Posted on 05/22/2012 5:45:32 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Are conservative Christians hypocritical and selective when it comes to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality? With all that the Bible condemns, why the focus on gay sex and same-sex marriage?
Given the heated nature of our current debates, it’s a question conservative Christians have learned to expect. “Look,” we are told, “the Bible condemns eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics and any number of other things. Why do you ignore those things and insist that the Bible must be obeyed when it comes to sex?”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
Well, that's not the usual meaning of the word 'atheist'. Defiance and disbelief are different things. I think Darwin was sincere in what he said about his loss of belief and becoming -- if not an atheist -- an agnostic. Here's the previously cited link to a Christian source that describes it.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The defiance BECOMES disbelief. One does not stand in contradistinction to the other, disbelief (or as I said earlier, a dedication to disbelief) is actually the punishment for defiance.
I did not quote the rest of the first chapter of Romans, but perhaps you should review it at you convenience.
Are you assuming that atheists are guided purely by rationality? "Rationality" may be the label on the tin, but the contents are another matter.
My evidence is that of personal acquaintance with such cases.
I don't attach as much importance to that passage as you do, but rather than explain why, I'll refer you to what I said at greater length in another thread (in posts 44, 47, and 48).
Someone who steals or murders, knows stealing and murder is a sin....gays don’t think what they are doing is a sin, and therefore, imply that they think the Bible is wrong.
You missed the “mere” gratification. Taking out the procreation has turned sex into mere gratification much (not all) of the time for a lot of people. It’s possible for married couples to merely use each other rather than selflessly love each other, unilaterally or mutually.
When they do, it messes them up (because it’s selfish). And if common, it will mess up kids’ attitudes toward sex.
We have a huge heterosexual problem in this country. It’s evident here on FR too. When sex becomes largely recreational, it messes people up. My hypothesis is that some of the rise in unchosen same-sex atraction arises from decades of messed up heterosexuality
and the messed up heterosexuality stems from the Pill (which made recreational sex possible for the first time. Sex could not be and was not recreational before that because it was so darn hard to get rid of the procreation possibility.)
Please don’t give me the “you think sex is dirty” meme. I simply said that absent the general awareness of procreation (not that every act has to be procreative), sex becomes recreational and tends toward mere (get that, mere) gratification. Not that every sex act automatically becomes recreational or merely gratificatory. But that as a whole, over the past 50 years, we have shifted from a fundamentally procreative view of sex to a fundamentally non-procreative view of sex.
And that, I’m saying, cannot not have had an impact on us in a wide variety of ways. One of them is messed up sexuality among kids and one kind of messed up sexuality is same-sex orientation.
Honestly, I find your addition of qualifiers to the cited passage a bit disingenuous. I don't know how much more general the apostle could have been than "...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness...," as he goes on to pen what is universally acknowledged to be the most comprehensive statement of Christian doctrine in the entirety of the New Testament. Nor do I see any justification for said qualifier unless you are prepared to defend arguing in reverse from the specific to the general (not that there aren't appropriate places for that) with every contextual indicator pointing in the exact opposite direction.
Further, it should be clear to any observer not blinkered by cliches' that being mild of manner tells one nothing of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
That you do not recognize the importance of Paul's statements here is tragic in that the whole of the Christian rationale for God's judgement of those who have never heard of Judeo-Christianity rests on it. Without this rationale, there is no biblical justification for the twin claims of God's justice, and God's judgement of all mankind.
Finally, that you are still hung on the "why does God allow" question, as demonstrated by the posts you referred me to, indicates an orientation of one trying to fit God into his own world instead of one trying to fit into God's world. As long as God is in the dock, instead of you, you can expect no insight into the nature of our existence: only learning.
They who “...changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things” [Romans 1:23] sound like idolaters to me. I have no reason to be disingenuous about that. I went on to agree that the first chapter of Romans “...seems to say that God’s existence and qualities are ‘manifest’ but because people defy him anyway, he causes them to disbelieve” (which I thought was your main point about disbelief).
Where we disagree is that I don’t believe that’s true. I think some persons disbelieve things that they’d like to believe, not as a result of defiance but simply because they can’t convince themselves that they’re true.
And, yes, of course, I’m judging with my own mind. The only thing people have to judge with is their own minds, including when they agree with others, or with what they believe to be the word of God.
We think of love as hugs and kisses. Don't tell a homosexual that he's living in sin otherwise he'll think we're extreme and he'll be turned off to the gospel. This is a warp sense of what love is and the power of God. To understand love you have to look at Christ in His entirety. Our Lord never mince words.
And, just for the record, there are very few, if any of us including myself who truly understand what love is. Even Christ's disciples often encounter completely different reactions to things they did or said. You could look no farther than Peter. But its a cop out for us to think we're very loving when we fail to speak the truth.
Christians who tell other people that God loves the sinner but hates the sin do not understand that God's goal is to change the sinner to be like Himself. He is not interested in ignoring our sinful state. People, like homosexuals, are not meant to stay in their same sinful state any more than a robber or adulterous would stay in their same state of sin. If they do, then they are not saved. And we do them no favors to tell them otherwise.
God is real. Heaven is real. People need to repent of their sin and ask our Lord Jesus to cleanse them of their sins. People need to understand these facts and repent so they can know God in a personal and real sense. He doesn't promises roses-only persecution. But He'll walk with us on our journey.
Christians who tell other people that God loves the sinner but hates the sin do not understand that God’s goal is to change the sinner to be like Himself. He is not interested in ignoring our sinful state.
Nonsense. You've been contradicting yourself throughout the thread.
People have a warp sense of what love is.
Correct. You included. Some folks (you included) seem to think that "love" and "being nice" are the same thing. Upthread, I explicitly reject that silly notion.
Was Christ loving when he xxxxx
Of course he was, as you correctly note. Christ is God, and God is Love.
We think of love as hugs and kisses.
Who's "we", Kemosabe? I explicitly rejected that idiocy upthread. If you didn't read the whole thread, including my comments to folks other than you, I suggest you correct that omission.
Don't tell a homosexual that he's living in sin otherwise he'll think we're extreme and he'll be turned off to the gospel. This is a warp sense of what love is and the power of God.
As I have said many times, including on this thread, and in comments directed to you (among others). Glad to see you agreeing.
And, just for the record, there are very few, if any of us including myself who truly understand what love is.
In so far as God is Love, NONE of us truly understand it. How could we? We cannot understand the infinite.
Christians who tell other people that God loves the sinner but hates the sin do not understand that God's goal is to change the sinner to be like Himself. He is not interested in ignoring our sinful state.
There you go again. If God did not love the sinner (perish the thought!) God would not offer the sinner the grace of repentance and conversion. That God demands repentance AND offers the grace necessary to do it PROVES that God loves the sinner.
People, like homosexuals, are not meant to stay in their same sinful state any more than a robber or adulterous would stay in their same state of sin. If they do, then they are not saved. And we do them no favors to tell them otherwise.
Now you're back on track. Reproving their sin is precisely an act of love for the sinner. If we were to hate the sinner, we would leave him to pursue his sins all the way to Hell.
God is real. Heaven is real. People need to repent of their sin and ask our Lord Jesus to cleanse them of their sins. People need to understand these facts and repent so they can know God in a personal and real sense. He doesn't promises roses-only persecution. But He'll walk with us on our journey.
Well said (at last).
I would suggest you read Augustine. We aren't saved because we believe. We are saved so that we might believe. God saves us in order to bring glory to His name and to bring about His purpose. He so chooses to use us because of His love.
And, I'll stand by the rest of my post.
Of particular note, IMO:
In claiming that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship she confuses kinship affection with erotic love. Her claim that “from the perspective of the New Testament” the Sodom story was about “the near rape of angels, not sex between men” makes an "either-or" out of Jude 7’s "both-and."
Her canard that only a few Bible texts reject homosexual practice overlooks other relevant texts and the fact that infrequent mention is often a sign of significance. It is disturbing to read what passes nowadays for expert “liberal” reflections on what the Bible says about homosexual practice.
In my experience, the above is the most common one will hear from pro-homosexual apologists. Thus, most worthy of note. But the entire editorial is worth reading IMO.
Related thread, more linguistic in its treatment of the subject.
Related thread from today that led me to this CNN editorial.
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.