What is the Biblical response to the sins of others?

[OllieFranz]

It's not that we are stating in any way that we have captured the "mind of God" whatever that means, but clearly there is no such thing as encouraging, supporting or celebrating homosexual behavior. That is specifically a worldly endeavor. NOT a Christian one.

I apologize if you thought I was accusing anyone of making a claim of capturing the mind of God. I was applying that phrase only to myself, albeit in the negative, and not to anyone else. What I meant by it is the same thing I mean in my signature: I believe my position is in accord with God's teachings in the Scriptures, but unlike the prophets and apostles, I do not have any assurance that what I write is God-breathed and infallible.

Convert them or ignore them. Be nice and "Christian" toward them, but always strive to not allow them to infleunce you and your family of believers. And it may be that you have to openly contend against them if and when they strive to equate homosexual behavior to anything acceptable for Christians.

Now it's my turn to be confused about a phrase you used. What do you mean by "strive to equate homosexual behavior to anything acceptable for Christians"?

Thanks but no thanks. Let's just be good neighbors with a tall fence between us.

WWJD?

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Matthew 9:10 (Cf Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29)

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Matthew 11:19 (Cf Mark 2:16; Luke 7:34)
​

ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE WAY.

Wow! That's a rather strong reaction to a neighbor who only offered to keep an eye out to make sure your child is safe. If you are concerned for his safety in their care (although statistically he'd be in more potential danger from the heterosexual, married neighbor on your other side), you could always just politely decline their offer.

That would be opposed 100%.



Neither scenario is reasonable.

By reasonable scenario, all I meant is a situation you might reasonably expect to encounter if your neighbors are gay, not a position which they hold that I expect you to agree with. I only added the sentence to eliminate unreasonable scenarios such as the gay couple having "wild monkey sex" on the front lawn.

I see it no differental than mixing my children with warlocks. The advice on how Christians should live, laid out in the Gospels and the writings show me this.



I don't even preach Christian life to my neighbors, nor would I to a commited couple of homosexuals (which I don't believe exists in any large percentage). The interactions between us would be congenial and seperated enough for them to see the Gospel in my life.



The Gospels and 1 and 2 Peter.



1 and 2 Peter in their entirety. Do not support the world and its ways, and maintain a "Christian life."



Repeating Peter's letters, John and James, accompanied by the Gospels is more than enough to show the way to act towards unblievers and anti-Christians, and towards those that may say they are Christians but live like Humansists.



If the sinners in question, living next door to me try to demand that their un-Christian life and lifestyle is sanctioned by Christian truth and morality, and demanded to be celebrated by some secular law ruling over me . . . than they would be treated the same as I treat the homosexuals next door.

 

[onemorequestion]

According to the guy who has the Poe picture, your Christian God seems to be a bloodthirsty aggressive guy.

Study the histories of secular atheist political movements and the spread of islam.

"Worthless Rejects"....

..no wonder why some people see Christianity as a religion of hate and intolerance.

Hundreds of millions of other people see Christians as the only people bringing them food, clothing and hope for a better life.

Study the history of Christian outreach to the poor and needy. And hey look mom, NO TAXES and subjugation.

 

[onemorequestion]

I apologize if you thought I was accusing anyone of making a claim of capturing the mind of God. I was applying that phrase only to myself, albeit in the negative, and not to anyone else.

Mmmm, it looked to be aimed squarely at the "judgmentalism" and "speaking for God" charges always given as a response to a Christian just wanting to uphold Christian holiness.

What I meant by it is the same thing I mean in my signature: I believe my position is in accord with God's teachings in the Scriptures, but unlike the prophets and apostles, I do not have any assurance that what I write is God-breathed and infallible.

Then just agree with the positions of Jesus and His Apostles then.

Now it's my turn to be confused about a phrase you used. What do you mean by "strive to equate homosexual behavior to anything acceptable for Christians"?

You are part of that coalition are you not? For examples, Polycarp1, KCKID and the usual allied forces of the atheists and pagans here are striving to equate homosexual behavior to acceptable Christian behavior. It is not and cannot be if the words of Jesus and the Apostles have any worth to them. I have interacted with you all, and that IS what you literally are doing. I'm wrong how?

WWJD?

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Matthew 9:10 (Cf Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29)

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Matthew 11:19 (Cf Mark 2:16; Luke 7:34)
​

Notice that it was when the tax collector repented that Jesus said that salvation came to this man and hios household?

You don't see Jesus encouraging people to sin and stay in those sins. And you see that same consistency in the writings elsewhere in the NT.

Wow! That's a rather strong reaction to a neighbor who only offered to keep an eye out to make sure your child is safe.

I know what's up in the whole gay life deal. Like I said, no way no how is my child going to be placed in that environment. Ever.

If you are concerned for his safety in their care (although statistically he'd be in more potential danger from the heterosexual, married neighbor on your other side), you could always just politely decline their offer.

Just as Jesus and the Apostles would have me do.

Are you implying I would sling epithets towards them?

 

[Jase]

Study the histories of secular atheist political movements and the spread of islam.



Hundreds of millions of other people see Christians as the only people bringing them food, clothing and hope for a better life.

Study the history of Christian outreach to the poor and needy. And hey look mom, NO TAXES and subjugation.

History shows that Christianity is the most destructive religion in human history.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I know what's up in the whole gay life deal. Like I said, no way no how is my child going to be placed in that environment. Ever.

Oh? What is this "gay life deal"?

Seems to me, if the OP is to be taken seriously, they have a very simple life. Raise their kid. Go to work and make money. Keep house. Go to bed. Oh, and be good neighbors (offering to babysit and all! what a catch as far as neighbors go).

So, what is this "gay life" that is so apparently different than your life?

 

[SoccerCoach]

God created Adam and when Adam got a companion it was Eve and not another man.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

God created Adam and when Adam got a companion it was Eve and not another man.

So...God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?
Then who created Steve?

 

[SoccerCoach]

So...God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?
Then who created Steve?

It had to be a man and a woman. That much I know.

 

[Jase]

God created Adam and when Adam got a companion it was Eve and not another man.

Well, God didn't create Adam or Eve, since they are not literal people.

However, what's your point? God must have created gays, since sexual orientation is determined at birth, and the entire animal kingdom has gays. Who created gay animals?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Well, God didn't create Adam or Eve, since they are not literal people.

However, what's your point? God must have created gays, since sexual orientation is determined at birth, and the entire animal kingdom has gays. Who created gay animals?

Let him have his metaphor, hun. He likes it. Afterall, it is a good one, really.

But, yeah. Good question.

 

[OllieFranz]

Mmmm, it looked to be aimed squarely at the "judgmentalism" and "speaking for God" charges always given as a response to a Christian just wanting to uphold Christian holiness.



Then just agree with the positions of Jesus and His Apostles then.

That is exactly what I beleve I do. I am not so arrogant, though, as to think that my understanding is the only possible understanding. I know that I'm not a prophet or an apostle called to write the Inspired words of God. So I'm open to correction.

You are part of that coalition are you not? For examples, Polycarp1, KCKID and the usual allied forces of the atheists and pagans here are striving to equate homosexual behavior to acceptable Christian behavior. It is not and cannot be if the words of Jesus and the Apostles have any worth to them. I have interacted with you all, and that IS what you literally are doing. I'm wrong how?

WWJD?

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Matthew 9:10 (Cf Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29)

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Matthew 11:19 (Cf Mark 2:16; Luke 7:34)
​

Notice that it was when the tax collector repented that Jesus said that salvation came to this man and hios household?

You don't see Jesus encouraging people to sin and stay in those sins. And you see that same consistency in the writings elsewhere in the NT.



I know what's up in the whole gay life deal. Like I said, no way no how is my child going to be placed in that environment. Ever.



Just as Jesus and the Apostles would have me do.

Are you implying I would sling epithets towards them?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

It had to be a man and a woman. That much I know.

Yes, but it could easily go along with "go and multiply". It doesn't really apply much today - in a world of overpopulation and famine due hunger, disease and poverty.

Biologically, homosexuality is a possible, and likely, response to this situation. A certain number of people, or animals if you want to get down to it, are homosexual. This keeps population increase in check and increases the number in the population whom care for the 'lower in society' (if you'll pardon the expression) -children, aged, etc.- as well as to gather food and for protection.

As well, it is shown as a possible if not probable correlation that the same genes present in women with high fertility (above average) tend to be found in the homosexual family members of those women. As well, the more male children a woman has, the more likely the next male is to be homosexual.

 

[SoccerCoach]

Well, God didn't create Adam or Eve, since they are not literal people.

However, what's your point? God must have created gays, since sexual orientation is determined at birth, and the entire animal kingdom has gays. Who created gay animals?

I was giving an answer to the OP. That is my point.

Sure, God created man and animals. I figure gay animals have some kind of defect.

 

[SoccerCoach]

Yes, but it could easily go along with "go and multiply". It doesn't really apply much today - in a world of overpopulation and famine due hunger, disease and poverty.

Biologically, homosexuality is a possible, and likely, response to this situation. A certain number of people, or animals if you want to get down to it, are homosexual. This keeps population increase in check and increases the number in the population whom care for the 'lower in society' (if you'll pardon the expression) -children, aged, etc.- as well as to gather food and for protection.

As well, it is shown as a possible if not probable correlation that the same genes present in women with high fertilit (above average) tend to be found in the homosexual family members of those women. As well, the more male children a woman has, the more likely the next male is to be homosexual.

What does any of this have to do with my reply to the OP?

You are gay or want to support gays. I get it. I don't care.

 

[Jase]

I figure gay animals have some kind of defect.

Nope, they don't.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

What does any of this have to do with my reply to the OP?

You are gay or want to support gays. I get it. I don't care.

I am gay, indeed. That matters how? I never pointed that out. For that matter, were it not for the blatant rainbow flag in my sig, I could be totally indifferent for all you know, and merely pointing out scientific study results.

As it is, the fact I am a bio major and fascinated with genetics and the repercussions thereof has a larger impact on my discussion than my being gay does.


Anyway, the fact is, you said God made Adam and Eve and that it had to be a man and woman in the beginning. I am simply saying that does not have any effect on the idea that God made gays. That is all.

 

[onemorequestion]

I am gay, indeed. That matters how?

How is that not pure bias?

I never pointed that out. For that matter, were it not for the blatant rainbow flag in my sig, I could be totally indifferent for all you know, and merely pointing out scientific study results.

The rainbow flag declares you are an ideologue.

As it is, the fact I am a bio major and fascinated with genetics and the repercussions thereof has a larger impact on my discussion than my being gay does.

Bias leads many people into many fields. That is why activists get degrees, so that they can more effectively drive their agenda's.

Anyway, the fact is, you said God made Adam and Eve

Nature "made" Adam and Eve is just as accurate a statement of fact. As well, the homosexual "condition" of a mammal, should be seen as an aberration of normality.

. . . and that it had to be a man and woman in the beginning. I am simply saying that does not have any effect on the idea that God made gays. That is all.

God (or nature) "made" men and women. The whole "gay thing" is a construct of people to sell an ideology. The "Gay Agenda" as it were.

 

[onemorequestion]

Hi Jade,

The gay neighbor situation, you've discribed, does not call for mercy, it calls for grace.

Grace is simply treating others better than they deserve,
and that can be done under any circumstance.

God has His way with us constantly.

What's left for us to know is whether we are going to be examples of His mercy and grace or examples of His patience with the objects of His wrath.

Let us take every opportunity to be gracious always and merciful on those special occasions when we get to "join Him in His suffering".
Here's to being a light.

A good point.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

How is that not pure bias?

It is a slight bias, agreed.

The rainbow flag declares you are an ideologue.

Actually, it is an AIDS Awareness flag, to be honest. Hence the black stripe. Has more a purpose as to say I support HIV/AIDS research and finding a cure than anything else.

Bias leads many people into many fields. That is why activists get degrees, so that they can more effectively drive their agenda's.

Well, here you would be wrong. My "bias" of being gay has no impact on my choice of major or study.
I am pre-Med, I want to cure sickness and disease. As is my calling, from God, as a healer.

Nature "made" Adam and Eve is just as accurate a statement of fact. As well, the homosexual "condition" of a mammal, should be seen as an aberration of normality.

Normality does not dictate effect or use. Only numbers.

The fact that the majority of all beings are heterosexual is needed, as per evolutionary drive. The fact that all species exhibit, at many times exclusive to the individual, homosexual practice and drive, shows a cause to step back and look at it. It can, and does, fit into the evolutionary model.

God (or nature) "made" men and women. The whole "gay thing" is a construct of people to sell an ideology. The "Gay Agenda" as it were.

"Gay" is a construct, yes. Not of politics or activism, but of label. Labels are applied by society regardless of drive by the individuals.

The "Gay Agenda" is essentially non-existent. And, if at all apparent or existent, it consists merely of this: be seen as people, regardless of background.
No two gay individuals or couples live the same life. We share different political, ideological, religious, spiritual, ethnic, racial, and educational backgrounds. We do not agree on what is politically sound or what is not. There is no "gay lifestyle" or "gay agenda".

 

[onemorequestion]

It is a slight bias, agreed.

Agreed.

Actually, it is an AIDS Awareness flag, to be honest. Hence the black stripe. Has more a purpose as to say I support HIV/AIDS research and finding a cure than anything else.

Christian moral behavior eliminates HIV/AIDS.

Well, here you would be wrong. My "bias" of being gay has no impact on my choice of major or study.

My opinion is otherwise. I have a feeling that you will champion "gay rights" everywhere you go. That is the consistent experience I have had with every "gay" person I have ever met.

I am pre-Med, I want to cure sickness and disease. As is my calling, from God, as a healer.

God, called you into medicine?

Normality does not dictate effect or use. Only numbers.

When you are a Doctor, try replacing a heart with a liver, connecting all of the arteries and veins to the liver that now sits where the heart used to be and see how that works. The opposition to homosexuality as be equated with normality is that simple to grasp.

The fact that the majority of all beings are heterosexual is needed, as per evolutionary drive. The fact that all species exhibit, at many times exclusive to the individual, homosexual practice and drive, shows a cause to step back and look at it. It can, and does, fit into the evolutionary model.

As aberrant and deviant sexual behavior. Never normality. It is not equal to the way things should be.

"Gay" is a construct, yes. Not of politics or activism, but of label. Labels are applied by society regardless of drive by the individuals.

As we can see in reality, "gay" is a political and social label for a reason.

The "Gay Agenda" is essentially non-existent.

It has been methodically implemented since the Mattachine Society sprung up. It is a cunning use of propaganda and reeducation programatic power.

And, if at all apparent or existent, it consists merely of this: be seen as people, regardless of background.

It is a call to join in. I'm a big boy you know.

No two gay individuals or couples live the same life.

Your black line on your rainbow flag proves otherwise.

We share different political, ideological, religious, spiritual, ethnic, racial, and educational backgrounds.

Not in political or social agenda. LGBT is homogenized power to action, to implement an agenda. The gay agenda.

We do not agree on what is politically sound or what is not. There is no "gay lifestyle" or "gay agenda".

The gay "slang" dictionaries say otherwise - prove otherwise - as well. It documents well the culture and lifestyle.