Skip to comments.A Christian family, a gay son - and a Wichita father's change of heart
Posted on 06/07/2014 6:47:03 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
I can't cut and paste from the device I'm using, but this article is an interview with the father of Matthew Vines, the author of "God and the Gay Chrisitan." Monte Vines says when his son told him he was "gay" a few years ago, they studied the Bible together and discovered things like the often-cited bad argument that both homosexuality and eating shellfish were abominations in the Old Testament (and on that, God says to the Israelites about things like shellfish that they "shall be abomination for you" - meaning the Jews). So the father changed his mind since there are many churches but he has only one son, he says . And the family left their church because it was Presbyterian USA, but the congregation voted to join another Presbyterian denomination that doesn't accept homosexual conduct.
I feel for parents who have children who have decided to become homosexuals but that does not change the fact that God calls it an abomination. Where do you draw the line for your children’s chosen behavior?
"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
“Son, we have a couple of choices. You can follow your urges and the latest fad, in which you are likely to die a slow and painful death from AIDS, or we can follow God’s Word, in which case you can expect forgiveness and eternal life. Which do you think is a better choice?”
Makes sense to me. (poppycock!)
Are the two paths mutually incompatible? I mean, he’s going to die anyway. Just asking.
This is not a Christian family, this is a deeply misguided family who are distant from God.
Notice the logic here. The father looked up the condemnation of sodomy in Leviticus and noticed that the consumption of shellfish is also prohibited. He then concluded that since he felt shellfish were okay to eat, that sodomy was totally okay too.
If he had been even a foolish Christian, he would have read the passage and repented for his last meal at RedLobster. Had he been a vaguely well-versed Christian, he would have understood civil law as applicable to Ancient Israel, and the moral law which is binding on humanity until Judgement Day.
The fact that his conclusion was that same-sex activity was permissible based on shellfish shows us that this is no more a Christian than Bill Nye is a scientist.
What are the physical repercussions to living an active homosexual lifestyle?
What are the physical repercussions of eating shellfish?
Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan. There is a higher incidence of STDs, chemical abuse (to "perform" as well as to black out the painful thoughts/memories), and who knows what other contributing factors.
Those who eat shelfish are eating "bottomfeeders" that may feast on dead animals. There may be some periodic health concerns (far less health hazards than a gay lifestyle).
Why encourage such activity?
Do parents of heterosexual daughters hold up their adult offspring at family get togethers and say "well, she isn't married yet but boy howdy, she's having fun with her life sleeping around with a different partner every few weeks!"? Doesn't seem that many years ago that even unmarried (common law spouses in all but declare legal status) couples shacking up were cast a welcome (but slight disapproving glance) at family functions.
that’s a real tough one if a person is honest. I wonder how many real Christians can handle that verse.
To quote a line from Simon and Garfunkel “All lies in jest till a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”. If we approach the Word of God with to find something that justifies our position or something that seems to at least undermine the position of others then we are doing ourselves a great disservice. If on the other hand we honestly, without preconceived notions, wish to seek God and His truth I am sure you will find it within those pages!
Wow, what horrible understanding of the Word of God.
Yep. Love the sinner but hate the sin...even if it is a blood relative.
We can still love them without condoning an entire lifestyle and lifetime dedicated to an abomination.
The concept of “judge not” has been conflated with “moral relativism” as a means of teaching Christians that we must “tolerate” all behavior.
“Judge not” is an instruction not to judge anyone’s relation to God and the state of their salvation. It has nothing to do with critiquing, evaluating, and yes, judging behavior. If it did not, Jesus would not have said, “Go forth and sin no more.” He would have said, “Hey, go out and live it up and do whatever you want, break those 10 commandments and all that you know to be wrong based upon Biblical teachings, because my sacrifice will forgive you.”
I don’t believe that the majority of sinful lifestyles are lived without some degree of conflict — save for those who are truly insane or who have given in completely to darkness.
Accepting sinful lifestyles to those who are conflicted about their lives, becomes a form of enabling and ushers them along that wrong road.
We are called to stand strong, love the sinner, hate the sin, and guide the sinner back onto the right road (which is the literal translation of the phrase “blessed are” from the Sermon on the Mount).
Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.
2 Thessalonians 3:15
Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.
My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back.
Check out this 2009 article called
“Gay Sex is Downright Dangerous and Abstinence Won’t Kill You: I Should Know” by David MacDonald
I think the Vines should pay attention to Mr. MacDonald instead.
well, Jesus said not everone who says to Him, “Lord, Lord” would enter His Kingdom.
huge difference between 'human love' which enables and God's love that wants to move a person to repentance.
It looks like the family was already attending a PCUSA(a denomination that already supports abortions and female elders as well as allowing ministers who deny things like the virgin birth, the resurrection and the infallibility of the Bible) so I think they lacked discernment skills long prior to this issue with the son.
how weak are Christian parents these days. They’ll tolerate any sin committed by their children because they don’t want to hurt their feelings.
Some Christian parents will ex-communicate their grandchildren cause their adult child asks them too.
>>often-cited bad argument that both homosexuality and eating shellfish were abominations in the Old Testament
He should read on into the New Testament until he gets to Romans 1:26-28. The “Shellfish Problem” solves itself there in no uncertain terms.
I’m calling Baloney on this father and son studying scripture. If this bogus shellfish argument convinced them, they haven’t spent more than a few minutes in their Bibles.
Perhaps he should have kept reading until he got through the New Testament.
The law firm is Adams Jones if anyone needs that type of lawyer in Kansas.
“I know being a rapist is wrong but in my heart I know he still loves his mother so he can’t be all bad”.
The world has gone insane.
and I stand by my original post. I expect most Christians will post what you wrote.
Acts 10:9-16- “On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.”
I smell a troll. An anti-Catholic troll.
He killed his parents, but he’s an orphan now, how sad, let’s go easy on him.
You love the sinner, hate the sin, encourage conversion therapy to fix the unnatural attraction and pray for support and guidance.
I’m wondering when we’ll start seeing the shock stories of gay parents having a child come out as straight.
Can you imagine someone saying, ‘I used to think that doing heroin was wrong, but I changed my mind after my son started shooting up’?
Or ‘I used to think that armed robbery was wrong, but I changed my mind after my daughter held up a liquor store’?
Oh yeah. Try being a public defender for a while.
They "studied" (the son supplied his father excuses) the Bible as an intellectual exercise, whereas sodomy is a spiritual problem, refusing God's purpose for and design of the body as the vessel of a soul. Jehovah has never tempered His tolerance for one's misuse of his own or another's body, because its abuse demonstrates a warped soul and spirit, which is the abomination.
With the way our nation is degenerating, I figure we’ll probably have public defenders like that someday if not already.
That’s all you can do.
This is what i would have posted if it did not require me to sign in with Facebook-we want to know all about you.
The father should be sad, as in rejecting what the Creator established and instead, justifying perverse desires which man has in different forms due the Fall, his son has chosen an iniquity that, besides other present and eternal cost, has, in 2011 accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older, and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. After 30 years of trying to tame it. - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
There simply is no argument that will negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and find sanction for them. God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6) Homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept.
And attempts to force homosexual relations into passages it does not belong extends even to pro homosexual apologetics on the Bible, the specious nature of which as http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.htmlHomosexuality reveals.
However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God.
“There simply is no argument that will negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and find sanction for them. God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6) Homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept.”
It’s patently absurd when anyone tries to teach that the Bible ever endorsed homosexual behavior. If we could travel back in time and tell the Biblical writers that people would be teaching such a thing 20 centuries after the last Biblical book was written, they would’ve thought we were insane. Of course, they were more open to childbearing(something impossible in homosexual unions) than our culture is now.
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
The three times he saw the sheet lowered reflected the three men that came to him. It wasn’t saying that we should eat any old thing, but that we should not call any man common or unclean.
These people are not only using poor logic they are misleading and possibly leading others astray. They need bible 101 and need to read it in context.
Poor shellfish! They always seem to get dragged into discussions of the Bible and sexual behavior. Oh, and mixed fibers!
You’re right, it’s tough. There is a strong guilt that undermines our faithfulness to the Lord here. To turn from flesh and blood seems traitorous. But it’s a false guilt. I have a lousy track record here, but hope to grow in obedience!
“Where do you draw the line for your childrens chosen behavior?”
It’s not a chosen behavior.
Same-sex attraction disorder is induced by trauma—the trauma of a molestation or seduction in the pre-adult years. This disorder manifests as a compulsion to engage in what Chesterton called “loathsome perversions.”
If your daughter developed PTSD from a rape, you’d get her treatment. If your son develops SSAD from a rape or seduction, you...don’t.
“These people are not only using poor logic they are misleading and possibly leading others astray. They need bible 101 and need to read it in context.”
This is a real problem, and it begins with the mistaken notion that just anybody can read and correctly understand the scripture all by himself, and if his interpretation differs from that of the most holy, scholarly, intelligent, and wise men to emerge in the last 2014 years (appx.), well, then they must have been wrong.
Instead of threatening the boy with AIDS, try using the disease of neuropathy instead.
That’ll turn him around quick and make him walk the straight and narrow.
The answer to your question is: anyone who is a Christian can handle it.
A Christian is a person in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. There is no greater power.
To love one’s family more than one loves Jesus Christ is a thing of the flesh. To love Jesus Christ is of the spirit.
The difficulty for some is this: Matthew 10:37 is misunderstood to be a choice between loving family and loving Christ. But if one loves Christ first, then the love he has for his family is of the highest rank.
You will love your family whether or not you accept Christ. So the only choice is not between loving family and loving Christ, but between loving Christ and not loving him.
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.