Posted on 10/28/2005 2:11:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
"There's no need for anyone to feel that they need to be "tolerant" of an abhorrent and filthy lifestyle. It's not mean-spirited to condemn it, as the homosexual lifestyle has damaged the lives of millions of people."
You're completely missing the point. I'm talking about the intolerance of people on this site who want to kick people out of churches or deny them membership (on a selective basis). There are plenty of other "abhorrent and filthy lifestyles" [fornicators (those who cohabitate outside of marriage); adulturers (including divorced people who remarry according to the Bible); masturbators (which is a sin according to most Christian faiths, etc], but I don't see equal condemnation for the latter. As the Bible says, "Woe to ye hypocrites".
"Don't take the "filthy" comment as Biblical, only. It's quite simply...filthy...in the physical sense."
Millions of heterosexuals (including many married couples) also engage in sodomy. It's funny that I don't see equal condemnation of this "filthy and abhorrent" behavior. It seems like the condemnation is limited to homosexual sex acts.
Maybe you should ask LJ to put you on the pinglist? BTW, I'll equally condemn it if it will make you feel better.
"Maybe you should ask LJ to put you on the pinglist? BTW, I'll equally condemn it if it will make you feel better."
It's not a matter of making me feel better. It's a matter of the extreme hypocrisy of most people on this site when it comes to condemning sexual activity.
Your right.
Jesus didn't care to have the money changers in church too!
Why then are you still here?
"Why then are you still here?"
Just because I'm not as obsessed with homosexual sex as many of you others are, doesn't mean that I can't find useful info. on this site. Thanks for asking.
Any church, synagogue, temple or body of religious worshippers has not only a perfect right but actually a religious duty to shun or disallow membership to avowed sinners. To people who want to keep on sinning, while claiming that their sin of choice is actually virtue. Obviously no house of worship is filled only with saints, any more than a hospital is filled with well people.
But there's a difference between someone who is sick who WANTS to be well, and someone who's sick who wants to keep doing the very things that got them sick in the first place, while proudly proclaiming that their very sickness is purity and health!
I don't see any Adulterers' Pride Parades, Masturbators' and Porn Users' Parades, etc. But we do see "Gay" Pride Parades, flags, organizations, clubs etcetcetc ad nauseum.
The fact that you don't/don't want to see this is really quite, quite odd.
"But there's a difference between someone who is sick who WANTS to be well, and someone who's sick who wants to keep doing the very things that got them sick in the first place"
How many of the people who masturbate "want to be well"? How many of the people who engage in sodomy "want to be well"? How many of the people who are living together outside of marriage "want to be well"? How many of the divorced people who have remarried "want to be well"? Why is it that all of the latter are not being kicked out of churches or denied membership? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The only breath taking hypocricy around here is yours.
What part of "Gay Pride Parades" do you not understand? If there were "Adulterers' Pride Parades" or "Wankers' Pride Parades" then you'd have a point. That is, if such proud sinners then demanded membership in a house of worship.
I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't even believe your own words. You're just trying, in vain, to justify homosexuality. Won't work on FR.
For someone who's not "obsessed" with homosexual sex, you certainly make a lot of comments supporting it.
"For someone who's not "obsessed" with homosexual sex, you certainly make a lot of comments supporting it."
Please show me one comment where I supported homosexual sex?!? Please also answer the question that I posed to you below. Your silence speaks volumes.
"How many of the people who masturbate "want to be well"? How many of the people who engage in sodomy "want to be well"? How many of the people who are living together outside of marriage "want to be well"? How many of the divorced people who have remarried "want to be well"? Why is it that all of the latter are not being kicked out of churches or denied membership?"
"What part of "Gay Pride Parades" do you not understand? If there were "Adulterers' Pride Parades" or "Wankers' Pride Parades" then you'd have a point. That is, if such proud sinners then demanded membership in a house of worship."
Who's talking about "Gay Pride Parades"? I'm talking about applying selective church membership tests based on sexual activity. I'm talking about the rank hypocrisy of condemning some sexual behavior while letting others have a pass. You said the standard should be based on who "wants to be well". I think very few of the other sinners that I mentioned "want to be well", but I haven't heard you or others calling for them to be kicked out of church.
Well...this post is making my point for me. From post #160. Here you have a normal, unrepentant, non-Christian. Tell him the Good News. Tell him that Jesus Christ died on the cross for his sins. (Sexual included). It is going to sound like foolishness to him and offensive. As far as he is concerned there are plenty of people far worse or equally as deviant as he is. He doesn't believe what he is doing is bad at all.
I would have no problem rejecting the membership of someone openly engaged in adultery, fornication, or some other behavior that falls outside accepted Christian behavior.
The man in question is a practicing homosexual and he is open about it. Most people aren't open about cheating on their wives or sleeping around if they're not married.
This guy would be more than welcome at a UCC, MCC, or probably and ELCA church. They're all "open and affirming" churches that will welcome anyone.
Churches should take a harder line with their members. They are called to do that. Can you imagine the uproard, however, if they did? People on the left are already badmouthing churches because they expect certain things from their members. If they start kicking them out because they won't give up sins that are not acceptable of Christians, they will be even more reviled.
There seems to be a recurring theme to your postings. You condem and judge those who condem and judge homosexuality for the evil it promulgates... Extreme and selective hypocrisy that you decry is what you practice in this approach... Moral relative comparison of sins is but attempt to disparage those that rightly condem homosexual activities as intrinsically disordered and but promotion of evil...
Your general condemnation of all those who disagree with you is apparent and is but homosexual activism...
"Churches should take a harder line with their members. They are called to do that."
I have no problem with what you're saying as long as the church membership tests are applied fairly and equally. That's not what occurred in the case of this Methodist minister in Virginia. That's why he was fired.
Agreed.
It's probably a safe bet that there are people in the church living in ways that they shouldn't be.
If, however, the church leadership becomes aware that say someone is cheating, they need to discuss that with him. There's a process to follow.
A big problem is that people most definitely won't like being called out on their sins, but that is precisely what needs to happen. It doesn't matter if they're homosexual, adulterers, fornicators, gamblers, alcoholics, into porn, or whatever.
They go to church for an hour on Sunday morning expecting a feel good message. That's not what being a follower of Christ is about. It's about how you live your life, how you interact with those around you, how you conduct yourself. And you don't do those things to get saved, you do them because you are saved.
This is from someone else, but people want the McGospel, where you can have it your way. Churches are too often more than willing to give them that instead of what the Bible commands.
"There seems to be a recurring theme to your postings. You condem and judge those who condem and judge homosexuality for the evil it promulgates... Extreme and selective hypocrisy that you decry is what you practice in this approach... Moral relative comparison of sins is but attempt to disparage those that rightly condem homosexual activities as intrinsically disordered and but promotion of evil...
Your general condemnation of all those who disagree with you is apparent and is but homosexual activism"
Say what?!? Just because I'm disagreeing with someone and pointing out the hypocrisy of their viewpoints/statements does not mean I'm condemning them. I'm simply pointing out the double standards; the selective application of biblical injunctions; the condemning of some sinful activity while giving others a free pass. In this case, many of your are supporting the actions of a minister who was removed from his position by the vote of 96.7% of his fellow Methodist ministers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.