides - it is not difficult at all to see those who state their views with love. And I believe that if you read the Bible carefully, you will NEVER see Satan adopting this attitude; he always appeals to our baser emotions. We see this, too, on this board - envy, hatred, spite, arrogance - it is all here.

I do not believe everything that Rev. Joshua believes - nor do I believe everything that Pastor Larry does! But these two men are, to me, shining examples of Christ at work in someone's life. Both have a genuine love and caring for others that shows in everything they say - the world cannot help but see that Christ lives in them.

As for everything else, I guess we will find out in heaven who is right! And I am sure that I will see both of these men there.

Ruth

 

[LadyEagle]

I used to be a fundamentalist

Josh,

the old SheEagle just lost a few tail feathers on that statement!

 

[Michael Estes]

Scripture rings true in you for you hear and see but are deaf nd blind to God's word. We are not unaware, Joshua, of Satan's tactics. And by your fruit you are made known to us. 1Corinthians 6:9,10 states,"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." The basis for this comes from the Law (Leviticus 19:22). Romans 1:32 states,"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things [sexual immorality among others] desreve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." The Biblical punishment for homosexuality is death, both physically as well as spiritually. The practicing homosexuals in your congregation are guilty of sinning against God. But, I'll tell you, the greater sin is yours for you condone the practice. You are the bad shepherd who leads his flock astray. Homosexuality is wickedness. The Bible says so. Try this one out,"...you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral...With such a man do not even eat"(1Cor5:11). And again a few verses later,"Expel the wicked man from among you." You have perverted the clear laws of God to suit your own foolish desires. Yours is the greater sin than of those practicing homosexuals within your congregation, for although they are commiting a sin bad enough to keep them out of Paradise, but you lead them there with your lies and perversion of the Holy Scriptures. "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness" (2Cor11:14,15). Haven't you read that those of us who minister in the name of Jesus will be judged more harshly? And again that the saints will judge the world as well as the fallen angels? Turn away from your wickedness while there is yet time: for the door is closing. Read 2Peter2(all). 1Timothy states,"If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing." We know that Satan comes to lie, steal, and destroy. By your false testimony of the Gospel of Christ, not only have you lied to your congregation, but to youself as well. You have also stolen their salvation from them by your false teachings. And you are working out their eternal destruction for them, as well as for yourself. It's not hard to see who you really work for. ---Evangelist Mike Estes

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by SheEagle9/11:
Josh,

the old SheEagle just lost a few tail feathers on that statement!

SheEagle, I thougth you knew that part of my personal history. I was actually baptized by Charles F. Stanley himself.

Joshua

 

[just-want-peace]

ScottEmerson:

Why do we single out homosexuality?

ScottEmerson:

Note that I am not saying that homosexuality isn't a sin. What I am saying is that there are many, many sins that pastors do not touch upon as much as homosexuality, even when those sins are reight there in front of his face.

Do you see the adulterers, thieves, gossipers, liars etc. claiming special rights? Do you see any of the aforementioned pushing for special legislation for their life-style? Do you see any of these claiming that their SIN is special, and therefore should be accepted by society? Do you see any of these proclaimng that God's word is wrong in it's condemnation of same, in spite of VERY SPECIFIC teachings against them? Do you see alcoholics continuing to get drunk, and the mainstream churches affirming that action because they "were born that way"? Do you see ANY OTHER SPECIFIC SIN that is trying so desperately to get public acceptance by all/any means possible? Is any other group (specific sin practioners) having their own parades, theme days (A'la Disney), national orginazitions etc, etc etc ad nasuem???

And people have the gaul to ask why THIS sin is singled out!!

I have snakes in my yard, but as long as they stay outside, and don't try to move in with me, I let them be. I don't like them, and don't ever plan to become too buddy-buddy with them, so as long as they don't bother me, I will leave them alone!

Not a perfect anology for sure, but it underscores my point that if the queers just did what they do, IN PRIVATE, without trying to make me accept their lifestyle, You would never hear anything publicly from me, and I suspect 95% of the rest of the Christian community.

However as we all know, they refuse to be private, and are constantly grasping for public approval.

I personally feel that we are now seeing this prophecy being fulfilled!!

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
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;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
Do you see the adulterers, thieves, gossipers, liars etc. claiming special rights?

As far as the adulterers, gossips, and liars - they already have rights. Why, they can come to church, claim they are Christians, and continue to do so! The "rights" issue is a red herring.

Do you see any of the aforementioned pushing for special legislation for their life-style?

We, as a society already give implicit "okay's" for adultery, premarital sex, gossiping, and lying. Homosexuality is just like any other sin.

Do you see any of these claiming that their SIN is special, and therefore should be accepted by society?

They do not believe that their homosexuality is sin. Neither do those who are committing adultery, having premarital sex, gossiping or lying. That's just it. They DON'T know - and cannot know without the work of the Spirit in their lives.

Do you see any of these proclaimng that God's word is wrong in it's condemnation of same, in spite of VERY SPECIFIC teachings against them?

Ever talked to a Christian who is in a premarial sexual relationship? They will state the same thing.

Do you see alcoholics continuing to get drunk, and the mainstream churches affirming that action because they "were born that way"?

I've seen churches look the other way when it comes to a myriad of sins. They continue to do so, to the silence of the Scriptures.

Do you see ANY OTHER SPECIFIC SIN that is trying so desperately to get public acceptance by all/any means possible?

Because so many of the other ones ALREADY have public acceptance - like getting drunk and divorce, both of which are sins according to the Book.

Is any other group (specific sin practioners) having their own parades, theme days (A'la Disney), national orginazitions etc, etc etc ad nasuem???

You are still missing the point. THEY DON'T KNOW THEIR SIN.

And people have the gaul to ask why THIS sin is singled out!!

And I ask again, why is this sin singled out over the others? Are not the other sins also important to God? Are not the other sins abominations? Personally, I wonder why we are so concerned about the sins outside the church when so many sins are kept silent WITHIN the church.

I have snakes in my yard, but as long as they stay outside, and don't try to move in with me, I let them be. I don't like them, and don't ever plan to become too buddy-buddy with them, so as long as they don't bother me, I will leave them alone!

The difference is that God loves these snakes. He wants us to love them to.

Not a perfect anology for sure, but it underscores my point that if the queers just did what they do, IN PRIVATE, without trying to make me accept their lifestyle, You would never hear anything publicly from me, and I suspect 95% of the rest of the Christian community.

Bigotry is a nasty thing, no matter the group. It reminds me of what my great-grandfather used to say about inter-racial relationships. "If they want to do that at home, that's okay - just don't be holding hands at the mall."

However as we all know, they refuse to be private, and are constantly grasping for public approval.

75% of them are private. It's the 25% who makes the most noise.

I personally feel that we are now seeing this prophecy being fulfilled!!

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents

You're close - these passages remind me too much of the modern Christian Church.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
I was actually baptized by Charles F. Stanley himself.

He should have held you under a little longer!

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
It is strongly debatable whether or not the Bible condemns monogamous, reciprocal relationships between same-sex couples.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)

Joshua, the last time I confronted you with this verse, you detracted to point out other Leviticus passages that appeared questionable, rather than address this passage directly. But please, let this passage stand on it's own along with the following Romans passage and tell me how you have come to understand that God condones monogamous same-sex relationships.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)

I also have heard your "spin tale" on this passage, that it doesn't condemn monogamous same-sex relationships, only promiscuous homosexual activity. So let’s look at some words/phrases:

women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones: What do you suppose is the natural relations vs. the unnatural one?

men also abandoned natural relations with women: Here we have a definition of the natural, wouldn’t you agree? A man with a woman!

Men committed indecent acts with other men: Now we have a contrast comparison with natural: men with men, and it is referred to as “indecent.” Now it is here that I suppose you will suggest that this delineates between monogamous and promiscuous, but I must disagree. If it had said “A man committed indecent acts with other men,” then your point would bear consideration. But it says “Men committed indecent acts with other men.” For you to infer a one-to-many exclusivity out of this is grossly presumptuous! I believe "men . . . with . . . men" includes a one-to-many as well as many one-to-one relationships.

penalty for their perversion: Lastly, we have God’s brand on this form of sexual union (perversion), which cannot be seen to exclude monogamous homosexual relations.

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)

And finally Joshua, although I believe you when you say you yourself are straight, you approve of those who “continue to do these very things” and “who practice them.”

 

[Rev. Joshua]

John,

I really don't want to turn this into another debate on homosexuality. We've been over this plenty of times, but I'll give you the bullet version. The Leviticus passage cannot stand on it's own, it stands or falls with the whole applicability of the Law. The Romans passage is a generic, first century example of licentiousness (see the Scroggs book I've pointed you to before for a thorough treatment thereof).

Joshua

 

[just-want-peace]

As far as the adulterers, gossips, and liars - they already have rights. Why, they can come to church, claim they are Christians, and continue to do so! The "rights" issue is a red herring.

I agree that it's a red herring. The queer has the same rights as anyone else right now; so why the push for "special" rights?

We, as a society already give implicit "okay's" for adultery, premarital sex, gossiping, and lying. Homosexuality is just like any other sin.

I thought we were discussing the Christian attitude toward this abomination & why it's so focused; naturally society is OK with it, they aren't guided by biblical principals.

They do not believe that their homosexuality is sin. Neither do those who are committing adultery, having premarital sex, gossiping or lying. That's just it. They DON'T know - and cannot know without the work of the Spirit in their lives.

See answer above!

Ever talked to a Christian who is in a premarial sexual relationship? They will state the same thing.

Two wrongs don't make a right! Besides, "THIS" Christian IS NOT overtly, legally, openly trying to force my acceptance of his life-style!

I've seen churches look the other way when it comes to a myriad of sins. They continue to do so, to the silence of the Scriptures.

Again, see above. Anyway, does this attitude by some churches mean that we ignore ALL sins, just because some may be socially accceptable?

Because so many of the other ones ALREADY have public acceptance - like getting drunk and divorce, both of which are sins according to the Book.

Once more, see above!

You are still missing the point. THEY DON'T KNOW THEIR SIN.

No, you're missing the point. We're still talking about the Christian attitude, not what is "feel good, touchy-feely, pol. correct, "we've all sinned so don't judge" slop that passes for some Christian's (?) attitude today.

And I ask again, why is this sin singled out over the others? Are not the other sins also important to God? Are not the other sins abominations? Personally, I wonder why we are so concerned about the sins outside the church when so many sins are kept silent WITHIN the church.

How many sins are now in the church, has absolutely zilch to this argument. As was pointed out earlier, THIS ONE SPECIFIC sin is trying to get it's own CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION so it can be the sex equivilent of AIDS in legalities, with it's own hate protection and special consideration in society. No other sin is being pushed like this; NONE, NADA, ZILCH!! If it (they) were, it (they) would be as vhemently opposed as this abomination!!

The difference is that God loves these snakes. He wants us to love them to.

????

Bigotry is a nasty thing, no matter the group. It reminds me of what my great-grandfather used to say about inter-racial relationships. "If they want to do that at home, that's okay - just don't be holding hands at the mall."

I think I see part of our division on this. If you are considering standing against what God has revealed as SIN, as bigotry, then we have nothing else to discuss. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

75% of them are private. It's the 25% who makes the most noise.

Well, OK if the ratio is important?

You're close - these passages remind me too much of the modern Christian Church.

Bingo!! We DO agree on something!!

 

[ScottEmerson]

I think that the difference between our perspectives is that you are seeing it as a "us-vs-them," while I am seeing it more as "What does God command us to do?"

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
I agree that it's a red herring. The queer has the same rights as anyone else right now; so why the push for "special" rights?

What special rights are they asking for? It appears to me that they are asking for merely the rights that are accorded heterosexual couples. This is not the point. The question is "Why should we as Christians go to war against these sinners and not the sins that are in our own church?"

I thought we were discussing the Christian attitude toward this abomination & why it's so focused; naturally society is OK with it, they aren't guided by biblical principals.

The Christian response to unbelievers in sin is to love the unbelievers - not reject them because of their sin. You don't seem to believe that.

Two wrongs don't make a right! Besides, "THIS" Christian IS NOT overtly, legally, openly trying to force my acceptance of his life-style!

Believe it or not, but the gay community at large has already stopped caring about what Christians say. The reason is because Christians no longer carry the moral high ground in today's society.

Again, see above. Anyway, does this attitude by some churches mean that we ignore ALL sins, just because some may be socially accceptable.

It is not about ignoring sins. God doesn't ignore their sins. However, God loves them. We should too. What is happening in our churches is that we are ignoring a large percentage of sins, and spending an inordinate amount of time criticizing others. The worst part is that we deride those who sin, instead of lovingly helping them change - i.e. calling them "queers" or "baby murderers (for those who have had abortions)

No, you're missing the point. We're still talking about the Christian attitude, not what is "feel good, touchy-feely, pol. correct, "we've all sinned so don't judge" slop that passes for some Christian's (?) attitude today.

The Christian's attitude is to love. That is what Christ did, was it not? They can only change when they have experienced the love of Christ.

How many sins are now in the church, has absolutely zilch to this argument. As was pointed out earlier, THIS ONE SPECIFIC sin is trying to get it's own CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION so it can be the sex equivilent of AIDS in legalities, with it's own hate protection and special consideration in society. No other sin is being pushed like this; NONE, NADA, ZILCH!! If it (they) were, it (they) would be as vhemently opposed as this abomination!!

You're taking a legal stance. I am taking a spiritual one. That may be why we are missing the mark. From a legal perspective, honestly, I don't care much. Those laws do not affect me in anyway, although it will help two of my non-Christian friends (who are gay, but who are asking a lot of questions about Christ and my faith). Spiritually, however, our focus and concern isn't on what rights they will be accorded at all. Spiritually, our focus should be on winning lost souls to Christ. Our focus should also be on building a strong church. Sins are sins in the eyes of God, so why should we single any of them out if God doesn't?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The difference is that God loves these snakes. He wants us to love them to.

????</font>[/QUOTE]God wants us to love homosexuals, not start a crusade against them.

I think I see part of our division on this. If you are considering standing against what God has revealed as SIN, as bigotry, then we have nothing else to discuss. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

It is one thing to stand against sin. It is another to hate sinners because of their sin. That is bigotry. What does the person of Jesus Christ tell us about sinners? What did the person of Jesus Christ do with sinners? Did he take the attitude that you are taking now or the attitude that I suggest - that of love?

The only people that Jesus acted the way you are advocating for were the religious people. Perhaps we have our scathing remarks backwards nowadays.

The question is this Note thatI agree that homosexuality is sin) From a spiritual perspective,why should homosexuality be singled out in the way that so, so many Baptists are doing? Please provide appropriate Scripture, if possible.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The question is this Note thatI agree that homosexuality is sin) From a spiritual perspective,why should homosexuality be singled out in the way that so, so many Baptists are doing? Please provide appropriate Scripture, if possible.

Without getting wordy:

1. Because homosexuality has a particularly vital role in the general degradation of human society, in that the Bible sees it as a rejection of God's basic order for the human race:

Gen 1:26-28, Rom 1:24-32

2. Even though homosexuality is included in various lists of sins, all of which are heinous, it is the only sin which is claiming "rights" and is supported by "rights" organizations. I know of no "murderer's rights" leagues, or "extortioner's rights" clubs, etc.

1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:9-10

3. It may be that we will lose the culture war and will have to get along like the early church did...but that does not mean we should just surrender now and all go get our Mennonite uniforms ready...

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
The Leviticus passage cannot stand on it's own, it stands or falls with the whole applicability of the Law.

Is none of the Law applicable? Then theft and murder are good to go! The parts of the Law that are re-iterated in the NT (nine of the ten commandments, plus such things as the rules against homosexuality and fornication, etc.,), are applicable because the principles they teach have been re-applied in the NT context.

The NT is not without commands--I've been told there are around 1300 in the NT!

 

[Major B]

(hit button twice)

 

[gb93433]

Slavery was never a real theological issue. It was in actuality an economic issue. The south used slaves and the north had machinery.

I assume most know the division between the former Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists.

But homosexuality is condemned along with many other sins. Just because someone may have a tendency toward homosexuality or even gluttony does not mean it is condoned by God. All sin is sin and God abhors it.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
John,

I really don't want to turn this into another debate on homosexuality. We've been over this plenty of times, but I'll give you the bullet version. The Leviticus passage cannot stand on it's own, it stands or falls with the whole applicability of the Law. The Romans passage is a generic, first century example of licentiousness (see the Scroggs book I've pointed you to before for a thorough treatment thereof).

Joshua

"The Leviticus passage cannot stand on it's own." - That is strictly your opinion. I see no merrit to that claim. You fail to substantiate this. See Major B's comment also.

To the Romans passage you refer me to a book? I have no intention of purchasing, wasting my time reading a book by a person who obviously thinks like you do. I take that to mean you cannot defend what you believe in personally. I have provided a breakdown of the Romans passage that should be easy to respond to . . . if you have substantial claims, make them! Licentitiousness refers to immoral behavior. Romans is obviously addressing this. How/where do you bring a monogamous vs. promiscuous behavior into Romans 1? Context please!

"We've been over this plenty of times." - No, you've tap danced around it plenty of times! Answers, please!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Major B:
1. Because homosexuality has a particularly vital role in the general degradation of human society, in that the Bible sees it as a rejection of God's basic order for the human race:

Gen 1:26-28, Rom 1:24-32

Any kind of sin is a rejection of God. Neither of your passages show why homosexuality should be singled out. One may wonder why Jesus didn't rail against it if it was so vital. Homosexuality is a sin, but it is still not shown why it is somehow a "special" sin.

2. Even though homosexuality is included in various lists of sins, all of which are heinous, it is the only sin which is claiming "rights" and is supported by "rights" organizations. I know of no "murderer's rights" leagues, or "extortioner's rights" clubs, etc.

1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:9-10

That is not a spiritual reason. What about the right for women to have an abortion? It is called the NOW. What about the ACLU, which also is a league for sinners. Or the NRA? (Okay, so I'm anti-gun, too, but that is neither here nor there.)

3. It may be that we will lose the culture war and will have to get along like the early church did...but that does not mean we should just surrender now and all go get our Mennonite uniforms ready...

So do we regain the culture by separating ourselves more and pointing fingers, while we have similar heinous crimes within the church that we remain silent about? Or do we reach out to homosexuals in love as a pure church?

This isn't a war to fight by demeaning, pointing fingers, of slandering. The only way to fight is to show them the love of Christ. To do that, we cannot continue the Christian politics of the last 30 years. We must reach out to them instead

 

[HankD]

RE: "Singling out homosexuality".

Homosexuality is not "singled out" here at the BB.

Every sin that can be named has had it's turn to be condemned and/or defended here at the BB.

HankD