HOMOSEXUALITY REVISITED

[Rex]

I suspect that Rex meant to say that he is not an English major.

Yep my mind works faster than my hands, so how about a list of mortal sins TVOT and we can see just what a difference a definition makes,
With a quick google search I see that's no easy matter, there being added to all the time http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=517183

View the text through this lens and it becomes clear, but you don't follow the same principles of hermeneutics as I most protestants do.

Mathew 12:31-32
Mark 3:28-29

Both say all sins will be forgiven man,
The sin unto death is the rejection of Christ first and foremost but it can be forgiven. But the sin unto death can not be forgiven.

 

[Dodo_David]

I have no objection to Christians arguing among themselves about how certain sins are ranked (or should be ranked).

Yet, such a topic is irrelevant when one is trying to evangelize, because spiritually-dead people are not yet capable of comprehending such matters.

So, when talking to a spiritually-dead person about God's free gift of eternal life, what that person's sexual behavior is like doesn't matter. Scolding a spiritually-dead person for engaging in a particular sin is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

That is why I do not make a fuss about the sexual orientation of a person who is not born again.

At the same time, I do not have to approve of or participate in anything that would promote sinful behavior.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I have no objection to Christians arguing among themselves about how certain sins are ranked (or should be ranked).

Yet, such a topic is irrelevant when one is trying to evangelize, because spiritually-dead people are not yet capable of comprehending such matters.

So, when talking to a spiritually-dead person about God's free gift of eternal life, what that person's sexual behavior is like doesn't matter. Scolding a spiritually-dead person for engaging in a particular sin is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

That is why I do not make a fuss about the sexual orientation of a person who is not born again.

At the same time, I do not have to approve of or participate in anything that would promote sinful behavior.

And much of what's debated here on these discussion boards isn't intended to be useful for evangelization. Pointing out the seriousness of certain sins by contrast to others is done in hopes that a person will not commit those sins. When we recognized that we all sin regularly, the foibles of the human condition, we need to be reminded of which sins really cross the line.

My wife and I rarely spank our children. The last one to get a spanking was our 5 year old over a year ago when he willfully threw his brother's cell phone into the fish tank. We reserve the "laying on of hands" for egregious transgressions so our children know when we use it that they seriously messed up. It has the effect of compelling them to stay well within the boundaries of behavior that don't set their seats afire.

People really are like that. I'm a strong advocate for using the most effective means possible to convince people of their sin and need for salvation, but I think it's a mistake, our current trend, of falling shy of preaching about the fires of hell. It's like we've been cowed from doing so because it has, in the past, been such an effective tool to get people to rethink the way they live their lives. Our evangelism should never be bereft of the punishments of hell, nor our urgency to warn people not to go there.

 

[Dodo_David]

And much of what's debated here on these discussion boards isn't intended to be useful for evangelization. Pointing out the seriousness of certain sins by contrast to others is done in hopes that a person will not commit those sins. When we recognized that we all sin regularly, the foibles of the human condition, we need to be reminded of which sins really cross the line.

My wife and I rarely spank our children. The last one to get a spanking was our 5 year old over a year ago when he willfully threw his brother's cell phone into the fish tank. We reserve the "laying on of hands" for egregious transgressions so our children know when we use it that they seriously messed up. It has the effect of compelling them to stay well within the boundaries of behavior that don't set their seats afire.

People really are like that. I'm a strong advocate for using the most effective means possible to convince people of their sin and need for salvation, but I think it's a mistake, our current trend, of falling shy of preaching about the fires of hell. It's like we've been cowed from doing so because it has, in the past, been such an effective tool to get people to rethink the way they live their lives. Our evangelism should never be bereft of the punishments of hell, nor our urgency to warn people not to go there.

If a spiritually-dead person doesn't believe that Hell exists, then that person will be unmoved by any preaching about it.
Besides, preaching about eternal separation from God doesn't require a person to single out a particular sin for special condemnation.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

If a spiritually-dead person doesn't believe that Hell exists, then that person will be unmoved by any preaching about it.
Besides, preaching about eternal separation from God doesn't require a person to single out a particular sin for special condemnation.

Here's where I disagree with you. Everyone believes that hell exists even if they deny so on an intellectual level. When you get past the academic exercise, there is a deeply seated knowledge that everyone has that they will one day stand before their Creator and give an account of their lives. In this sense, there really is no such thing as an atheist. Furthermore, I find a strong correlation between the reticence of Christians to preach about hell and people acting in such way as to go there. Pastors who teach on hell are competing against more "seeker friendly" churches that don't judge, don't condemn wickedness, and don't instill a righteous fear of hell fire.

Genuine concern for the soul of a sinner, something lost in modern evangelization, gets through all the intellectual flak and causes a person to pause for reconsideration that they might be very wrong about God and about eternal life. It pierces through intellectualism and raises an appropriate fear in the sinner that they need to get their life right before the Almighty. Moreover, I think you're wrong that it's useless to point out particular sins. Homosexuals know on a visceral level, perhaps more than the average sinner, that they are living an odious lifestyle for which they will one day give account. If particular sins were unimportant, than we wouldn't be informed by the Bible that adulterers, fornicators, blasphemers, and the cowardly will not see the kingdom of God. Special attention wouldn't be given to the penalty of a homosexual life in the first chapter of Romans.

The problem isn't that people won't believe in hellfire, the problem is that we have been intimidated into silence and no longer preach it. And such a taciturn omission contributes to the ruin of souls.

 

[Dodo_David]

Everyone believes that hell exists even if they deny so on an intellectual level.

Would you care to prove your claim?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Would you care to prove your claim?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-21&version=NKJV

 

[Dodo_David]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-21&version=NKJV

That verse makes no mention of Hell.

By the way, the term "Hell" isn't biblical. It is borrowed from Norse mythology, and in Norse mythology, Hell is the dwelling place of all dead people.

The Greek equivalent of the Norse "Hell" is "Hades", which is the word that is used in the Greek texts of Revelation 20:13-14, which says the following:

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

In short, the lake of fire isn't in Hades (or the Norse "Hell"). Instead, it is the other way around.

Anyway, devout atheists don't believe in God's existence, and they definitely don't believe in a place of eternal punishment.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I see where you're coming from now. You're definitely part of the problem.

 

[Dodo_David]

I see where you're coming from now. You're definitely part of the problem.

Uh, do you usually resort to using ad hominem when someone disagrees with you?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

If that's what you think it is, then report me.

 

[Selene]

That is my point. If sex between two people isn't the unforgivable sin, then why single that particular sin out for special condemnation?

If sexually "straight" people are just as sinful as homosexuals, then why dwell on a sin that is particular to the latter group?

If we were to treat all sins equally (except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit), then we would treat spiritually-dead homosexuals the same way that we treat spiritually-dead heterosexuals. Yet, in the USA, spiritually-dead homosexuals appear to be on the receiving end of harsher criticism.

I see such unequal criticism of the sins of spiritually-dead people as working against the effort to evangelize people.

In short, evangelism doesn't require us to criticize any particular sin of a spiritually-dead person. Instead, we are to present to all people a message of how to have a life that is abundant and eternal.

I think that homosexuality is getting more attention because it is being legalized in some states. Furthermore, the gay activists are now going into the schools and forcing very young kids to accept homosexuality as "normal". They are going into elementary schools and distributing books endorsing homosexuality such as "The King and I."

 

[Dodo_David]

In John 6:44, Messiah Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
In John 6:65, He says, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

So, if you want a spiritually-dead homosexual person to turn to Jesus, then perhaps you should ask God the Father to draw that person to Jesus.

 

[Selene]

In John 6:44, Messiah Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
In John 6:65, He says, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

So, if you want a spiritually-dead homosexual person to turn to Jesus, then perhaps you should ask God the Father to draw that person to Jesus.

There are some homosexuals who are drawn to Jesus and are not interested in the movement of the gay activists. God believes in free will. God calls and many hear the calling, but few are chosen.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

God gave the model for evangelism when he told the Israelites, "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" (Deut 30:19) We don't mention the reward and omit the consequence of choosing otherwise. God gave both the reward and the punishment and urged people to "choose life". It's difficult for somebody who spurns the teaching on hell to compellingly witness to somebody that there is an unenviable alternative to choosing Christ.

 

[Dodo_David]

God gave the model for evangelism when he told the Israelites, "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" (Deut 30:19) We don't mention the reward and omit the consequence of choosing otherwise. God gave both the reward and the punishment and urged people to "choose life". It's difficult for somebody who spurns the teaching on hell to compellingly witness to somebody that there is an unenviable alternative to choosing Christ.

You have cited a passage in the Old Testament in which the audience already believed that the God of Israel was real and the only true God. God-fearing people may be receptive to a message about eternal punishment, but atheists aren't God-fearing people.

There is a time and place to talk about the lake of fire mentioned in Revelation 20:13-14 (not the Hell of Norse mythology), but doing so too early would be a case of putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Selene]

You have cited a passage in the Old Testament in which the audience already believed that the God of Israel was real and the only true God. God-fearing people may be receptive to a message about eternal punishment, but atheists aren't God-fearing people.

There is a time and place to talk about the lake of fire mentioned in Revelation 20:13-14 (not the Hell of Norse mythology), but doing so too early would be a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Are you an atheist?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Are you an atheist?

Now THAT's a good question.

 

[Dodo_David]

Are you an atheist?

No, but I have had plenty of debates with atheists.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

No, but I have had plenty of debates with atheists.

A Christian wouldn't have dodged the question. A Christian would have defined himself as such if there was any doubt.