Some Christians Never Give Up...lol

[vinnieponte]

NOW REMMEMBER EVERYONE, I'M SAYINS "SOME". THAT WAY I WONT HAVE EVERYONE FREAKING OUT AND CRYING OVER ME PUTTING CHRISTIANS IN THE TITLE.

Philadelphia Judge Clears Anti-Gay Group of Hate Crimes

2 hours, 33 minutes ago U.S. National - Reuters


By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A judge dismissed charges on Thursday against four anti-gay Christians accused of violating hate crime laws when protesting at a gay street festival, saying free speech rights allowed them to do so.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe said the four members of "Repent America" exercised their right to free speech when they refused to move away from the city's gay pride "Outfest" last October.

The protesters used bullhorns and placards to warn festival participants that they would suffer eternal damnation for their homosexual behavior. After a noisy, nonviolent confrontation with gay people, they were charged with incitement to riot, and violating a 1982 Pennsylvania law that bars inciting hatred on the basis of race, color, religion, nationality or sexuality.

"You cannot stifle free speech because you don't want to hear it," Dembe said. "Many of these messages may be repulsive and offensive but people are allowed to make them.

The right to free speech extends to neo-Nazis marching in towns where Holocaust survivors live and to the Ku Klux Klan, the judge told a packed courtroom.

The leader of the group, Michael Marcavage, 25, said after the ruling that he felt vindicated.

"It's a good thing to know that there are still some judges who respect the First Amendment," he said, adding that his group plans to protest another local gay rally on May 1.

He then quoted a passage from Leviticus saying that homosexuals "should surely be put to death." But he denied a claim by the Philadelphia Gay Pride organization that he had suggested gays should be killed.

Assistant District Attorney Charles Ehrlich said after the ruling that free speech was not the most important issue in the case. The defendants had been charged because of their disruption of the gay event and for their conduct, not because of their statements, he said. Ehrlich said he would decide within 30 days whether to appeal.

The other defendants were Dennis Green, 38, of Petersburg, Virginia; James Cruise, 53, of Richmond, Virginia; and Mark Diener, 33, of Philadelphia. Eleven protesters were initially charged but charges were dropped against six. After the ruling, charges against the remaining defendant, a 17-year-old, will be dropped, defense attorney Scott Shields said.

[FishForLunch]

Most liberals think America is evil.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Most liberals think America is evil.

I think it plays to cowardice as well.

[vinnieponte]

freedom of marriage, thats all I'm saying

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
freedom of marriage, thats all I'm saying

Freedom of civil union, what's wrong with that?

[Mavdog]

First, I want to say these two should be allowed to exercise their right of free speech, although there should be restrictions on the use of bull horns (noise) or if they urged physical atacks on homosexuals (incitement).

Civil Unions do not bestow the same rights and benefits as marriage currently does. Unless there is equality there is discrimination, civil unions do not reach the goal of equality for all Americans.

Equal rights. period. There is absolutely no justification for denying any citizens equality merely because of their sexual orientation.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
First, I want to say these two should be allowed to exercise their right of free speech, although there should be restrictions on the use of bull horns (noise) or if they urged physical atacks on homosexuals (incitement).

Civil Unions do not bestow the same rights and benefits as marriage currently does. Unless there is equality there is discrimination, civil unions do not reach the goal of equality for all Americans.

Equal rights. period. There is absolutely no justification for denying any citizens equality merely because of their sexual orientation.

Amend the laws so that marriage is a protected institution for man and wife.
Amend the laws so that civil unions bestow the same rights as marriage.

Everyone wins.

[vinnieponte]

Is it 1948? Back of the bus mentality? Different water fountains? Have we come this far just to find new classes to show prejudice and deny marriage to loving couples? Marriage should be the same across the board, not this group or that group, just 2 people united as one.

[capitalcity]

All commited loving couples should be treated equally: healthcare, tax benefits, adoption rights, etc.

With a lawfully-endowed equivalent, there is no predjudice is trying to preserve the sacred unity of Man and Woman.

Therefore we should adapt civil unions to include all the rights of marriage. Why redefine traditional marriage when there is already an institution set aside for non-traditional couples?
(edit spelling)

[Rhylan]

Alright, sick of hearing about this topic..... guess what folks.. marriage is not a right. Equal protection shouldn't apply. Benefits for married couples are inherently arbitrary, and as a result, I don't see how you can impose the 'equal rights' argument, without having to extend it to single people and polygamists!

One of the biggest arguments on the side of gay marriage is the spousal benefits argument.. which really is pretty valid in a lot of ways. I support civil unions, personally. But even so, let's say my buddy and I are both self employed.. say he's an electrician, and I'm a plumber.

Let's say my wife works for a company that provides health benefits, and he's not married. I get to insure myself based on spousal benefits from my wife's job, and he has to have a personal policy. Now, how is that fair? What if he wants to be married but women can't stand him? That is no more a choice that he can control than is the argument from gay people that they can't help who they love. My electrician buddy can't help who DOESN'T love him! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

get it?

Seems to me that the concept of benefits for married couples is neither fair nor equal.. the fact that the benefits even exist is a product of our prevailing culture.. a Judeo-Christian one, by the way.

Just an outside the box thought.

edit, 'cause I'm hooked on phonics.

[vinnieponte]

Rylan, I understand your taught process however, the issue is this: Certain people (meaning most republicans & religious types) are against any form of same sex marriage. They have their beliefs, and thats fine. But you can't pass a law barring them from marrying and being together no matter how much you hate it. Hell I hate ugly women, but you dont see me trying to pass a law saying ugly women must go to " certain clubs" and not allow them to regualr night clubs. Get it

[Usually Lurkin]

vinnie, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere.
cousins, siblings, polygamy, different species, minors,

how do you make the decision who should or should not be able to get married?

[Rhylan]

Originally posted by: vinnieponteThey have their beliefs, and thats fine. But you can't pass a law barring them from marrying and being together no matter how much you hate it.

Vinnie, my point is this - maybe you CAN pass a law restricting marriage, since it's not an inherent human right, as "proven" by my previous statements. If marriage is a right, then where's my wife?

If you go so far as to say that it's not an individual's right to be married, but it is a couple's right to get married, then I can see the logic. However, if "all committed, loving couples should be treated equally," as capitalcity said, then what prevents me and Jane from getting married.. followed soon after by me and Suzy getting married.. followed soon after by Jane and Suzy getting married. And there, my friend, you have polygamy, which is against the law, and nobody's crying for it.

So, the line has to be drawn somewhere, obviously. Even those of you who fully support gay marriage and not just civil unions are drawing a line at being in multiple marriages at one time. And that proves my point - marriage is not a human right, it is a privilege. It's a social institution that is purely cultural and/or religious in nature. The only reason marriage has any place in our government/employment/etc is because it is such a primary part of our culture and/or religion, and as such, the prevailing beliefs of our culture and/or religion will continue to legally define it.

And the prevailing beliefs of American culture say that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman. Like it or not. Again, I think we ought to allow civil unions so that gay couples can have the same institutional advantages as married couples. However, I don't expect the societal definition of "marriage" to change any time soon, because the prominence of marriage in America is rooted in our "socio-cultur-religious" beliefs, which generally do not accept same sex marriages.

[Rhylan]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkinhow do you make the decision who should or should not be able to get married?

Ideally, no one would make the decision, and our government and laws would be completely, 100% secular, and neither reference marriage nor give advantages or disadvantages to people in marriages. However, the cat is already out of the bag, and it's been out of the bag since 1776. Our government was not intended to be 100% secular, and it's impossible for our government to be 100% secular, because it's government by the people. The people will never be 100% secular, themselves. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] So, we will continue to strike a balance based on the societal norms that have grown from the fact that we are a nation built on Judeo-Christian values. It's a social fact.

And this is the crux of the Second Amendment argument.. the far left believes that the 100% secular government is acheivable, and most of the right believes in pure constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. And we all know where the religious right stands.. just do not confuse them with the average politically right-leaning person.

And as it usually is with American politics, we'll end up somewhere in the middle so both sides can continue to bitch. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
freedom of marriage, thats all I'm saying

The article has nothing at all to do with gay marriage.

But hey, whatever...

[dude1394]

Hate-crime laws are against our constitution, should be abolished. Feel-good lawmaking.

[dude1394]

Freedom of marriage(gay that is), freedom of choice (to kill children), freedom of polygamy, freedom of nambla...

Nope, no thanks.

[FishForLunch]

I have a question, I am not a christian so I would like to know why homosexuals are shunned even though there is nothing mentioned about it in the 10 Commandments.

[dude1394]

Well other than it being unnatural sexual congress, there is I believe a specific passage in the old testament.

There is nothing mentioned about beastiality in the ten commandments either. Nor racisim, slavery, etc...

[sike]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I have a question, I am not a christian so I would like to know why homosexuals are shunned even though there is nothing mentioned about it in the 10 Commandments.

though this topic has been discussed throughly elsewhere, I do want to comment that, to me, it is sad how the Christian culture (as a whole) treats homosexuals. They(We) tend to be so forgiving of other sinners's sin reaching out to help them with the saving good news of Christ...but there seems to be some kind of invisable line that keeps Christians from reaching out to homosexuals. Why should a man who cheats on his wife (a sexual sin) be more likely to receive Christ than a man or woman trapped in homosexuality (a sexual sin)? I find this hypocrisy unbearable...I have a gay relative, and there is nothing he does that makes him any more unworthy of Christ's grace than I was/am. Sinners are just that: people trapped in sin. Christ came so that those would repent and believe (though all unworthy of it) could receive salvation.

like I said, this has been discussed in great detail elsewhere....but to answer your question, FFL, "why homosexuals are shunned", they should not be...I seriously doubt anyone has ever truely come to Christ, because the Church shunned them into repentance.

[capitalcity]

NYT/Drudge

Thought this was relevant given the intersection of "true christian values" and the issue of gay marriage.

Bush taped secretly 1998...

Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.

I think it's important to note our President views/viewed at the time -
*homosexuality as sin on par with all other sin
*gay marriage as a 'special right' outside the bounds of what is an implied freedom
*overall his concern with the radical views within his religion and thus his party

It's also important to note our President was hesitant to position himself alongside Dr. James Dobson (the guy who recently led the attack on SpongeBob)... I think this shows W is seeking 'truth' in his everyday walk with Christ, not just a closeminded evangelical who digests & regurgitates the interpretations of others.

* personally i'm wondering if my mother would've changed her votes if she had known his overall motivation regarding the protection of marriage and W's true feelings about Dr. Dobson.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: sike

though this topic has been discussed throughly elsewhere, I do want to comment that, to me, it is sad how the Christian culture (as a whole) treats homosexuals. They(We) tend to be so forgiving of other sinners's sin reaching out to help them with the saving good news of Christ...but there seems to be some kind of invisable line that keeps Christians from reaching out to homosexuals. Why should a man who cheats on his wife (a sexual sin) be more likely to receive Christ than a man or woman trapped in homosexuality (a sexual sin)? I find this hypocrisy unbearable...I have a gay relative, and there is nothing he does that makes him any more unworthy of Christ's grace than I was/am. Sinners are just that: people trapped in sin. Christ came so that those would repent and believe (though all unworthy of it) could receive salvation.

like I said, this has been discussed in great detail elsewhere....but to answer your question, FFL, "why homosexuals are shunned", they should not be...I seriously doubt anyone has ever truely come to Christ, because the Church shunned them into repentance.

Actually sike, it' not the sin, it's the lack of asking for forgiveness of that sin. An adulterer would not receive christ if they continued to commit adultery and was not repentent. It's the repentence that is the diff, imo.

[sike]

you missed my point, dude. I was not speaking to a salvific point, but rather the preception of many Christians as distinguishing between the two. As if they were different sins. One (homosexuality) the being the worse of the two (in perception).

To your point: I certainly agree that a continuing of sin and lack of repentance will keep one from entering into a genuine faith relationship with Christ, that being said, it was simply not my point.

Just so you know, my personal Soteriological conviction is very Biblically conservative.

[dude1394]

Salvific (holey mackeral) [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]... Point taken....but salvific I'll have to look up.

Then you throw out soteriological..whew...you're going to me me squemish commenting... Well maybe not...

[FreshJive]

Isn't one reason because that guy offered up his daughters to those rapists who were trying to rape the angels staying in his house? I can see how someone might hear that story and think that homosexuality must be a great atrocity if you're going to toss your daughters to the raping Soddomites to prevent some male on male action from occuring. BTW I always thought that mabye they should have left that one out of the Sunday School lesson plans.

[Usually Lurkin]

Isn't there biblical precedence for turning someone out (over to Satan) when they refuse to repent? (Paul?)

aha: 1 Cor. 5:5 and 1 Tim 1:20 talk about excommunication.

I think Dude's point is valid, Sike. It's not the homosexuality per se that keeps Christians from reaching out. It's the refusal to admit that homosexuality is a sin (which is more and more common in our society). A man who cheats on his wife and repents is behaving differently (and will be treated differently by the church) than a man who cheats on his wife and says God wants him to cheat on his wife.

That's not to say that the unrepentant sinner is without hope, it's just to say that it takes a stronger Christian to witness to someone who is so entrenched in their own sin. There's just not as many Christians that are that strong. Its the same reason there aren't as many prison ministers as there are pew ministers.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Rhylan

Ideally, no one would make the decision, and our government and laws would be completely, 100% secular, and neither reference marriage nor give advantages or disadvantages to people in marriages. . . .
And as it usually is with American politics, we'll end up somewhere in the middle so both sides can continue to bitch. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

A good reply, Rhylan. I agree.
I'm still interested in Vinnie's thoughts, though. The question was directed to him, and I would like to know how he personally rationalizes the location of the line he draws.

[FreshJive]

The line is drawn there because polygamy, pedophilia, and beastiality are all naturally abusive relationships. Its really a stupid argument (the if you let gays marry what's next? argument), and the rationalization/difference is obvious.

[sike]

Usually Lurkin

I think Dude's point is valid, Sike. It's not the homosexuality per se that keeps Christians from reaching out.

oh really?

It's the refusal to admit that homosexuality is a sin (which is more and more common in our society).

I agree in ideal and common thought, but in practice, I think its usually that the idea of homosexuality makes most feel far too icky...

A man who cheats on his wife and repents is behaving differently (and will be treated differently by the church) than a man who cheats on his wife and says God wants him to cheat on his wife.

this has nothing to do with my post....good point, but an entirely different situation than I mentioned.

it's just to say that it takes a stronger Christian to witness to someone who is so entrenched in their own sin.

it does take a stronger Believer...no matter what the sin

There's just not as many Christians that are that strong.

I'd prefer to use the word "obedient"

Its the same reason there aren't as many prison ministers as there are pew ministers.

they are different callings...one is not higher than the other...prison ministry takes a special cat though to be sure

[Usually Lurkin]

sikeI agree in ideal and common thought, but in practice, I think its usually that the idea of homosexuality makes most feel far too icky...

Because it's an abnormal sexual behavior, maybe. But is it really more icky than crack addiction, or bestiality, or African missionary work, or Islam? There are people who would flat out refuse participation in any of these areas of potential ministry.

UL: A man who cheats on his wife and repents is behaving differently (and will be treated differently by the church) than a man who cheats on his wife and says God wants him to cheat on his wife.

It's not a different situation. You asked why Christians might treat homosexuality as different. I'm suggesting that homosexuality is very often confounded with an explicit choice to be homosexual. "Homosexuality" in our society is also an organized, anti-church movement with momentum. It's to the point of people saying that God wants them to be that way. Churches are built in which that sin is treated as perfectly acceptable, even a blessing. And that can be scary to confront. You find more willingness to witness when a homosexual walks into a church and says "What I've done is wrong, and I want to repent." I've seen this happen, and have never seen anyone refuse to talk to the person. On the other hand, I have seen dirty, stinking homeless people kicked out of church because no one wanted to deal with them. It's not the sin itself that scares people off. It's the attitude towards God that often accompanies that sin.

I also have a relative who is a homosexual. And there is nothing inherent in me that is more worthy of salvation than anything in him. None of my sin is less of a sin than any of his. The difference is that I repent of my sins and he does not. The bible is quite clear on which of those behaviors is more pleasing to God.

Here's my question to you (and it's an honest question): If my homosexual relative asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?

UL: There's just not as many Christians that are that strong.

or "faithful" or "mature", but the point is the same. Fewer people are willing to witness to homosexuals than are not willing. But the same is true for every difficult area of ministry.

Its the same reason there aren't as many prison ministers as there are pew ministers.

they are different callings...one is not higher than the other...prison ministry takes a special cat though to be sure

Not higher, but one is definitely easier.

[MavKikiNYC]

An interesting discussion going on here, to be sure. Not necessarily an encouraging one.

There have been some rather definite opinions expressed here about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, by posters whose religious perspectives could fairly be decribed conservative, evangelical, and/or fundamentalist.

It might be interesting (and revealing) to hear what those same posters' perpectives are on religious bigotry, religious intolerance, spiritual coercion and theological extortion. Does their understanding of Christainity allow that all of those acts would be considered sins? Does their reading of the Bible suggest that any of those acts would be sinful, or does their interpretaion of the Bible compel them to impose their religious persepctive on anyone who doesn't believe as they do, and compel all people to live as they live their own lives?

What (if anything) do C-E-Fs derive from the Bible about religious bigotry? (Siderbar: I once sat uncomfortably through a Sunday evening "Training Union" session, while one of the most educated Baptist pastors I ever knew opined that not only would Jews fail to receive salvation, but Catholics as well---this with two Catholic guests in attendance. Insensitive and misguided at best, callous and sinfully hurtful at worst.)

Would a religious bigot be required to ask forgiveness from those whom he/she had condemned unfairly in order to be forgiven?

What if a religious bigot persisted in his/her bigoted beliefs, opinions and behaviors, refusing to acknowledge the sinfulness of his/her actions, and the hurtfulness that his/her words had inflicted upon others?

What if a religious bigot not only persisted in his/her bigoted beliefs, but took scripture out of context in order to justify his/her beliefs; interpreted scripture selectively; and ignored scripture that conflicted with his/her own justification(s) for believing as he/she did?

What if a religious bigot spent more time condeming the perceived "sin" and imperfections of others, rather than trying themselves to live a more Christian, more loving, more tolerant life, and trying to improve his/her own spiritual imperfections?

And what about other Christians (of whatever sexual persuasion) who do not believe as the C-E-Fs? Do the C-E-Fs regard their acceptance of homosexuality as sinful?

And how should more thoughtful believers regard the religious bigot who smugly and superciliously spouts his/her scriptural distortions chapter- and-verse, cloaking his/her own bigoted beliefs and idiosyncratic theological persectives in a self-justifying, self-righteous (but scriptuarlly-based) maquillage of intolerance and condemnation for others?

So many questions raised.......

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Rhylan

Vinnie, my point is this - maybe you CAN pass a law restricting marriage, since it's not an inherent human right, as "proven" by my previous statements. If marriage is a right, then where's my wife?

If you go so far as to say that it's not an individual's right to be married, but it is a couple's right to get married, then I can see the logic. However, if "all committed, loving couples should be treated equally," as capitalcity said, then what prevents me and Jane from getting married.. followed soon after by me and Suzy getting married.. followed soon after by Jane and Suzy getting married. And there, my friend, you have polygamy, which is against the law, and nobody's crying for it.

So, the line has to be drawn somewhere, obviously. Even those of you who fully support gay marriage and not just civil unions are drawing a line at being in multiple marriages at one time. And that proves my point - marriage is not a human right, it is a privilege. It's a social institution that is purely cultural and/or religious in nature. The only reason marriage has any place in our government/employment/etc is because it is such a primary part of our culture and/or religion, and as such, the prevailing beliefs of our culture and/or religion will continue to legally define it.

And the prevailing beliefs of American culture say that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman. Like it or not. Again, I think we ought to allow civil unions so that gay couples can have the same institutional advantages as married couples. However, I don't expect the societal definition of "marriage" to change any time soon, because the prominence of marriage in America is rooted in our "socio-cultur-religious" beliefs, which generally do not accept same sex marriages.

Rhylan, these essays are some of the most disappointing scholarship to come out of B-CS since......well, since Rudy Woods. Are they just giving those Aggie Certificates away now?

It's almost easier to deny the existence of any "human right" altogether than it is to try to argue that "marriage" isn't among them.

And while I can't tell if you're just pulling Vinicia's chain....or whatever (always a worthwhile passtime, by the way) your example isn't refuting the right to marry---rather, the right to be insured (and facetiously, the right to a wife of your choice).

In fact, I think your whole premise has things backwards, because while some people are willing to argue that health insurance should be a civil right (or entitlement at least) as well, I don't see that many people willing to put restrictions on the rights of people to marry (and divorce), EXCEPT in the case of same-sex marriages.

The notion of human rights has been increasing and expanding over the last 230-something years, not contracting. Likewise, the institution of marriage (from a strictly legal perspective) has evolved to a far more liberal standard as to the mechanics of gaining legal recognition of a marital contract (or the dissolution thereof), EXCEPT (once again) in the case of same-sex marriages.

[Rhylan]

Kiki, all I'm really saying here is the following:

1 - marriage in America is a vastly non-secular institution
2 - recognizing marriage in our mostly secular government introduces natural conflicts, but we've already done it, so we have to draw the line somewhere
3 - because of these conditions, the line will continue to be drawn in a place that reflects the cultural and religious background of the vast majority of Americans.

I just don't think you can call something a human right when it's existence is contingent upon the behavior of another human. If marriage is a human right, then how far away are we from seeing all single women marching in the street, saying that their human rights are being infringed upon by the single men who refuse to marry them?

[Usually Lurkin]

Mavkiki-
You need to be more specific about what you mean by religious bigotry.

No self-respecting C-E-F (labels are just great) would pretend to be the judge of who gets in or out of heaven, they might only report what they read in the bible about who God lets in or out (and the bible is quite clear that acceptance of Jesus's gift is key). It would of course, but a terrible thing to misrepresent what is in the bible.

If you mean actually treating people poorly based on their religious views (like not helping them out of a hole, or tending to their wounds (spiritual or otherwise)) based on their religious views, again, no self-respecting C-E-F would pretend that that was ok. The bible is quite clear that our loving actions should apply to all.

I'd like to discuss the issues you raised, but still need to know what you mean by religious bigotry.

[sike]

UL: Because it's an abnormal sexual behavior, maybe. But is it really more icky than crack addiction, or bestiality, or African missionary work, or Islam? There are people who would flat out refuse participation in any of these areas of potential ministry.

as for beastiality (very rare in our culture....all kinds of Southern jokes come to mind [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] ), I have personally never dealt with it, but all the others I have on many occassions...Just because there may be Christians who shy away from ministry to certain other groups does not make the point about Christians treating homosexuals differently moot. You know this. All you have done, is point out other areas of possible ministry where many Christians are weak. Of course in God's eyes it no more "icky", (I assume this is a rhetorical comment) but to your average American pew-sitter, Homosexuality is a taboo sin they are not going to deal with.....they will judge it, but rarely extend a loving hand.

It's not a different situation.

To be fair to you, UL, let me explain why the situation you set up IS true, but not truely my situation. If you will go read my original post, which I'm sure you have,

Sike: Why should a man who cheats on his wife (a sexual sin) be more likely to receive Christ than a man or woman trapped in homosexuality (a sexual sin)?

My scenario treats both sinners on an equal scale of sin....neither has been said to be willing to repent, whereas in your thought, the adulterer is willing and the homosexual is not. I do find it a bit odd that you chose to attribute willingness to repent to only the adulterer and not the homosexual in your scenario. So there is an obvious difference between the two scenarios.
you have set up a strawman against me, which I'm sure was not intentional. I just found it strange that you would add to my original scenario and then comment on it like it was what I had originally said. No sweat, like I said, I think you and I are likely to agree on most, if not all, of this topic....

Here's my question to you (and it's an honest question): If my homosexual relative asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?

I can answer this by posing a question to you: If my relative who habitually cheats on his wife asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?
You'll find your anwer depending on how you answer this question. Also, I'm assuming by "repent", you have in mind the Biblical meaning of "turning away". Some use the word repent to mean simply an admission of guilt.

or "faithful" or "mature", but the point is the same. Fewer people are willing to witness to homosexuals than are not willing. But the same is true for every difficult area of ministry.

I'll agree to the word "faithfull" but not to "mature". Faithfulness has to do with one's obedience to God's word/will, maturity has to do depth of relationship and insight....Whereas one who is spiritually mature will be or have faithfullness or obedience, the less spiritually mature believer is still called to the same obedience even though they have less time spent with God.....this is really off topic though.

Not higher, but one is definitely easier.

this makes me think you are a prison Chaplin of some type...
the two are certainly different callings...I think we discredit both by saying one is harder than the other. Which is harder being a nose or an ear? Different callings in the body of Christ are just that: different. And God appoints and gifts people differently so as to meet their personal ministries. I have known several full time Prison ministers and few of them would make good pastors...the same could be said with your average pastor as a prison minister. I personally think that rightly filling the pastorate at a local church (go read the check lists in 1 Timothy and Titus) and shepherding righteously is one of the more difficult callings a man could receive.

for the most part, UL, I think we are saying the same things...

[FreshJive]

Alright, I have some questions out of curiosity: If someone is not aware that they are sinning, but are otherwise repentful Christians, do Christians believe that they are forgiven for it by God anyway? Let's say someone really believes that they are meant to be gay, and they meet a person who they believe is a blessing or gift to them from God. This person then chooses to live the rest of thier lives as a gay person in what they believe to be a fully legit and sanctioned relationship, because they interpret scripture in a different manner than how someone like UL interprets scripture. Should that person be constantly reminded by the church that their lifestyle is sinful even though it may drive them away? Couldn't the rest of the church members just agree to split hairs on that one? Why do Evangelicals care so much about this one issue as to back political legislation against it? Do they fear that these people will go to hell if they aren't reminded that they are sinning, or do they think that society will fail if the government condones sin? Which one is the basis? I truly am not trying to troll. Just trying to figure out the point of view.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: sike
to your average American pew-sitter, Homosexuality is a taboo sin they are not going to deal with.....they will judge it, but rarely extend a loving hand.

I think this is the root of our differences. It just has not been my experience. I’ve seen far less bigotry against homosexuals in church than I have in general society, say, public school or lockerrooms. Following Christ reduces this bigotry. As I mentioned, I have unfortunately seen in church the treatment of other people as too taboo to touch (sounds like a Hammer song, huh?) but not homosexuals.

My scenario treats both sinners on an equal scale of sin....neither has been said to be willing to repent, whereas in your thought, the adulterer is willing and the homosexual is not.

Then your question was a straw man. I don’t know anyone who would say that the adulterer is more likely to receive salvation if both refuse to repent (or if both do repent). I have met people who say the homosexual does not need to repent.

I do find it a bit odd that you chose to attribute willingness to repent to only the adulterer and not the homosexual in your scenario.

I thought you assumed that in your example. 1) I don’t know why else anyone would treat the two differently. And 2) it’s more common in our society for homosexuality to be treated as a repentance free behavior (there are no adulterer-activists groups, no political parallel to the log-cabin republicans, no parades, etc.)

If my relative who habitually cheats on his wife asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?

I’d say no. But I don’t know if everyone would say no. And there’s a lot of implications about my “no” answer that I’m pretty unsure about. That’s why I asked you. You sound like you’ve read a lot of theology (well, enough to use the word salvific [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] ). Habitual adulterers like you describe are “icky”.

The admission of guilt is pretty key as far as approachability goes. It’s a first step to repentence. The sense of conviction and the understanding of the need for forgiveness provide common ground for discussing Christianity. All adulterers I know, even if unwilling to repent, understand that they are doing something wrong (they might just accept the consequences or try to avoid them).

this makes me think you are a prison Chaplin of some type...

Goodness, not at all. I’ve spoken to more homosexuals than prisoners (though only a few of either). Prisoners scare me. Illogical and unfair, but I clam up and have no idea what to say when I’m talking to someone I know was in jail.
By “pew ministry” I meant sitting in one. That is a necessary function in the church that many people fill quite well. But it is easier in some sense than doing anything more active. In this sense, I'm much closer to being a "pew minister" than either pastor or prison minister.

[Usually Lurkin]

Good questions, FreshJive. I don't mean to dominate the thread, but I've got some time off and it's just really interesting to me. Hopefully we can get more perspectives.
I ask these questions of myself and God all the time. Here's how I've come to answer them (though I'm still asking).

If someone is not aware that they are sinning, but are otherwise repentful Christians, do Christians believe that they are forgiven for it by God anyway?
I don't think they'd be held responsible if they didn't know, but God will, in one way or another, let you know.

Should that person be constantly reminded by the church that their lifestyle is sinful even though it may drive them away?
Maybe not to the point of driving them away, but if someone would rather leave Christ than be reminded of their own sin, then that's their choice.

Couldn't the rest of the church members just agree to split hairs on that one?
no, because all the law is valid.

These next couple are hard. It might help if you mentioned specific legislation.
Why do Evangelicals care so much about this one issue as to back political legislation against it?
well, there's also movements to pass legislation against abortion, and against adultery, pornography, drinking and driving (or just drinking), etc. so it's not an isolated issue in this regard.

Do they fear that these people will go to hell if they aren't reminded that they are sinning, or do they think that society will fail if the government condones sin?
yes. and yes. The first reason probably has little to do with legislation, but more with reminding them of the need for repentance. The second has to do with both secular reasons (belief that homosexual marriage is less stable, less healthy, etc.) and spiritual reasons (like God will be angry with us), so probably provides the foundation for political will.

[sike]

I think this is the root of our differences. It just has not been my experience. I’ve seen far less bigotry against homosexuals in church than I have in general society

Bro, I am not talking about "general society"(maybe we are talking about different things [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] )....I would hope there is less bigotry in the "saved" church than in "lost" society. I don't think most Christians's feelings about Homosexuality is intentionaly mean or hard hearted, I do however (and I hope by now I've made this clear) believe that most Christians treat homosexuality has a "different" sin. One they are (understandably) unconfortable with. I do find it saddening that there is less of a corporate commitment to reach homosexuals with the Gospel by the church....that is my point.

Then your question was a straw man. I don’t know anyone who would say that the adulterer is more likely to receive salvation if both refuse to repent (or if both do repent).

no, my question is perfectly valid. It is based upon the idea that both adultery and homosexuality are sins of the flesh...both sins needing forgivness.

I have met people who say the homosexual does not need to repent

once again I think we may have found our area of confusion. I am not such a person. Though I hope to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect (the same dignity and respect I hope to show all men and women) I do find it Biblically to be a sin.

I thought you assumed that in your example. 1) I don’t know why else anyone would treat the two differently. And 2) it’s more common in our society for homosexuality to be treated as a repentance free behavior

I hope I've cleared up the confusion on this [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

I’d say no. But I don’t know if everyone would say no.

If you want to further discuss this in PM, I would be glad to...at least you are thinking about such things...most never do

You sound like you’ve read a lot of theology (well, enough to use the word salvific ).

yeah, they teach that kind of stuff so that you sound like you know what you're talking about [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Habitual adulterers like you describe are “icky”.

and you'll find them in churches every Sunday...pretending like no ONE (notice the capital letters) knows

Prisoners scare me. Illogical and unfair, but I clam up and have no idea what to say when I’m talking to someone I know was in jail.

An honest man. Don't watch Oz reruns [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] ....but really I have found that (much like working with the homeless) they just want to be treated like people.

as I've said multiple times now, UL, (I think all this is mostly caused by lack of detail in our posts and the other guy making assumptions)...I think we agree. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[sike]

Great questions, Jive...(a very underrated poster!....when are the next Sikeys?)
By the way...great thoughts from UL on these questions
I personally hate politics, so I'll stay with the more theological questions....don't judge me too harshly [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

If someone is not aware that they are sinning, but are otherwise repentful Christians, do Christians believe that they are forgiven for it by God anyway?

this is a thought that has been largely forgotten by modern (more likey, just ignored) theologians, but the Church Fathers addressed it often. In their search for piety, they constantly prayed that they would not commit unknown sins but that if they did that they would be forgiven them....I personally think that it is part of the function of the Holy Spirit to bring and sustain conviction in the heart of the believer(not in the lost man or woman though), so that if we participate in something that fails to meet the "glory of God" we are brought to conviction over it. Now let me say that I think that one must be dedicated to living a Godly life to be "tuned in" to the Spirit of God...so if one is at a point in their life where their commitment is wishy washy at best...they may fail to come to repentance they way they should

Let's say someone really believes that they are meant to be gay, and they meet a person who they believe is a blessing or gift to them from God. This person then chooses to live the rest of thier lives as a gay person in what they believe to be a fully legit and sanctioned relationship, because they interpret scripture in a different manner than how someone like UL interprets scripture.

With all the talk about interpretation going around this world (especially in theological circles) I have come to the conclusion that UL's interpretation doesn't matter any more than sike's interpretaion any more than Richard Simmons's interpretation any more than Jive's interpretation.....it all comes down to the simple and deciding point of "WHAT IS GOD's TRUE INTENT?" All I can say to this point, Jive, is my own opinion of God's opinion. You will of course have to make up your own mind as to which you believe is God's...To answer your question though, I BELIEVE that the Bible deals with homosexuality in clear and concise detail. I believe that Biblically it is a sin...not an unforgivable sin, but rather a sin of the flesh and unnatural at that. I believe that in the situation you presented, the person who believes themselves to be a Christian (a follower of Christ and his word) and at the same time continually (this is key) embraces the homosexual lifestyle has come to believe a lie. Notice what I did not say, I did not say that they are bad people, mean people, or overly evil people....in fact they may be very moral in every other part of their life. But because of my understanding of Scripture, I see the embracing of homosexuality and indwelling of the Spirit of God as contrary to one another.

Should that person be constantly reminded by the church that their lifestyle is sinful even though it may drive them away?

If Christians who say homosexuality is a sin are correct in their interpretation of God's word (myself as one), then reminding that person of their sin is actually the most loving thing they could do. But as a pastor, there will eventually come a time where if the person in question does not show genuine repentance of the sin, he or she should be asked to leave. But I would say this about many sins, not simply homosexuality. I won't bore you with a list [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Couldn't the rest of the church members just agree to split hairs on that one?

To the church(most churches anyway), it is not a "splitting hair" issue. And like I mentioned, to ignore it would be the most unloving thing they could do...because they would be lying to the person in question and at the same time be rejecting God's word.

Do they fear that these people will go to hell if they aren't reminded that they are sinning

They (we) believe they will go to Hell for not truely accepting Christ...the same fate of any (not merely homosexuals) who reject him...which is more loving, to ignore it or to confront it? As far as the politics, I'm staying away from that [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

As I stated before...I see Homosexuality as just another sin that men/women need the power of Christ to be delivered from...though it was never an issue for me, I certainly had plenty of sins that God has and still is in process of removing from my life.
I hope to treat them just as anyone else...with the love of Jesus.