Posted on 05/02/2007 4:41:20 AM PDT by Phil Magnan
Hypocrisy of Hating Homosexuality, While Ignoring Cohabitation and Adultery
Contact: Phil Magnan, Director, Biblical Family Advocates, 011-36-1-246-2587, phil@bfamilyadvocates.com
BUDAPEST, Hungary May 2/Christian Newswire/ -- Statistics show that 25% of unmarried "born again" Christians are living together. This reveals an apparent hypocrisy in condemning homosexuality, while not condemning heterosexual immorality. Sad to say, co-habitation is on the increase and its participants also include the Catholic and Christian community.
BFA believes there is also a need to condemn not only adultery in its blatant form of cheating on a spouse, but its camouflaged form by easy divorce to pursue second and third marriages. This has been done by those who describe themselves either as Catholic, Evangelical and even more startling the born again Christian.
"There is no doubt that homosexuality is immoral before God, we see that in the scriptures, but the very same scriptures hate the immorality of unbiblical divorces and cohabitations. God does not wink at sin just because it's a heterosexual committing it" says Phil Magnan, Director of Biblical Family Advocates. "Apparently heterosexuals are setting the example for the homosexual community thinking that if you are 'loving and monogamous,' it must be acceptable before God."
"How can we as Christians have any moral credibility before God and man when we are practicing the very thing we condemn in the form of immoral marital practices? Until we show as much hatred for our own sin in our churches and demand repentance we will continue to destroy the sanctity of marriage, even more than same sex marriage proponents. We have not been a very good example of morality or godliness before God and man."
BFA is pleading with the Christian community to begin times of repentance and reflection as we take up the banner of morality and righteousness in Christ's name. If the Christian community cannot show true repentance and transformation in their own churches, how will they be able to offer Biblical and loving help to those who wish to escape their own bondage of sin?
I agree with that statement. I have often wondered why that is the case. It is possible that these are the cases that we observe. Perhaps, those who practice homosexuality, and who do acknowledge its sinfulness, simply remain in the closet.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Once conception is discovered, the cohabitors are tempted, maybe more than if they were married, to abort the pregnancy. This leads us to the first clash of personal action with Christian values: the unnecessary destruction of human life.
If the child is “allowed” to be born alive (as opposed to being birthed in pieces during the abortion), a cohabiting couple has a far less stable domestic environment in which to raise the child. It is far easier for cohabiters to dissolve their household and to form another one with a different cohabitor. This family turmoil not only erodes the confidence and stability of young children, it sets the stage for sexual abuse especially of girls by cohabiting adult males.
Christians who cohabit are just as disqualified from entering into salvation as are those who practice homosexuality. That is the clear language of Rev. 22:15 as dictated by the Alpha and Omega to John.
If you are acting like you are married and living like you are married, and conceiving children like you are married, why not just get married?
“If you are acting like you are married and living like you are married, and conceiving children like you are married, why not just get married?”
Because, even after all that, some people have a deep-seated fear of making a commitment. (Although, in our litigious society, they may have a point, legally.)
Last I checked the real meaning of the commandment against adultery is to be happy with what you have.
ditto
I'm a bit hazy on why it's ok to eat shellfish now - where in the New Testament is the selective repealing of assorted rules in the Old Testament?
I certainly understand, but the issue of “commitment” was sealed the moment a new human life was conceived. Any loving and responsible person must understand their commitment to help this new life grow to be a responsible and morally capable adult (at least as responsible and morally capable as they are).
Part of that commitment must be a stable home. And that is the exact reason that God designed marriage and defined it as the environment in which sexual relationships take place. He further protected marriage in two of the Ten Commandments. Anyone who has read even part of the Bible cannot be ignorant of these truths, no matter how the modern legal system either helps or hinders how people harmonize their actions with them.
>>
I’m a bit hazy on why it’s ok to eat shellfish now - where in the New Testament is the selective repealing of assorted rules in the Old Testament?
<<
It didn’t.
1. Laws before Moses and applicable to all nations. (sometimes called Noahide)
2. Laws only for God's chosen which were a gift not given to any other nation.
3. Christian's which are free from the law of moses, yet subject to the law's written in our hearts and to the minimum requirement specified in Acts 15 (which includes immorality).
Acts 15:28
8 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
So, the honor of having a law to refrain from shellfish is only given to those Hebrews who accepted the Law of Moses.
Haven't watched much TV or Hollywood movies, have you?
Above have never been rescinded and include marriage only between one man and one woman.
No, I don’t own a TV and I don’t get out much to the movies. Spend most of my spare time sailing and reading.
More heterosexuals indulge in anal sex than homos - sheer numbers. Heterosexuals are 98% of the population. 10% admit to anal sex. Homos are 2% of the population and 60% admit to anal sex.
Do the math.
I'm not qualified to give a complete answer. But I am sure you will get several.
My understanding is that Paul and other New Testament writers specifically identified certain behaviors as sinful. Non adherence to Jewish dietary restrictions by non Jews was not deemed to be sinful.
I don’t know how old your daughter is, but although I realize it’s a slim chance, you can continue to pray for her to come out of that lifestyle.
I wonder if something happened to her. My brother is a homosexual. I confronted him when he was around 22 years old. I suspected it so just outright asked him. He’s 48 now. I don’t have a lot of hope he’ll leave this way of life anymore; he’s too ensconced. He now has a life-partner and so on. However, I found out about 6 years ago through another brother that my gay brother was sexually molested at 16 by his boss. He worked in a little Greek restaurant. I broke down and cried when I found out.
I think that many of these people have turned to this way of life because of some kind of experience similar to my brother’s. I’m sure there are some exceptions, but as I have spent quite a bit of time with some of my brothers’ friends back when we were all young and single, I have heard this story told repeatedly. Why they don’t seem to note the connection is beyond my understanding.
I just pray for his salvation. It is never too late. Only God knows for sure.
8 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Isn't that a bit odd? The Bible is saying that sexual immorality is on a level with eating blood sausage, Polish duck blood soup or eating a steak from a cow that may have been strangled in the slaughterhouse?
this is a plant article. The logic is irrelevant.
The author attempts to equate a sexual fetish akin to sex with animals to normal human relations.
The author foolishly assumes the only oppostion to homosexual behavior is based on religion. This is 100% false.
NON-religious reasons are far more important than any peripheral religious arguments.
Perhaps the author is from the Episcopal church and trying to push a moral relativism. Author posted his own article
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.