The Sad State of a Conservative Organization

However, judging or condemning those outside the church for their sin is FORBIDDEN.

It is not. And you are misusing that Scripture and taking it out of context.

We are to judge those on the INSIDE of the church as I did with Donna for her snarkinness and smugness.

While being snarky and smug yourself?

Back to Tammy Bruce — you have no right in all of Christianity to judge her for her sin because she does not claim Christ.

We are not to ASSOCIATE with someone like her.

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. Ephesians 5:11-12

I'm not getting into a spitting match with you. My main objection was your snarky posts and you misrepresenting that we ARE to judge what is good or evil.

We are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, correct.

My quote from 1 Corinthians was totally in line. Paul was saying "When I told you to not even eat a meal with the sexually immoral, I did not mean to say that you should not eat with the immoral people of the world. In order to do this, you would have to remove yourself from the world altogether. I meant that if a brother in the faith is in open sin, you are not to associate with him. Of those on the outside, God is the judge. Of those on the inside, YOU are the judges."

(I typed this from memory right now, but feel free to check my paraphrase.)

We are to have discernment and wisdom about evil deeds and sinful ideas and all the strongholds of thought that "resist the knowledge of God". Because our Gospel is to be given to the unsaved and the unbelievers to "pull down strongholds and every argument that resists the knowledge of God".

But to judge someone or condemn someone for their sin is not the same thing as having discernment about evil.

We are not to condemn people who do not have the Holy Spirit for their sin, because we ourselves only overcome our sin by the power of the Holy Spirit, not of ourselves.

Good point: but I think my issue is more of an evangelist’s quandary in the modern world

— than the problem of Christians falling back into sin or discussing it shamefully.

But i like your point that it is truly shameful to discuss what the sinful do.

Gonna have to watch my tongue next time I get upset about perverts and perverted acts done by church leaders.

Thanks rlmorel. I can tell you that pretty much sums up where I’m coming from :) And for everyone else, of course it’s really me. I’m surprised more commentators and others whose job it is to analyze the issues don’t chime in more often. While some of you think focusing on what we have in common as conservatives (like loving this country) is somehow a ‘compromise’ because it contradicts your faith, I contend promoting a patriotic conservative framework *naturally* empowers faith, out of necessity, at the local level. People used to to turn to their local house of worship for help, and in classic socialist fashion, Obama and his cronies want citizens to have no choice but to turn to big government.
As one commenter noted, I’m not running for pastor, or pope, or any public office, I’m advocating for small government, less taxes and passionate patriotism. When this nation wins, faith also wins, regardless of the sexual orientation of the patriot.
Personally, I can’t imagine Jesus engaging in the same condemnation of anyone as some professed Christians have on this thread. But maybe that’s just me.

Homosexuality is a difficult subject for me to be objective about. I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, and I feel that if I wanted to jump on a soapbox and tell people why, most people wouldn't knock me off the box.

But I don't feel like doing that. I have made peace with things in my past in a way that has helped me grow as a person and a Christian, and if someone keeps their sexuality to themselves, I can judge that person on the basis of their dealings with me, not on how someone else has dealt with me, and I can leave it at that.

I think most (though obviously not all) conservatives feel that way. What people do is their own business as long as it isn't affecting someone else. Of course, if someone wants to make an issue about it and shoves it in my face, tries to get legislation passed, then I will speak my mind plainly, and I will disagree and say why.

But if I work with someone, they do their job as a professonal, are courteous to me and conduct their affairs primarily as a person and not primarily as a homosexual person, then I can do business with them. If they share the same political values, even better.

I don't see why someone cannot be a homosexual yet wish for smaller government, less taxes, a strong military and adherence to the precepts in the Constitution.

As I said, if there were more people who felt that way regardless of sexuality, then our future would be a lot brighter. Or to put it more bluntly, I will accept the political kinship of someone of unknown sexuality (if they don't make it a defining issue of who they are) and they believe in those things, over a traditional heterosexual, socialist, marxist, statist.

As C.S. Lewis said: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Someone who is a discreet homosexual isn't going to torment me without end the same way a liberal with his hands grasping the levers of power will.

This isn't even a close call for me.

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.