[ATrain]

IMO the world would be a much better place if the Church focused on Loving people instead of Legislating people

Boom!

But when we even hint that what they are doing is morally wrong and do it in our most loving way possible, don't they still scream "You hateful bigoted homophobe!"? Or does loving them in your book mean we just don't tell them they are wrong at all? And is it wrong to support legislation that is in line with God's principles?

1. Depends on who it is you're telling it to.
2. No, but it is all in how you do it/delivery of the message.
3. This isn't a theocracy. Does the fact my husband and I want to be able to file our taxes together prevent you from having your own beliefs, impede you from practicing those beliefs or in any other way harm you personally?

[SuperJon]

But when we even hint that what they are doing is morally wrong and do it in our most loving way possible, don't they still scream "You hateful bigoted homophobe!"?

Because we've been screaming it from pulpits and platforms. It doesn't matter how much we tell people we love them. If we haven't first displayed that love, nothing we say will ever been taken with love.

Or does loving them in your book mean we just don't tell them they are wrong at all?

No. We tell them they're wrong. After we've established a relationship with them. After we've loved and served them like we would our holy Christian friends. And after we've accepted them as human beings. Then, and only then, do we have the right to tell them what they feel is the core of their being isn't acceptable in God's eyes.

And is it wrong to support legislation that is in line with God's principles?

No. It's not. But that shouldn't be the focus of the Church. Its focus should be on people and relationships, not government, lawsuits, and legislation. How much time and money has been spent on trying to overturn laws in the name of Jesus? We need Christian lawmakers, but that shouldn't hold such a high focus within the Church.

[flamehunter]

SJ - I agree with you nearly 100%. The only quibble I might have is #2. God didn't tell Jonah to go to Nineveh and establish relationships with the people and then tell them to repent. Neither did Peter on the day of Pentecost. They presented the truth clearly and as directed by God and people repented. I agree we should not try to alienate people with the vitriol that has been used way too often in the name of the Gospel, but ours isn't necessarily the responsibility to prepare their hearts, that's the work of the Holy Spirit. And to be clear as well I'm not talking only about homosexuality, but all lost sinners in general.

[SuperJon]

My rebuttal to that would be that Jonah was a prophet and Peter a preacher. There is a positional authority that some have under their calling that allows/commands them to do just that. The general public, however, doesn't necessarily fit that mold.

[ALUmnus]

IMO the world would be a much better place if the Church focused on Loving people instead of Legislating people

Boom!

More like a fizzle. Is it loving to allow two women to marry each other? You do realize this will result in increased fatherlessness, increased motherlessness, right? Is that loving, too? I guess it all hinges on if we're using Scripture's idea of love, or modern society's, which is different depending on what day of the week it is.

[ALUmnus]

SJ, so much of what you're saying is misguided.

I've never been in a church (and I've been in a LOT of churches) that have been screaming from the pulpits about homosexuality. This is a dishonest meme heaved onto the church for years now.

And what's with the idea that if we would just love people they’d all come running to Jesus? That’s not really what the Bible teaches. YES, LOVE EVERYONE, WITHOUT PARTIALITY! I absolutely believe this. But that’s how we are to live. That’s not proclaiming the Gospel to sinners. (The Gospel offends the unsaved and brings sinners to repent. I know, because I’ve been saved from this very state.) Churches have been loving people for decades, and look where it’s getting us in today’s society. This whole movement for homosexual marriage has been anti-church, anti-Christian from the beginning. If that hasn’t already been painfully obvious, it will be in the coming months & years if things don’t change.

We can only tell someone to repent after we’re friends?

Laypersons are not to preach the Truth? We are a holy priesthood of believers, I thought I read somewhere.

The Church should stay out of politics? Like, individuals in the Church? Isn't that a bit isolationist? Seems to me that politics touches pretty much everyone and every aspect of our lives. I'd say that should be a pretty big focus.

Realize that in almost everything you’ve laid out, you’re creating dichotomies of your own making that don’t need to be there. I know it’s in a lot of the popular writing and thinking these days, but is it in Scripture?

I’m just seeing so much gibberish that’s based “I feel” and emotions but not a lot of thought.

[RubberMallet]

The Church should stay out of politics? Like, individuals in the Church? Isn't that a bit isolationist? Seems to me that politics touches pretty much everyone and every aspect of our lives. I'd say that should be a pretty big focus.

It is impossible to leave your "religion" at the door of the political arena. For anyone. to suggest that they do so is absurd.

Everything else you hit on is spot on.

[ATrain]

IMO the world would be a much better place if the Church focused on Loving people instead of Legislating people

Boom!

More like a fizzle. Is it loving to allow two women to marry each other? You do realize this will result in increased fatherlessness, increased motherlessness, right? Is that loving, too? I guess it all hinges on if we're using Scripture's idea of love, or modern society's, which is different depending on what day of the week it is.

Umm, it won't result in increasing motherlessness or fatherlessnes at all. Already less than half of US kids are living with a mom and dad in their first marriage:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... al-family/

If anything, we can hope it'll result in their at least being an increase in two-parent households and a decrease in marriages where someone gets married, has kids with their spouse, then leaves b/c they can't handle dealing with their natural same-sex attraction anymore. Would you rather more kids be in that situation?

[adam42381]

I'm sure many would prefer the kids grow up in single parent homes than to be indoctrinated by homosexuals.

[Purple Haize]

IMO the world would be a much better place if the Church focused on Loving people instead of Legislating people

Boom!

More like a fizzle. Is it loving to allow two women to marry each other? You do realize this will result in increased fatherlessness, increased motherlessness, right? Is that loving, too? I guess it all hinges on if we're using Scripture's idea of love, or modern society's, which is different depending on what day of the week it is.

How am I allowing anything? I love those two people regardless. As for your fatherless/motherless claims domt make sense. Gay couples can't have kids. It's biology.

[SuperJon]

Nowhere did I say people should stay out of politics. I even said we need Christian lawmakers. Reading what I wrote would be a great thing to do.

The Church should focus less on political policies and more on people. When pastors are more concerned with laws and the Supreme Court than they are their neighbors down the street, then we have a problem.

To say the Church has been loving people for decades is a bit of an exaggeration. If that were the truth, you wouldn't have people leaving local churches in droves. Churches who are caring and welcoming are the outlier in today's church environment. That's why the great churches stick out so much: they're different. More often than not churches are cliquish and inclusive, loving the people who claim to be members but not people who don't know Jesus in their community. I was on staff with an incredible church for 4.5 years and, while they do great things, they've even become a church that is inclusive and doesn't do much for people outside the church.

And again, I never said lay people aren't supposed to preach the truth. That's stretching what I said to a level where it doesn't even relate to the point I was making.

As for yelling from the pulpit: that hasn't happened as much in recent years which is why I included platforms. That includes Twitter, Facebook, and blogs. There are plenty of pastors and Christians using those scream about how horrible the gays are and how "they" are corrupting our society.

[ATrain]

Nowhere did I say people should stay out of politics. I even said we need Christian lawmakers. Reading what I wrote would be a great thing to do.

The Church should focus less on political policies and more on people. When pastors are more concerned with laws and the Supreme Court than they are their neighbors down the street, then we have a problem.

To say the Church has been loving people for decades is a bit of an exaggeration. If that were the truth, you wouldn't have people leaving local churches in droves. Churches who are caring and welcoming are the outlier in today's church environment. That's why the great churches stick out so much: they're different. More often than not churches are cliquish and inclusive, loving the people who claim to be members but not people who don't know Jesus in their community. I was on staff with an incredible church for 4.5 years and, while they do great things, they've even become a church that is inclusive and doesn't do much for people outside the church.

And again, I never said lay people aren't supposed to preach the truth. That's stretching what I said to a level where it doesn't even relate to the point I was making.

As for yelling from the pulpit: that hasn't happened as much in recent years which is why I included platforms. That includes Twitter, Facebook, and blogs. There are plenty of pastors and Christians using those scream about how horrible the gays are and how "they" are corrupting our society.

Read barbwire.com to prove that last paragraph. There's an article using the picture of the Twin Towers with the headline "Rainbow jihadists blow up twin towers of Truth and Righteousness."
http://barbwire.com/2015/06/27/1000-rai ... teousness/

[ALUmnus]

Yes, point to the extremists and say that's the norm.

SJ, why should the church focus less on politics? Again, you're creating an unnecessary dichotomy. The church needs to be focusing on EVERYTHING. And everything I typed was a precise response to what you typed. I did not read into anything.

PH, when a child is adopted into or born into a lesbian marriage, we are specifically denying them a father. That is fatherlessness. That is why it will increase. And you're right about biology, something that's conveniently missing from all of this. Which makes it odd how quiet the athiests have been in all of this (and the transgender happenings). But according to Adam, wanting every child to grow up with a married mom & dad equates to wanting more single-parent households.

Atrain, 2-parent household isn't the magic formula. It's a married mom & dad household.

[SuperJon]

Yes, point to the extremists and say that's the norm.

SJ, why should the church focus less on politics? Again, you're creating an unnecessary dichotomy. The church needs to be focusing on EVERYTHING.

We should focus less on politics because we've been missing out on the things that are more important. Politics aren't unimportant, they're just not the only thing that's important.

And everything I typed was a precise response to what you typed. I did not read into anything.

You may not have read into anything, but you obviously didn't read everything.

[ATrain]

Yes, point to the extremists and say that's the norm.

SJ, why should the church focus less on politics? Again, you're creating an unnecessary dichotomy. The church needs to be focusing on EVERYTHING. And everything I typed was a precise response to what you typed. I did not read into anything.

PH, when a child is adopted into or born into a lesbian marriage, we are specifically denying them a father. That is fatherlessness. That is why it will increase. And you're right about biology, something that's conveniently missing from all of this. Which makes it odd how quiet the athiests have been in all of this (and the transgender happenings). But according to Adam, wanting every child to grow up with a married mom & dad equates to wanting more single-parent households.

Atrain, 2-parent household isn't the magic formula. It's a married mom & dad household.

Hmm, didn't know you'd consider Bryan Fischer, founder of NOM, to be an extremist.

Adam also never equated to wanting every kid to grow up with a married mom and dad to wanting more single-parent households. The reality is, not every kid is going to have a married mom and dad. It would be better for a child to be in a stable household of two moms or two dads who are perfectly capable of raising a happy, healthy child rather than an unstable one of a single parent who has no business having one child (let alone 4, 5, 6, 7 etc...) or stuck in the foster care system for most/all of their childhood.

[Purple Haize]

Yes, point to the extremists and say that's the norm.

SJ, why should the church focus less on politics? Again, you're creating an unnecessary dichotomy. The church needs to be focusing on EVERYTHING.

We should focus less on politics because we've been missing out on the things that are more important. Politics aren't unimportant, they're just not the only thing that's important.

And everything I typed was a precise response to what you typed. I did not read into anything.

You may not have read into anything, but you obviously didn't read everything.

You are wise beyond your years

[TH Spangler]

You know what's coming next. A free public college education for everyone, paid for with your tax dollars. That's how you get rid of free thinking private universities. You know judge Roberts will go along, after all its just a tax.

[adam42381]

You know what's coming next. A free public college education for everyone, paid for with your tax dollars. That's how you get rid of free thing private universities. You know judge Roberts will go along, after all its just a tax.

[ATrain]

You know what's coming next. A free public college education for everyone, paid for with your tax dollars. That's how you get rid of free thing private universities. You know judge Roberts will go along, after all its just a tax.

Or go to sleep without a fan on...

[jbock13]

This thread is gay.

[JK37]

"...natural same-sex attraction..."

Does the fact that it's natural make it right? Or does the fact the Bible calls it sin make it wrong?

"It would be better for a child to be in a stable household of two moms or two dads who are perfectly capable of raising a happy, healthy child."

Is there unbiased and empirical evidence of this? And, what does the Bible say?

[Purple Haize]

This thread is gay.

[ATrain]

"...natural same-sex attraction..."

Does the fact that it's natural make it right? Or does the fact the Bible calls it sin make it wrong?

"It would be better for a child to be in a stable household of two moms or two dads who are perfectly capable of raising a happy, healthy child."

Is there unbiased and empirical evidence of this? And, what does the Bible say?

Depends on your understanding of the Bible and your willingness to consider the other side and the historical context surrounding the six verses that address this issue. However, this thread is about civil rights, not what the Bible says or doesn't say, what you think it says or doesn't say, what you think it means or doesn't mean, or what I think about those things. While you may believe that my husband and I are living in sin, what right does that give you to stop us from filing taxes together, carrying each other on an employer-offerred insurance plan, etc...?

As for the second part you quoted, you conveniently left out the "than an unstable one of a single parent who has no business having one child (let alone 4, 5, 6, 7 etc...) or stuck in the foster care system for most/all of their childhood."

http://io9.com/5458304/research-shows-t ... raight-one
http://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and ... ingle-moms
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parent ... ight-ones/

And yes, I believe that ideally every child should be raised in a married household of a loving mother and father who are actually capable of raising a child, or multiple children.

[ALUmnus]

The reality is, not every kid is going to have a married mom and dad. It would be better for a child to be in a stable household of two moms or two dads who are perfectly capable of raising a happy, healthy child rather than an unstable one of a single parent who has no business having one child (let alone 4, 5, 6, 7 etc...) or stuck in the foster care system for most/all of their childhood.

Yes, there is that reality. And the examples you gave at the end of the quote are all too prevalent. I know, my wife works with these parents/kids every day. But at the same time, you're constructing a straw-man. Look, I know you don't agree, and this is not a personal attack on you, but a legal structure that creates a family out of a same-sex couple is inherently unstable. That does not mean it never "works", I'm not saying that. But you're creating a situation that excludes a mother or a father. That's not good.

Single-parent households and orphans are heart-breaking tragedies. In every case, the causes are evil: abuse, abandonment, neglect, death, drugs, alcoholism, promiscuity, kidnapping, the list goes on and on. So to use that as a comparison to how good a same-sex household is just isn't balanced. No one would say those situations are good. But to say part of the solution is placing a kid in another situation that denies them a mom or dad? That doesn't make sense. However, now, because of the courts, that argument is bigoted.

I find it odd that I have to defend this on a Liberty message board, even though I'm confident it's the majority opinion, not just on this board but across the country. Site whatever poll you want, I don't put much stock in most polls. Now is a time when we really need to think about things deeply, and know what we believe and why we believe it.

[bballfan84]

The reality is, not every kid is going to have a married mom and dad. It would be better for a child to be in a stable household of two moms or two dads who are perfectly capable of raising a happy, healthy child rather than an unstable one of a single parent who has no business having one child (let alone 4, 5, 6, 7 etc...) or stuck in the foster care system for most/all of their childhood.

Yes, there is that reality. And the examples you gave at the end of the quote are all too prevalent. I know, my wife works with these parents/kids every day. But at the same time, you're constructing a straw-man. Look, I know you don't agree, and this is not a personal attack on you, but a legal structure that creates a family out of a same-sex couple is inherently unstable. That does not mean it never "works", I'm not saying that. But you're creating a situation that excludes a mother or a father. That's not good.





Single-parent households and orphans are heart-breaking tragedies. In every case, the causes are evil: abuse, abandonment, neglect, death, drugs, alcoholism, promiscuity, kidnapping, the list goes on and on. So to use that as a comparison to how good a same-sex household is just isn't balanced. No one would say those situations are good. But to say part of the solution is placing a kid in another situation that denies them a mom or dad? That doesn't make sense. However, now, because of the courts, that argument is bigoted.

I find it odd that I have to defend this on a Liberty message board, even though I'm confident it's the majority opinion, not just on this board but across the country. Site whatever poll you want, I don't put much stock in most polls. Now is a time when we really need to think about things deeply, and know what we believe and why we believe it.