Lgbt, etc.

[Sparko]

So, when they "shack up", it is, IMOHBAO, that same sense of 'provision for evil'.

I am not talking about living together in sin. More like giving in to the passion of the moment. Or even one sin leading to another, like "tequila made her clothes fall off"

[Cow Poke]

I am not talking about living together in sin. More like giving in to the passion of the moment. Or even one sin leading to another, like "tequila made her clothes fall off"

Yeah, I got that -- I'm saying that we would need to be consistent, that an "occasional fling" by a homosexual couple is like that, too -- it's when there's that conscious decision to move in together...

[Cerebrum123]

Thanks to all who watched the debate. I too agree that Dr. Gagnon did a great job. Dr. Kirk and others of his ilk seem to ultimately be arguing for some sort of "Christ consciousness" in favor over what they believe to be outmoded categories of biblical Christianity.

Don't forget to avail yourself to the work of Dr. Butterfield as well, for those interested.

I remember Gatsby constantly using that term. It was pretty crazy stuff.

[KingsGambit]

On a personal level, I'm not a huge fan of Gagnon but his scholarship on this issue is top notch.

[Sparko]

Yeah, I got that -- I'm saying that we would need to be consistent, that an "occasional fling" by a homosexual couple is like that, too -- it's when there's that conscious decision to move in together...

That was the point I was making originally and using heterosexual messups as an analogy in response to Chrawnus' post. If you know and believe something is wrong and occasionally do it because of temptation and then later regret your weakness, that is much different than embracing the sin as NOT a sin and just "living in sin" because you want to.

Christians welcome homosexuals into the church readily, they are sinners like everyone else, but they need to realize practicing and living a homosexual lifestyle (meaning living in sexual sin) is wrong. Occasional messups are treated the same as hetero messups. Repent and go on. But the liberal Christians want to say it is not even a sin at all, and want to let homosexuals live in sin, and even become Ministers and leaders in the church! That is basically the same problem Paul dealt with the Corinthians and the man who was sleeping with his father's wife, and they accepted it and were proud!

[Cow Poke]

That was the point I was making originally and using heterosexual messups as an analogy in response to Chrawnus' post. If you know and believe something is wrong and occasionally do it because of temptation and then later regret your weakness, that is much different than embracing the sin as NOT a sin and just "living in sin" because you want to.

Yeah, I was agreeing...

Christians welcome homosexuals into the church readily, they are sinners like everyone else, but they need to realize practicing and living a homosexual lifestyle (meaning living in sexual sin) is wrong. Occasional messups are treated the same as hetero messups. Repent and go on.

I wish this were true across the board - I think lots of Christian churches haven't quite gotten there yet.

But the liberal Christians want to say it is not even a sin at all, and want to let homosexuals live in sin, and even become Ministers and leaders in the church! That is basically the same problem Paul dealt with the Corinthians and the man who was sleeping with his father's wife, and they accepted it and were proud!

That is precisely why I got involved in helping start the Southern Baptists of Texas (state convention) nearly 20 years ago. The Baptist General Convention of Texas (the original state convention) refused to deal with a Southern Baptist Church in Austin that was boldly boasting on their website of being of church made up of GLBTXQZ, and had GLBT staff members. There were a number of issues building up to that, but the BLGXPTQ issue was 'the final straw'.

[Leonhard]

I wish this were true across the board - I think lots of Christian churches haven't quite gotten there yet.

It varies a lot. Mostly there's just indifference, and the subject of this stuff almost taboo. That's definitely not tweb though, as I got to post a long thread about some of the stuff I thought could change, and was listened to in that regard, which I'm thankful for.

However to many of my lgbt friends (except the ones I could personally reach), a pastor like Steven Anderson of the KJV-Only, Faithful Word Baptist Church, is their image of the church.

The first minute is mostly him moaning about PayPal and other e-pay services, iTunes refusing to let him use their services.

[Leonhard]

Christians welcome homosexuals into the church readily, they are sinners like everyone else, but they need to realize practicing and living a homosexual lifestyle (meaning living in sexual sin) is wrong. Occasional messups are treated the same as hetero messups.

Amen, and I hope it'll be like that in all societies that call themselves Christian one day.

[Leonhard]

The Baptist General Convention of Texas (the original state convention) refused to deal with a Southern Baptist Church in Austin that was boldly boasting on their website of being of church made up of GLBTXQZ, and had GLBT staff members. There were a number of issues building up to that, but the BLGXPTQ issue was 'the final straw'.

I assume you're meaning gay people who were causing scandal. That is having a partner they were co-living with, etc... yet still acting as Church leaders. That would be wrong and dangerous, as people will then tend to see such relationships as not at all problematic and of no consequence. It teaches a vice to others, which is the original definition of 'causing scandal'.

[Leonhard]

Just a clarification, I'm not saying that any significant number of pastors are like Steven Anderson. From the perspective of most sensible baptists, even presuppositionalists, he's a kook. However he's presented to me by the lgbt friends I have, as of the concerns they have about various religious groups in their neighborhood and what those might do.

Unfortunately telling them that statistically its not Christians they're likely to be killed by doesn't exactly calm them down.

Nor the fact that the Pulse shooting was an insane muslim weirdo.

[Sparko]

Amen, and I hope it'll be like that in all societies that call themselves Christian one day.

[Sparko]

Just a clarification, I'm not saying that any significant number of pastors are like Steven Anderson. From the perspective of most sensible baptists, even presuppositionalists, he's a kook. However he's presented to me by the lgbt friends I have, as of the concerns they have about various religious groups in their neighborhood and what those might do.

Unfortunately telling them that statistically its not Christians they're likely to be killed by doesn't exactly calm them down.

Nor the fact that the Pulse shooting was an insane muslim weirdo.

I think it is the devil's plan. He uses false religion to make real Christianity look bad so as to keep people away from it. So many cults and other religions imitate Christianity and use evil to turn people away or harm them, which makes them afraid or hateful of real Christianity.

And on the other side, the devil uses "inclusivity" in religion to tell people "oh that isn't a sin! come here and be loved in whatever you want to do!"

He gets them coming and going.

[Leonhard]

Calling yourself Christian and being Christian can be two entirely different things. Anyone or group can call themselves Christian. Doesn't make them Christian.

Indeed, even the Mormons call themselves Christian, yet they reject the Nicene creed.

[Leonhard]

I think it is the devil's plan.

[Cow Poke]

I assume you're meaning gay people who were causing scandal. That is having a partner they were co-living with, etc... yet still acting as Church leaders. That would be wrong and dangerous, as people will then tend to see such relationships as not at all problematic and of no consequence. It teaches a vice to others, which is the original definition of 'causing scandal'.

It's not just that, Leon... they were very militantly "in your face" about it. It's not like they did it out of strong conviction so much as open rebellion. Instead of a "here I stand, I can do no other", it was more like, "we're gonna do this and you can't stop us".