How to get through to Conservatives?

[Hetta]

Aren't there testimonies of ex-gays here on CF who genuinely changed their sexual orientation?

I thought I'd seen a few.

How do they do it?

What do they say worked for them?

You'd have to ask them.

 

[GillDouglas]

Wait. Adultery is the only "exception" for divorce, as per the Bible. So if a person divorces their spouse for a reason not adultery, then remarries, that second marriage is an ongoing act of adultery. That is the conservative reading of scripture on divorce and remarriage. Except for lately, when they decided that they hate two gay single people marrying each other more than they hate remarriage without the "exception".

I believe you're making assumptions here. First off there should be no judgement of a fellow Christian's sin, regardless of the sin. Second, the view of gay marriage from conservatives has little to do with sin and more to do with the institution of marriage and Who instituted it. Lastly, this debate over what is or is not sin, living in sin, etc. is fruitless when the salvation of man (or woman) is given by the grace of God unconditionally to whom He gives it.

 

[Hetta]

I believe you're making assumptions here. First off there should be no judgement of a fellow Christian's sin, regardless of the sin. Second, the view of gay marriage from conservatives has little to do with sin and more to do with the institution of marriage and Who instituted it. Lastly, this debate over what is or is not sin, living in sin, etc. is fruitless when the salvation of man (or woman) is given by the grace of God unconditionally to whom He gives it.

That is not what the Bible says. It states quite categorically that the only exception for divorce is adultery. So, you don't mind ignoring that, but when it comes to SSM, then the institution of marriage (including multiple divorce and remarriage) is all important. That is the hypocrisy I see, quite clearly.

 

[GillDouglas]

That is not what the Bible says. It states quite categorically that the only exception for divorce is adultery. So, you don't mind ignoring that, but when it comes to SSM, then the institution of marriage (including multiple divorce and remarriage) is all important. That is the hypocrisy I see, quite clearly.

What is your point in lumping me, or other conservatives in your self-righteous view of what we believe? I've already clearly stated that divorce is sin as it is cleary taught in the NT. Lying on your tax return is a sin. Stealing time from work is a sin. A sin is a sin, and no man should judge another by his sin. We should only encourage and lift up those struggling with sin. What does any of this have to do with SSM?

 

[Truthfrees]

Wait. Adultery is the only "exception" for divorce, as per the Bible. So if a person divorces their spouse for a reason not adultery, then remarries, that second marriage is an ongoing act of adultery. That is the conservative reading of scripture on divorce and remarriage. Except for lately, when they decided that they hate two gay single people marrying each other more than they hate remarriage without the "exception".

To be fair, conservatives teach against it all, homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, divorce, dishonesty, abuse.

Other sins are usually hidden or repented of, but if adulterers banded together to try to force Christians to accept an adulterous lifestyle as something God approves of, we'd be having the exact same conversation with them.

Truth be told, we have much more of a problem with killing unborn babies than we do SSM.

 

[Truthfrees]

Because you quoted my post when you asked this, I have to mention just in case, altho my faith icon should say it, that please don't mistake me as a representative of liberal Christian opinions. I'm a social liberal and an ex-Christian.

Ok. Thanks for that clarification. I wouldn't have known otherwise.

 

[Truthfrees]

I've already clearly stated that divorce is sin as it is clearly taught in the NT. Lying on your tax return is a sin. Stealing time from work is a sin. A sin is a sin, and no man should judge another by his sin. We should only encourage and lift up those struggling with sin.

This is true about what conservatives believe.

We believe the last statement too, we just need to keep reminding each other, so we don't slip out of speaking the truth in love, and start judging others.

I think judging sometimes comes from not knowing and understanding some one who's different.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Wait. Adultery is the only "exception" for divorce, as per the Bible. So if a person divorces their spouse for a reason not adultery, then remarries, that second marriage is an ongoing act of adultery. That is the conservative reading of scripture on divorce and remarriage. Except for lately, when they decided that they hate two gay single people marrying each other more than they hate remarriage without the "exception".

I see the same problem. mercy and allowances towards all sorts of heterosexual sin and acting inconsistently towards a homosexual person doing the same thing. to Jesus sin was all the same, and what mattered was consistency if you judged at all. Hypocrisy was not tolerated, and mercy was encouraged .. especially towards the woman caught in adultery, and he didn't even make an issue with the Samaritan woman at the well having had 5 husbands and living with someone at the moment who wasn't her husband, what she remembered about it was that Jesus told the story of her life having just met her, but why is it that she didn't remember him saying harsh words about her lifestyle? Probably because he didn't say anything like that .. pretty sure that was it.

 

[Haasrecht]

The thing that always confuses me is why people feel the need to judge or get involved in the personal lives of non-Christians? If someone of your congregation seems to be living in some sort of unrepentant sin, then I could understand why their brothers and sisters in Christ would get involved. But for the rest of society? Why tell non-Christian homosexuals that they are living in sin? Of course they are living in unrepentant sin if they are unsaved -- whether they are gay, straight, or any other category. If someone is unsaved of course they are living in sin. I see no reason why people believe homosexuality is some sort of special sin that requires special attention and involvement from Christians in society. So someone believes it is a sin. Fine, but so is greed, lust, deceit, and all sorts of other things. The wages of all sin is death. We should be serving and loving unbelievers, not trying to dictate how they live their lives.

I do not understand the reasoning that seems to want to dictate what non-Christians do in their lives. How is it our place to be involved in their lives besides loving and serving them?

 

[Hetta]

Perhaps people are confusing the word "conservative" with the word "Conservative". There is a difference, and there is a deliberate usage of the lower case c to denote those with a conservative (i.e. traditional) viewpoint, rather than a Conservative (Republican) viewpoint.

However, re-writing history to state that conservatives hate all sin equally is not borne out by the behavior in either the outside world, or these Christian Forums, where just yesterday a thread was created by a member who admitted to hating (literally) Liberals and homosexuals. He doesn't hate child molesters, murderers, or rapists. No. Just people who are different to him. And he's not alone. Although most people don't call it what it is, and claim to hate the sin, not the sinner, I have seen NO love whatsoever expressed towards individuals on these boards who have openly spoken about their homosexuality or those who are transgender (or in the process) by Conservatives. I have seen revulsion, contempt, and disgust. This is not loving the sinner. Not on anyone's terms, and certainly not those of Jesus.

So I'll stick to being a bleeding heart Liberal and I'll continue to remember John 3:16 (and the Christian who recently tried to argue to me that God doesn't actually mean all the world, lol) and to extend love to everyone - even those who hate me because I don't believe what they believe. Not only because I believe that this is what Jesus wants, but because I think it's the right thing to do.

 

[Truthfrees]

just yesterday a thread was created by a member who admitted to hating (literally) Liberals and homosexuals. He doesn't hate child molesters, murderers, or rapists. No. Just people who are different to him.

Well that's a scary thought.

The guy feels he's DIFFERENT from liberals and homosexuals, BUT he doesn't feel he's DIFFERENT from a child molester, murderer, and rapist?

What does that tell you?

Haters can be found in any camp.

So if this is the kind of people you run into a lot, I see what you're saying.

But this thread is about getting through to conservatives, not getting through to haters.

Gill and I are giving you honest answers about conservatives.

You'll probably have to talk to that other guy about how to get through to haters.

If you want to paint us with his brush that would be highly unfair.

 

[Truthfrees]

I see the same problem. mercy and allowances towards all sorts of heterosexual sin and acting inconsistently towards a homosexual person doing the same thing. to Jesus sin was all the same, and what mattered was consistency if you judged at all. Hypocrisy was not tolerated, and mercy was encouraged .. especially towards the woman caught in adultery, and he didn't even make an issue with the Samaritan woman at the well having had 5 husbands and living with someone at the moment who wasn't her husband, what she remembered about it was that Jesus told the story of her life having just met her, but why is it that she didn't remember him saying harsh words about her lifestyle? Probably because he didn't say anything like that .. pretty sure that was it.

Very true.

This is the same thing Gill and I have been saying.

So you liberals and we conservatives see eye to eye on hypocrisy, discrimination, abuse, mercy, etc.

The thing we disagree on is what is sin.

We say it's all sin.

Are you guys saying some sins aren't sins, and some sins are sins?

 

[hedrick]

Are you guys saying some sins aren't sins, and some sins are sins?

Huh? How could a sin not be a sin. That's self contradictory. We disagree on what actions are sin, because we think you are taking some passages out of context.

 

[Truthfrees]

Although most people don't call it what it is, and claim to hate the sin, not the sinner, I have seen NO love whatsoever expressed towards individuals on these boards who have openly spoken about their homosexuality or those who are transgender (or in the process) by Conservatives. I have seen revulsion, contempt, and disgust. This is not loving the sinner. Not on anyone's terms, and certainly not those of Jesus.

Revulsion, contempt, disgust for the sin absolutely. Is there any sin in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that isn't revolting?

If we talk to the sinner, we change our tone. Those of us that don't, need to be reminded to do so.

Can we learn to express ourselves better so you don't get the idea we hate you the person? ABSOLUTELY!

Conservatives need to be made aware of the impression they give, so they can find better ways to express what they really feel.

Haters OTOH need to be called on their sin, because they are accurately expressing what they really think and feel. 1 John 4:8

If you want to know who's a hater and who's only opposed to sin, lovingly remind them about loving the sinner and hating the sin.

If you blast someone about being a hater or hypocrite, you might get a false positive.

They might get offended by your accusation, and start ranting nonsense.

It's to your advantage to bring out the best in a person, so that you can be treated better.

If you can't because you're so badly hurt by a lifetime of judgement and abuse, I'd be glad to step in and deal with any haters.

Let's get this issue dealt with so that your experience here can be a good one.

You is all of you GLBTs.

I'm here to help in any way I can.

Point me to the hate and I'll jump into the discussion.

 

[Truthfrees]

Huh? How could a sin not be a sin. That's self contradictory. We disagree on what actions are sin, because we think you are taking some passages out of context.

That's what I meant.

 

[GillDouglas]

Huh? How could a sin not be a sin. That's self contradictory. We disagree on what actions are sin, because we think you are taking some passages out of context.

You mean these passages: Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Leviticus 20:13-15, 1 Timothy 1:10, Romans 1:26-27, Jude 7 ?

It seems "the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" (2 Timothy 4:3).

 

[Hetta]

So we're immediately back to the sinfulness of homosexuals ... it amazes me, it truly does.

It's like "of course everyone sins .. but anyway, those gay people ..."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, the biggest question I've ever had regarding this forum has been answered. Conservative and liberal must only refer to theology here. It absolutely can't refer to politics. For example, people all across the political spectrum are Orthodox Christians. However, no matter our politics we qualify as theologically traditional (i.e. which must be what is referred to as conservative around here).

I've argued for some both on CF and elsewhere that I don't think "conservative" and "liberal" are particularly helpful theological terms.

We can talk about Liberalism in a theological context, but in the context of 19th century European Protestant Liberalism in the tradition of Schieiermacher. Though when we start talking about, for example, John Shelby Spong while he is often regarded as liberal, in matters of religion I don't know if "liberal" is really the right word.

Our faith in the God of the Incarnation is neither conservative nor liberal; it is the benchmark of Christian orthodoxy. A rejection of the Incarnation is not a move away from a "conservative" position to a "liberal" position; it is the move from faith to faithlessness, from orthodoxy to heresy. To that end I don't really see "conservative" and "liberal" as helpful theological categories; we already have helpful categories to distinguish between right faith and aberrant faith: orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

If these--liberal and conservative--are to be regarded as theological categories, what do they actually and really describe? Is the difference between a theological liberal and a theological conservative a matter of, say, biblical [in]errancy or is it over matters of ancient and established Christian dogma (the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc)? Because certainly there is a radical difference between someone who doesn't accept biblical inerrancy and someone who rejects the Gospel itself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jack of Spades]

So we're immediately back to the sinfulness of homosexuals ... it amazes me, it truly does.

It's like "of course everyone sins .. but anyway, those gay people ..."

What I find curious is that every other gay Christian or ex-Christian I come across, tells that at some point their church told them that "Stop living in a relationship or leave the church" But on the contrary I have not heard of very many Christians or ex-Christians who got kicked out of their church because the person was hateful, or impatient, or bitter, or judgemental. Nor I have ever seen conservative Christians marching with banners against sins like spiritual pride, lack of patience or stuff like that. Sure there have been many people being so greedy, hateful or impatient that it should count as "living in sin", even if it led to no criminal behavior.

If the theory "every sin is equal" is indeed the conservative position, it's not very obvious for outsider watching what they actually do in practise. I can't help thinking of Orwell here: "All sins are equal, but some sins are more equal than others."

 

[hedrick]

It seems "the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" (2 Timothy 4:3).

It would be nice if just once a conservative would avoid ad hominem. That passage could just as easily be applied to conservatives. How many postings have I seen telling people to choose their churches to be those where you hear conservative preaching? Everyone likes to hear people that think like they do. Are you making a serious attempt to avoid that temptation?