Posted on 02/19/2011 2:32:21 AM PST by trumandogz
Ebie Hussey's first reaction when her son announced that he is gay was to offer unconditional love. Finding a new church was a close second. "His first question was, 'Am I going to hell?' " Hussey said of that conversation with her son, Jaxn. "Mainstream Christianity and fundamental Christianity really pushes that homosexuality is a sin, and he had caught on to that." Jaxn, now 15, knew his parents didn't think that. "But I had always heard people saying that kind of thing," he said. In an effort to counter the message, almost two dozen Houston-area churches have designated Sunday as Bring Your Gay Teen to Church Day.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
A better response would be to have a day where the Gospel is actually preached: that we are all sinners (and that “gay” is only part of that), that it may have more negative consequences in the real world-but that homosexuality is just like any other sin to God: UNACCEPTABLE, that “We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, and that without Christ, God’s just, condemnation still rests upon us ALL/.
J.S.
“Gay Christians”
It's not a fine line to me. If you continue to commit homosexual sex acts you are both gay and condemned. If you don't you are not.
The problem is in someones definition of being gay (homosexual).
To me, having gay sex defines it. So, technically if you are not having gay sex, you aren't gay. So to me a “Gay Christian” is an oxymoron.
As far as “bring a gay to church day” I would say only if you tell them in advance that God thinks that behavior is an abomination. That bringing then to church is an effort to convince them to change their sinning ways. To become a member they would have to publicly renounce homosexuality.
In that case, not many would still want to come to church. I don't believe in “tricking” people into church or “tricking” people into salvation. This is why there are so many hypocrites in church. They were never “real” to begin with.
Well, it's all about "feelings" with liberals, isn't it?
You're on the road to hell? Here, let me enable you in your journey. It fits right in with every other liberal concept.
And what does Scripture say about "proud sinners" Sherman? You know, those that MOCK Jesus in their festivals with contests like the "Hunky Jesus" contest: 
Link to Hunky Jesus Contest
How about sinners that march in the streets by the hundreds of thousands in the name of "pride", and even go so far as to change God ordained institutions such as marriage and the family?
God has a special place in Hell for "proud" unrepentent sinners Sherman.
You are on the right track but recognize too what Christ said in Matthew 5:28 ‘But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’ This is a verse that addresses adultery as opposed to a homosexual act but since sin is sin, I don’t think that it matters since the principle is the same. In other words, it is NOT simply the action that is sin.....unless one wants to say that ‘lusting in one’s heart is an action’. What Christ has laid out is obviously impossible to follow which is why I believe that my faith in salvation is a continuing one... and hence I also can believe in the promise in 2 Corinthians 4:16 ‘For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day’.
What I see as a big problem in discussions like this is that it is clear that that much of the battle is already lost simply because those who promote the concept that ‘homosexuality is normal and just fine’ have managed to control the agenda by virtue of gaining control of the language. And giving up control of the language is the first and most important step in retreating and in fact conceding the battle. Using the language that those who promote acceptance of ‘homosexuality’ is endemic in society and sadly it includes many of those commenting here. Essentially once you agree to use the language as ‘they have defined it’, the debate is virtually over...let me elaborate.
The idea of ‘being homosexual’ is simply not a concept that is found in scripture and in fact, it shouldn’t be a concept that exists today. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as homosexuality... or heterosexuality either for that matter. There is only sexuality which is the sexual component of the nature of created mankind... and sexuality manifests itself in many ways i.e. healthy, unhealthy, perverted, forms that sanctioned by God, forms that are totally abhorred by God etc. When people use words such as homosexual and heterosexual, they are speaking strictly about something that doesn’t exist in any tangible way....it is just something that is conjured up in one’s own mind and as such, it is nothing more than being a self-identification or self-declarative statement of something that is perceived but can’t be known. Since there is no means test that can act as a repeatable and consistent methodology for providing proof, the terms are meaningless. Thus if a person was to say “I’m a homosexual”, how could that be verified to be a true statement? It can’t and even those who champion so-called ‘homosexual rights’ (I refuse to use the word ‘gay’) will often say things like “we are no different than you are ”. Whenever scripture deals with issues like this, it never addresses it in terms of ‘what you are’... it addresses it in terms of ‘what you are doing’. As in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version) ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.’ Note that for each of the parties on this list, the word used is referring to something that they are doing i.e. a fornicator is one who is fornicating, an idolater is one who is practising the worshipping of idols, a thief is one who is thieving etc. A thief isn’t a thief because he thinks of himself as a thief, he is a thief because he stole something. Similarly, it is not simply the thought of thinking about one’s predispositions or even contemplating a sexual act with one who is the same sex that is the problem... it is the act of doing it. By the same token, one gets into a bit of mental gymnastics with this if the question is posed “is a person who has self-identified him or herself as a homosexual but never acted on their feelings, really a homosexual?” If a person said yes to this question, how would they prove it? This is why the concept of same-sex marriage is totally flawed. There is the very important aspect to a person’s thought life that Jesus talks about that I mentioned above but with respect to this subject, it is the act that’s the problem. Incidentally, the Bible verse above uses the word ‘effeminate’ as quoted in the King James Version. It probably wasn’t the best choice of word and other translations use the word ‘sodomite’ and ‘men who lie with men’.....both of which are consistent with the point that it’s the act carried out by the individual(s) as opposed to some characteristic of the individual.
The bottom line is that by using the word ‘homosexual’, one is agreeing that conceptually it exists as something tangible and thus an entity that needs to be addressed... and for most people, that means that they look at it as ‘something that just is’ and therefore on these grounds, difficult to not accept. The issue becomes a conundrum when it gets confused with fallacious positions such as “it is something that is intrinsic with a person’s personality and character, he/she was born that way, it is who I am, and then of course there is something else that really mixes people up (even if they are generally opposed to homosexual behaviour) and that is how to react to someone who says that they are a homosexual but remain celibate etc etc. So.... the answer is to use other language when speaking about this issue. The options are ‘one who commits sexual acts with a member of their own sex, sodomite.... or perhaps the least offensive might be ‘one who claims to be or identified himself/herself to be homosexual’.
No argument.
But many of the comments on this thread have been about “homosexuals,” not “proud unrepentant homosexuals.”
Anywho, there are a good many proud unrepentant fornicators and adulterers out there, heterosexual variety. Admittedly they don’t usually march in the streets, but that’s because their sins have become so completely accepted by society.
BS. I've read enough of your and trumanmutt's posts to know that you're a friend of the homosexual agenda and are downplaying the threat it poses to our nation.
But many of the comments on this thread have been about “homosexuals,” not “proud unrepentant homosexuals.”
Any person that publically announces the CHOSEN behavior known as homosexuality without saying that he or she is struggling with the sin and wants to repent and accept Christ's forgiveness, is a "proud homosexual". You don't see too many of those stories out there these days do you Sherman?
Anywho, there are a good many proud unrepentant fornicators and adulterers out there, heterosexual variety. Admittedly they don’t usually march in the streets, but that’s because their sins have become so completely accepted by society.
I am not denying that we are a morally decaying society, brought on by numerous "proud sins". But show me their "agenda" and where they've invaded valuable American institutions such as marriage, the traditional family (through adoption), the military, education, religion, and youth mentor groups, trying to get their sin to become "mainstream", and I'll move the threat level that those particular sins pose to our society up a notch.
As you state it, we are in agreement regarding the point of condemnation.
Where we differ, I guess, is that I accept that there are people who find themselves emotionally drawn to others of the same sex, and in that attraction find themselves pulled into your definition of homosexuality.
Is being emotionally attracted to a person of the same sex, in the absence of the act, not homosexuality? From your point of view, it is not, and therefore not a sin.
So we agree in the main. Even in the presence of the attraction, if it is channelled into appropriate expressions, it is not a sin.
So does God and He calls it sin. Sexual attraction, as designed by God, is between a man and a woman. Anything else is outside Gods plan and not from Him.
That's a deflection. The topic is homosexuality. Are you implying that one sin makes another acceptable?
“I am not certain that I am perfect in worshipping God.”
Unfortunately, there are far too few people that understand that concept, and far too many people that do not accept that concept.
The Bible is clear that homosexual acts are condemned, but I can’t find where being homosexual is condemned. I know it seems like a fine line, but consider the other fine lines that are drawn.
The whole point of church is that you, I or anyone else is IMPERFECT in some way, including in what we feel the urge to do, if everyone acted without second thought on who knows what urges they had in their mind, the world would be way worse than it is now. Homosexual inclinations are far from being the only “bad” urge one can feel heck, even though I’m not I am far from clean and have needed to confess what I thought wrong or did wrong sometimes.
The act is condemned, but the urge, everyone gets some urge to do something that is wrong, it’s up to each of us to either act or be acted upon by it. The urge to get even, the urge to get something without earning it, the urge to have sex with someone premaritally or extra-maritally is wrong either way. Or let’s say you had issues with just simply thinking too much about sex. Probably see where I am going with this. Point is, there are just simply many urges which we should simply not be acted upon by, homosexual inclinations are far from being the only one. I guarantee you pretty much all of us have issues with one “wrong” urge or the other, I sure did and do from time to time. It’s all about what actions those urges turn into, and what we do about it in the end.
Leviticus 20.13:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 20.9:
All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.
I pretty much agree with your whole post. Well put!
Well, just off the top of my head.
Widespread acceptance of adultery and the resultant divorce has done a great deal more damage to the institution of the family than any that could possibly result from acceptance of "gay marriage."
Fornication is so accepted as a way of life entire long-running successful TV programs are built around it and the resultant comic possibilities. I'm sure I don't have to name names. The massive increase in illegitimacy and family breakdown is not unconnected.
Few religious groups even make a serious attempt anymore to denounce divorce and fornication as serious sins.
Drunkenness has become a "disease," not a sin.
Reviling has become a sport, not a sin. Particularly popular on the interwebs, where one can revile others anonymously.
My point is not the homosexuality is not a serious sin. It is that the Bible essentially says: Adultery, fornication and homosexuality are serious sexual sins.
Yet you come all unglued about one of the sins listed while thinking it right and proper to ignore the others. There is nothing in the Bible that assigns greater sinfulness to one than the others.
When the reasoning gets subtle, and the post count increases, far too many people jump on the last post out rather than taking the time to follow the thread.
It's so easy to proclaim that homosexuality is condemned. I've never said otherwise, in regard to homosexual acts or lusts -- but I know that there are many people who, through upbringing, circumstances beyond their control, or the confusion of youth, don't follow a clear path.
Rather than abandon them with a simple, "You're going to hell," I believe that God has clearly addressed that sin as he has others -- humans err, human emotions are tangled, and anyone who has recognized the conflict between what they believe about themselves and what God says, and out of that conflict has chosen God's path, have avoided the condemnation of God.
The condemnation of people seems to be a different issue.
Fortunately we now have grace and can repent.
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.