Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

[ivebeenshown]

I disagree. There is no such thing as modern day homosexuality in the Bible. Every single case of same-sex behavior is either - forced, part of pagan sex rituals, or prostitution.

Would you say the same thing about incest, which so also happens to be Leviticus 20? If God meant for us to perform homosexual acts, he would have expressly stated that men should not lie with a man as a man does with a woman, only when regarding rape, whoring, or idolatry.

However, Leviticus 20:13 is in the same passage regarding bestiality. Do you condone bestiality when not in regards to idolatry, whoring, or rape? Such as: a dog willingly licking certain parts?

How do you claim homosexuality is a 'natural' thing?

 

[Araelis]

1) How do you know that's not referring to heterosexual men and women who developed an unnatural attraction? It's going against one's nature to change your sexuality. That's the point here.

2) I have no clue where you got the paraphrase, but that hardly makes it any more valid.

Sin corrupts before birth, so it could easily be something they were born with, and since God made man to lie with woman, it would be unnatural.

 

[Jase]

Would you say the same thing about incest, which so also happens to be Leviticus 20? If God meant for us to perform homosexual acts, he would have expressly stated that men should not lie with a man as a man does with a woman, only when regarding rape, whoring, or idolatry.

Well, incest was acceptable for quite a while before the Israelites passed laws against it. Polygamy was also celebrated back then.

As to your other point, he technically did if you were to read those Leviticus passages as an ancient israelite in the original language and context. There is a conditional clause in that verse that indicates when and why it's wrong.

Of course, God also never expressly stated that we can do many things that we do such as use a computer, watch television, drive a car, study medicine, eat processed foods. And yet I don't see you condemning them.

However, Leviticus 20:13 is in the same passage regarding bestiality. Do you condone bestiality when not in regards to idolatry, whoring, or rape? Such as: a dog willingly licking certain parts?

That entire chapter is in reference to the pagan ritual practices of the Caananites. God's issue is behavior done before a pagan god. Which is why the preceeding verses in Leviticus 18 talk about sacrificing children to Molech. Do you really think God would just randomly stick a verse about homosexuality (which again, wasn't invented yet) in the middle of condemnations on pagan practices if he intended to condemn all gay people? That's absurd.

And no, I don't think beastility is acceptable, because animals cannot consent. Same reason I don't think pedophilia is acceptable, because children can't consent. Of course, pedophilia was technically approved of in ancient times since women married as young as 10.

 

[Jase]

Sin corrupts before birth, so it could easily be something they were born with, and since God made man to lie with woman, it would be unnatural.

There is no evidence sin exists before birth. I don't believe in original sin. Nor is being born gay a sin.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Using a computer or driving a car is not expressly condemned, where a man and a man having sex with each other is.

God does not condemn 'gay people'. God despises sin. However, by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, we are 'dead to sin.'

We should not use the bible as a means to justify any of our behaviors that do not directly exalt Him, or we impose our own will over God's.

Does Jesus not condemn adultery? Is adultery not condemned in Leviticus 20 as well?

Leviticus 20: 8And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

 

[Phinehas2]

Very good posts by ivebeenshown.

Jase,
It has already been pointed out to you regarding Leviticus 18. Leviticus 18 tells us homosexuality is a detestable practice and idolatry. So your assumption, and it is only an assumption, cannot be correct.
Having said that, your reply indicates you believe the Leviticus prohibitions were only when associated with rape and idolatry, but I don’t see the reasoning for this in your response.

Well, incest was acceptable for quite a while before the Israelites passed laws against it. Polygamy was also celebrated back then.

So how does this affect the prohibition of incest in Leviticus 18?

Of course, God also never expressly stated that we can do many things that we do such as use a computer, watch television, drive a car, study medicine, eat processed foods.

So paedophilia is ok in liberalism because God didn’t specifically mention it. Why? However whilst you support paedophlia pleas note that homosexuality, same sex relations, ARE specifically mentioned.

Do you really think God would just randomly stick a verse about homosexuality (which again, wasn't invented yet) in the middle of condemnations on pagan practices if he intended to condemn all gay people? That's absurd.

So if homosexuality wasn't invented then at that time, God didn’t create homosexuals or gays. Humans did. Thanks I have been pointing that out for ages, His word tells us that.

And no, I don't think beastility is acceptable, because animals cannot consent.

Ah then you don’t think bestiality is acceptable, not because it is idolodry but because animals can’t consent. So ydo ou think adultery and paedophilia are acceptable when consented to.

Same reason I don't think pedophilia is acceptable, because children can't consent.

Sorry, do you not think that children after the age of seven at least are quite capable of saying yes or no. Also, if an animal didn’t want sex I suspect it would struggle.
So the reason you gave about it being associated with idolatry and rape wasn’t the reason at all, it was a whole host of other reasons all themselves based on assumption.

I think I prefer atheism to liberal chistianity.

 

[OllieFranz]

Would you say the same thing about incest, which so also happens to be Leviticus 20? If God meant for us to perform homosexual acts, he would have expressly stated that men should not lie with a man as a man does with a woman, only when regarding rape, whoring, or idolatry.

The "incest" verses are not about incest as we define it today (consanguinity). They are about adultery and/or "statutory" rape. Consanguinity was not a sin to the Israelites -- Sarah was Abraham's neice, and may have also been his half-sister. Leah and Rachel were Jacob's 1st cousins. "Incestuous" relations forbidden in Leviticus 18 include the brother's wife. After the brother dies, levirate laws obligated a man to marry the widow and produce children, so the law forbidding this "incest" must apply to the wife of a living brother.

A different set of phrases is used to refer to sex in the incest verses and the "niddah" verse (about a woman "on the rag," as we might say today). The phrase "to lie with" is only used in the "homosexual" verse. And two different forms of that phrase are used. When speaking of "as he lies with a woman" a verb (mishkav) is used that means simply to lie with (and presumably have sex with), but when speaking of lying with a man, a different verb (shakab) is used. Every other time in the entire Old Testament that shakab is used in the phrase instead of mishkav, the passage is describing a sexual encounter in which one of the parties does not or can not consent -- in other words rape, "date rape" where the victim has been drugged, or "statutory" rape with someone incapable of consent.

 

[drich0150]

I disagree with what is being stated in the OP because I don't think that most "liberally minded people" are trying to get either "God" or "The Whole of Christianity" or both to "accept Homosexuality."

In order for you to disagree with what was actually said, you have to state that no "liberally minded people" are trying to have God or The Whole of Christianity accept Homosexuality. I did not say "all," you did so as to make a point.

That is well and good, but if you wish to speak on this topic then know I did not say "All Liberally minded people." I simply stated that those who are trying to incorporate homosexuality into the church can be considered as a liberally minded people. So unless you can prove that No liberally minded person has tried or even wants to change the church's status on Homosexuality, then the orginal statement stands. (Whether you agree or not.)

hting for equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to enter into a civil union or civil marriage. I don't know of any among my homosexual friends who are trying to force the church to solemnize a homosexual marriage. I have seen a few such individuals in the national media, but I don't think that they represent the majority of homosexuals or even a significant minority

This thread is not about Homosexual marriage, Homosexual Rights, or your Homosexual friends in any way shape or form. I am speaking to those who are trying to introduce a doctrine of same sex permissibility into the church. In otherwords if what I am saying does not apply to your life experiences then disregard this thread.

 

[onemorequestion]

Why is there a need for liberally minded people to have God or The Whole of Christianity to accept Homosexuality?

Why not just be Gay, and shrug off what the bible or church says?

Why do we have to believe what you believe?

Brave thread my friend. Very brave.

There are darker forces than met the eye at work. That's why.

For those of you in the Church, do you not understand that even if you can silence what the bible says of homosexuality specifically. that Homosexuality is still considered a sin because at it's core it's sex outside the confines of marriage.

They understand and they know what they are doing.

Without Book Chapter and verse as to the permissibility of sexual activity outside the confines of a sanctified marriage, special permission for gay sex, or an example of a sanctified same sex marriage. a doctrine that permits homosexuality can not represent the will of God. As a member of the church why do you represent a doctrine that does not represent God?

Look up the parable of the wheat and weeds. Read what Jude wrote about these people.

To Whom do you serve if not God? Do you not see a problem with a system of belief that doesn't represent the one you claim to represent? Is a righteousness based in popular morality what you believe to be what dictates the will of God?

They know what they are doing.

The responses I have seen and answered from people who represent themselves as members of the church are, to say the least are the most disheartening.

Especially after their efforts have been brought into the light of scripture.

Falling on deeaf ears. Per Jesus.

 

[onemorequestion]

Would you say the same thing about incest, which so also happens to be Leviticus 20? If God meant for us to perform homosexual acts, he would have expressly stated that men should not lie with a man as a man does with a woman, only when regarding rape, whoring, or idolatry.

However, Leviticus 20:13 is in the same passage regarding bestiality. Do you condone bestiality when not in regards to idolatry, whoring, or rape? Such as: a dog willingly licking certain parts?

How do you claim homosexuality is a 'natural' thing?

It is the constant drone of heresy that they expect will finally wear you down. Stay strong in Jesus and they will evaporate after some time.

 

[onemorequestion]

Using a computer or driving a car is not expressly condemned, where a man and a man having sex with each other is.

Go into all the world and preach the Gospel . . .

So much for the absurdity of comparing immorality to driving a car or using a computer.

God does not condemn 'gay people'. God despises sin. However, by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, we are 'dead to sin.'

God condemns people. Jesus didn't water down truth. I would urge others not to either. But liberalism is simply the means to water down truth.

We should not use the bible as a means to justify any of our behaviors that do not directly exalt Him, or we impose our own will over God's.

Does Jesus not condemn adultery? Is adultery not condemned in Leviticus 20 as well?

Leviticus 20: 8And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

Swine is an analogy about people that ridicule the word of God. There is a limit to what can be sold as Christian.

 

[onemorequestion]

The "incest" verses are not about incest as we define it today (consanguinity). They are about adultery and/or "statutory" rape. Consanguinity was not a sin to the Israelites -- Sarah was Abraham's neice, and may have also been his half-sister. Leah and Rachel were Jacob's 1st cousins. "Incestuous" relations forbidden in Leviticus 18 include the brother's wife. After the brother dies, levirate laws obligated a man to marry the widow and produce children, so the law forbidding this "incest" must apply to the wife of a living brother.

A different set of phrases is used to refer to sex in the incest verses and the "niddah" verse (about a woman "on the rag," as we might say today). The phrase "to lie with" is only used in the "homosexual" verse. And two different forms of that phrase are used. When speaking of "as he lies with a woman" a verb (mishkav) is used that means simply to lie with (and presumably have sex with), but when speaking of lying with a man, a different verb (shakab) is used. Every other time in the entire Old Testament that shakab is used in the phrase instead of mishkav, the passage is describing a sexual encounter in which one of the parties does not or can not consent -- in other words rape, "date rape" where the victim has been drugged, or "statutory" rape with someone incapable of consent.

And after all that, marriage in the New Testament is a man and a woman.

Paul goes out of his way to invent a term for homosexuality (arsenokoitai) that leaves utterly no room for 21st century liberalism to invent gay rights within the Chriust Church.

But rape is bad too. And obviously not something Christians should be engaing in either.

 

[ivebeenshown]

God condemns people. Jesus didn't water down truth. I would urge others not to either. But liberalism is simply the means to water down truth.

I acknowledge that God condemns those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

I do not think God condemns 'gay people.' I feel that there is a possibility that some believing Christians may simply be confused about the matter, regarding homosexuality.

After all, lots of secular humans may define me as a 'gay people' by my past actions. I do not feel God is condemning me.

 

[drich0150]

To my well meaning brothers,

The reason why there is so much room for debate and argument in most of your positions of Homosexuality is because you are trying to preach from a position of authority and personally back righteousness. All of which is deeply founded in a denominationally specific take on scripture. These arguments do not work,
they only spawn rebuttals. Because they have been studied and broken down many times over. They will not work because there has been enough doubt built into the rebuttals to side track the debate. They don't need to win the argument, they only need to bog it down. so I ask why not try something else? Why not instead of addressing Homosexuality as a segregated sin, address it as any other sin. Is it not good enough that unrepentant homosexuality will receive the same hell as if we treated it as any other sin?

Instead of holding to the pride and righteousness that accompanies one when he calls another to a public repentance, why not simple and humbly show the sin for what it is. Do not elevate yourself or your sins above your potential homosexual brothers. Remove the idea that you are in the right, and are going to show those, in the wrong how to become right. There is no Right and Wrong. There is only wrong, and redeemed wrong doers. No one is good or right, only forgiven. Being forgiven is not the same as have never chosen to be outside the will of God. Forgiven is having the times you have indeed Chosen to be outside of God's will wiped clean. Acknowledging this Give Glory to God and his grace, rather than it being a testament to one's own self righteousness. Those outside of the church see this and label it hypocrisy. They do not know the gift and glory of salvation through redemption because we tend to only represent our own versions of righteousness. This righteousness can been seen through a mile away. This is what fuels the need less controversies. It is not spite for God. It is spite for what has been labeled Christian Hypocrisy.

If we approach those who do not yet seek forgiveness as a fellow seeker, rather than aperson who commands authority over another, less can be said in the way of argument. As it is there are those here who only wish to argue, and have devoted themselves, to all of the verses and arguments that people of church bring to speak against what they hold dear.

So let go of the need to segregate this sin or hold it over people as if it were a greater sin than the gossip or lies we are all guilty of. Simply establish the sinful nature of this act by directly quoting scripture. or if they refuse to accept what the bible openly says, then break homosexuality down to it's base components. (Sex outside of an unsantified marriage.) Make it a simple sin, that one needs to find repentance for. Show them that you sin and you need repentance too.

This will quickly separate those who argue just to argue, and those who seek God's truth. Shake the dust from your feet and leave those who look to justify their actions. rather, look to those who want to find forgiveness and show them the way.

The Sin of Homosexuality, like the arguments against it, is first about Pride. If you wish to leave a legacy of endless debate, and foolish controversy, then pick up your pride and your bible and just see how God honors your efforts. If you can first humble yourselves to God and ask the Spirit to teach you as He has taught others to speak to those who are in this sin, not to win debates, but to win over lost souls (Like you were) I promise you will see a different result in how God responds to your efforts.

 

[ivebeenshown]

drich0150, you are correct in your statement that no sin is greater than another -- of course, saving blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

My goal is to help others to understand why homosexual behavior is a sin in itself; my goal is not to condemn any behavior over another.

After all, I am not without sin myself.

 

[onemorequestion]

To my well meaning brothers,

The reason why there is so much room for debate and argument in most of your positions of Homosexuality is because you are trying to preach from a position of authority and personally back righteousness. All of which is deeply founded in a denominationally specific take on scripture. These arguments do not work,
they only spawn rebuttals.

Maybe it's because the liberal position is owned and operated by ideologues that have a hidden agenda to destroy the Church? It sure looks that way. Most positions of liberalism are no different from that of garden-variety atheism.

Because they have been studied and broken down many times over. They will not work because there has been enough doubt built into the rebuttals to side track the debate.

Liberalism is designed to side track the debate. As in to take the believer off the true path of Jesus and onto a wide path to destruction. In many instances interaction with liberalism shows a very nasty and worldy side that truly defines the goals.

They don't need to win the argument, they only need to bog it down. so I ask why not try something else?

Why not unbog it? There hasn't been one position about liberalism that can truly present anything about it that Eve and Jesus didn't encounter with Satan. Rewriting scriptural truth is something that must be contended against.

Why not instead of addressing Homosexuality as a segregated sin, address it as any other sin. Is it not good enough that unrepentant homosexuality will receive the same hell as if we treated it as any other sin?

It is the only sin I have ever heard about where it is demanded that it is NOT a sin and that the practioners of this sin are not guilty of anything. In that very aspect, homosexuality is the most threatening force that has ever attacked the Church. It is dismantling truth to invent whole cloth another Gospel.

Instead of holding to the pride and righteousness that accompanies one when he calls another to a public repentance, why not simple and humbly show the sin for what it is.

Are yo not reading what the adherants of liberalism are writing? Homosexual behavior is not a sin. Their minds are no longer open to any other reality than the one they created.

Do not elevate yourself or your sins above your potential homosexual brothers.

I have never seen that done or said ever. Not once. ONLY the adherants of homosexuality elevate themelves over Jesus and the Apostles because . . . they say they (Jesus and the Apostles) were living in some unenlightened condition too many years ago for it to count today.

Remove the idea that you are in the right, and are going to show those, in the wrong how to become right. There is no Right and Wrong. There is only wrong, and redeemed wrong doers.

Not if homosexuality is NOT a wrong. We are dealing with liberalism that demands change by not having to be countered as it rules over us with secular law.

No one is good or right, only forgiven. Being forgiven is not the same as have never chosen to be outside the will of God. Forgiven is having the times you have indeed Chosen to be outside of God's will wiped clean.

Liberalism demands that homosexuality is not a sin. That means it is outside of the reach of forgiveness. Bottom line.

Acknowledging this Give Glory to God and his grace, rather than it being a testament to one's own self righteousness.

Holding to the faith delivered only once to the saints is giving God the glory. Liberalism literally says that truth changes from era to era.

Those outside of the church see this and label it hypocrisy.

The lost are the lost for a reason.

They do not know the gift and glory of salvation through redemption because we tend to only represent our own versions of righteousness.

I have to disagree. We are labled by the lost and that is what should be expected. They either mockj us or charge us with hypocrisy they invented.

This righteousness can been seen through a mile away. This is what fuels the needless controversies. It is not spite for God. It is spite for what has been labeled Christian Hypocrisy.

Liberalism is Christian hypocrisy. Literally and provably.

If we approach those who do not yet seek forgiveness as a fellow seeker, rather than a person who commands authority over another, less can be said in the way of argument. As it is there are those here who only wish to argue, and have devoted themselves, to all of the verses and arguments that people of church bring to speak against what they hold dear.

Jesus argued with adversaries often.

So let go of the need to segregate this sin or hold it over people as if it were a greater sin than the gossip or lies we are all guilty of.

It's not that it's a greater sin, it's that homosexuality has been relabeled by liberalism as nothing at all but normal and healthy. There is no foirgiveness offered to an idea that demands that it is not sin.

Simply establish the sinful nature of this act by directly quoting scripture.

That doesn't work with ideologues that demand that scripture is either wrong or has to be changed for a new paradigm. I see no way to work with liberalism other than to label it as something to put in the pagan or tax collector category. Per Jesus.

or if they refuse to accept what the bible openly says, then break homosexuality down to it's base components. (Sex outside of an unsantified marriage.) Make it a simple sin, that one needs to find repentance for. Show them that you sin and you need repentance too.

That is done on a routine basis only to have the adherants of liberalism just ridicule the stupidity of the person holding scripture as important forever. Or at least until the end of the age.

This will quickly separate those who argue just to argue, and those who seek God's truth. Shake the dust from your feet and leave those who look to justify their actions. rather, look to those who want to find forgiveness and show them the way.

watch the way liberalism is sold here and elsewhere. There is no respect for a dissenting position, even though the dissenting position about liberalism comes from Jesus and the Apostles. I'm sure that is why historic positions have been whitewashed as old news to be put at the bottom of a bird cage.

The Sin of Homosexuality, like the arguments against it, is first about Pride.

Not true. That is saying that evangelism is prideful. There is no way that is correct.

If you wish to leave a legacy of endless debate, and foolish controversy, then pick up your pride and your bible and just see how God honors your efforts.

He honered Jesus and the Apostles full force.

If you can first humble yourselves to God and ask the Spirit to teach you as He has taught others to speak to those who are in this sin, not to win debates, but to win over lost souls (Like you were) I promise you will see a different result in how God responds to your efforts.

How is this done?

Where is this done?

I have seen no movement from liberalism that homosexuality is even a sin at all.

 

[Phinehas2]

I see no reason why homosexuality is debated in the Christian section of the forum. The Bible is clear, contextually consistent in its condemnation, and Christianity has held this always.

The issue is deeper, the subject is debated because people take their identity in it and thus their whole worldview is actually based on it. Furthermore it is a very easy example of the problem with liberalism, something promoted that the Bible consistently excludes and condemns in context, one cant get bigger unbelief than that.

The Christian position is that we dont hate anyone let alone those who identify as homosexuals, we dont hate Westboro church either but we dont accept God hates homsoexuals either as Christ came to save people, not condemn people. Christ condemned sin.
So we have no problem, the idea we hate gays comes from liberals as is a total misrepresentation of our position, it is false testimony against us.

The problem is that the liberal worldwiew is actaully anti-Christian, but masquerades as Christian. If the separation occured we wouldnt need to argue so much.

 

[onemorequestion]

I see no reason why homosexuality is debated in the Christian section of the forum. The Bible is clear, contextually consistent in its condemnation, and Christianity has held this always.

Satan had no business debating Jesus either. Paul, Peter, Jude and John show us that many antithetical belief systems were in the Church and needed to be dealt with.

The issue is deeper, the subject is debated because people take their identity in it and thus their whole worldview is actually based on it. Furthermore it is a very easy example of the problem with liberalism, something promoted that the Bible consistently excludes and condemns in context, one cant get bigger unbelief than that.

Liberalism at its core and activism is simply permissiveness. It is antithetical to what is written of morality in the New Testament. For example, liberalism and the Gospel are mutually exclusive. No different than Arianism and the Faith delivered only once to the Saints.

The Christian position is that we dont hate anyone let alone those who identify as homosexuals, we dont hate Westboro church either but we dont accept God hates homsoexuals either as Christ came to save people, not condemn people. Christ condemned sin.

If trying to call sinners to repentance is hate, than let us gladly accept their charge. Jesus did. What can come of that charge when we are in front of Jesus? Zippo.

So we have no problem, the idea we hate gays comes from liberals as is a total misrepresentation of our position, it is false testimony against us.

many other kinds of people that are not Christian, use the hate charge towards us as well. Liberalism is permissiveness and nothing more. Notice all that it contains? Abortion, promiscuity, no-fault divorce, "safe sex," unwed mothers as an akternative to a marriage, altering marriage altogether, etc., etc., etc.. Liek the adversarial position towards the Gospel described IN the Gospel and the writings of the New Testament, liberalism is a different path than the one described by Jesus and it leads to a destination accordingly.

The problem is that the liberal worldwiew is actaully anti-Christian, but masquerades as Christian.

Especially when it is yoked to unbleivers. Which is 100% of the time.

If the separation occured we wouldnt need to argue so much.

But liberalism has found its way into the Church as some fom of authority. Hasn't the Church always faced threats from within just as it does from without? Liberalism is exactly that.

 

[drich0150]

Maybe it's because the liberal position is owned and operated by ideologues that have a hidden agenda to destroy the Church? It sure looks that way. Most positions of liberalism are no different from that of garden-variety atheism.
Liberalism is designed to side track the debate. As in to take the believer off the true path of Jesus and onto a wide path to destruction. In many instances interaction with liberalism shows a very nasty and worldly side that truly defines the goals.

I think your missing the point of my post. It is not to stop addressing or representing the Lord. The point was the way that most of us choose to do so, does not work. So why not stop and regroup.

Why not unbog it?

Their arguments only focus is to cast doubt. With out a faith, doubt will always be present. So at that point, to continue in that specific direction can only be considered a foolish endeavor. That is, if your intention is to represent God's word on homosexuality. rather than defending the validity of scripture in general.

It is the only sin I have ever heard about where it is demanded that it is NOT a sin and that the practitioners of this sin are not guilty of anything. In that very aspect, homosexuality is the most threatening force that has ever attacked the Church. It is dismantling truth to invent whole cloth another Gospel.

This is why I am suggesting to stop looking to pronounce it a sin in a manner that they have learned to refute. Pressing on where they are the strongest only serves one's pride. Especially if there is another way.

Are yo not reading what the adherents of liberalism are writing? Homosexual behavior is not a sin. Their minds are no longer open to any other reality than the one they created.

They are saying it is not a sin in the manner you are addressing. So as i suggested set that aside, even though you are correct in your exegesis of scripture when you speak of the verses that directly confront this life style. Again their arguments are constructed to simply cast doubt. If they can do this they have already won the argument. So restart from a position that all believers even semi believers can agree upon and rebuild your argument from there.

Liberalism demands that homosexuality is not a sin. That means it is outside of the reach of forgiveness. Bottom line.

Then find a way to identify it as a sin, do not segregate yourself from it or elevate your sins above it. Address it as you would any other.

I have to disagree. We are labeled by the lost and that is what should be expected. They either mock us or charge us with hypocrisy they invented.

Our segregation of our sins of choice, from theirs is proof of this hypocrisy. Jesus point this out when the Pharisees were going to stone the woman caught in adultery. They were trying to segregate their sins against the adulterous woman. He put all sin on the same level when he said he without sin cast the first stone...

Jesus argued with adversaries often.

I am not saying arguing is wrong it is the motivations that drive our side of these arguments that can be considered prideful. Can you give one example of Christ arguing from a position of personal pride?

It's not that it's a greater sin, it's that homosexuality has been relabeled by liberalism as nothing at all but normal and healthy. There is no forgiveness offered to an idea that demands that it is not sin.

Which if you read my OP is indeed the point to this thread. My argument is that we simply address their argument in a more productive manner, rather than arguing the positions they are prepared for.

That doesn't work with ideologues that demand that scripture is either wrong or has to be changed for a new paradigm. I see no way to work with liberalism other than to label it as something to put in the pagan or tax collector category. Per Jesus.

Then once you have identified these particular people shake the dust from your feet and move on. If you me or any one else continues to argue with someone for the sake of doing so it is hard for anyone to believe that it is not for the sake of our pride.

is done on a routine basis only to have the adherents of liberalism just ridicule the stupidity of the person holding scripture as important forever. Or at least until the end of the age.

If the person you are speaking with wants to completely disregard scripture then truthfully what authority do you have when speaking to this person anyway? Because if they eliminate scripture from the equation, then they are trying to eliminate God from the conversation, if they do that then again, who is it your representing?

Not true. That is saying that evangelism is prideful. There is no way that is correct.

Evangelism in of itself is to the glory of God, but as I have demonstrated if God has been removed by one or both engaged in the conversation then what you are doing by definition ceases to be evangelism. You Can not bring God Glory, if one or both of you is arguing for themselves. So learn when it is time to shake the dust from your feet and move on to someone who is actually seeking God. we are here only to broadcast seed, not force it into the ground and make it grow. I am suggesting cast the seed of God's word in the direction of more fertile soil.

He honored Jesus and the Apostles full force.

This honor was done in the absents of pride, and or personal righteousness. Just so there is no confusion I am not saying defending God's position is wrong. What I am saying is alot of what i see and read goes well beyond defending the bible. There is a way to stab at the heart of this issue that most pro gay people don't know how to react to, but first one has to humble himself before God and let go of the efforts done in God's name only, but have their roots deep in out pride. that only further serve to segregate the unrepentant sinners from those who have found redemption.

How is this done?

We Ask through prayer, we Seek, in scripture and from those who show Spiritual Fruit, We knock by repeating this process till we get what it is our hearts truly seek.

Where is this done?

In our Hearts first, and then in places like this.

I have seen no movement from liberalism that homosexuality is even a sin at all.

..And I bet they have seen little to no movement in whom your arguments actually represent. Your statement is exactly why we must change our approach. There is a way for the meek and humble at heart. I have seen results first hand. That's why I ask that we first seek the Spirit before we seek a way to "win" arguments.

 

[Bryanfromiowa]

So let go of the need to segregate this sin or hold it over people as if it were a greater sin than the gossip or lies we are all guilty of. Simply establish the sinful nature of this act by directly quoting scripture. or if they refuse to accept what the bible openly says, then break homosexuality down to it's base components. (Sex outside of an unsantified marriage.) Make it a simple sin, that one needs to find repentance for. Show them that you sin and you need repentance too.

Great post especially the above paragraph. If you look at homosexuality for what it is sex outside of marriage or adultery then consider that jesus said that if you've looked at another lustfully then you have committed adultery already in your heart.