Jail/Homosexuality

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

MTD, Yes! at least from a biblical-literalist perspective. Taking this concept a bit further, even the Westboro-Baptist-type Christian should be viewed as those who really, really believe their message, unlike those too afraid to confront society out in the open due to habits of niceness, propriety, fear, or all three. "But that style is not showing love..." Maybe so, maybe not. Depends on how real hell really is. If it's god who calls sinners to obey the gospel and avoid hell, then the message is way more important than the method--no matter how crass. IMO you can't top the crassness of eternal damnation.

Furthermore, if it true that people are only saved by God through His word, then the 'method' of the messenger is generally speaking irrelevant.

If a person will not repent and come to Christ because of the MESSAGE, but instead will reject the MESSAGE because 'that messenger was awfully tacky in their presentation and upset me' then such a person would not come to Christ anyway. If the messenger was all sugar and spice and everything nice - and THAT was the reason for the person's 'conversion' - then the person got converted to Mr Sugar-and-Spice and not to Christ.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

MTD, Yes! at least from a biblical-literalist perspective. Taking this concept a bit further, even the Westboro-Baptist-type Christian should be viewed as those who really, really believe their message, unlike those too afraid to confront society out in the open due to habits of niceness, propriety, fear, or all three. "But that style is not showing love..." Maybe so, maybe not. Depends on how real hell really is. If it's god who calls sinners to obey the gospel and avoid hell, then the message is way more important than the method--no matter how crass. IMO you can't top the crassness of eternal damnation.

Today "niceness" trumps all things.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Furthermore, if it true that people are only saved by God through His word, then the 'method' of the messenger is generally speaking irrelevant.

If a person will not repent and come to Christ because of the MESSAGE, but instead will reject the MESSAGE because 'that messenger was awfully tacky in their presentation and upset me' then such a person would not come to Christ anyway. If the messenger was all sugar and spice and everything nice - and THAT was the reason for the person's 'conversion' - then the person got converted to Mr Sugar-and-Spice and not to Christ.

Jesus told people they must "hate" their Father and Mother, wife and children, and even their own life also if they wanted to be his disciples! Guess what? That's still in effect.

Read Luke 14:25-26

Jesus was the perfect preacher. Yet most did not repent.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

MTD, FREE FOOD is a whole lot different than walking into a crowd that you are opposed to with a placard saying - Drugs, Rock and Roll, Jesus Saves Sinners.

It is the same thing, IMO, as saying - You no-good, dirty rotten, low-down sinners - REPENT!
It works for some

Jesus Saves!

It works for others

Eeesh!

I would refuse to participate in that.

To the Jew I became as a Jew, to the gentile I became as a gentile,
I have become all things to all people that by all means I might save some.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

To the Jew I became as a Jew, to the gentile I became as a gentile,
I have become all things to all people that by all means I might save some.

1 Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew,.... That is, in religion; or with respect to some religious observances peculiar to the Jews, for he himself was really a Jew by nature;

1 Corinthians 9:22
To the weak became I as weak,.... That is, to weak Christians, who were weak in faith, and had not such clear knowledge of Gospel liberty,

1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law,.... And to these the apostle accommodated himself, as if he was without the law; by conversing with them without any difference; by eating any sort of food with them; by not circumcising Titus, when the Jews would have had it done; and by resisting Peter, when he, by his example, would have influenced the Gentiles to have lived as did the Jews:

Sorry, but walking into a crowd with placards showing hellfire imagery doesn't seem to be what the passage is speaking to, IMO.

I don't think that Jesus presented himself in a hateful way. You can see that in his dealings with the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, with Zacchaeus, etc.,

He only displays a degree of anger toward the religious, i.e. moneychangers. To run with that and come down hard against sinners is taking Jesus' example too far and out of context. I am far more angry as some things I've experienced from leadership than I ever could be at a sinner. Just my thoughts.

[Tim Rutledge]

In London England an evangelist was arrested for calling homosexuality a sin. It is just a matter of time and it will be happening in the U.S.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge

In London England an evangelist was arrested for calling homosexuality a sin. It is just a matter of time and it will be happening in the U.S.

There is a problem with presentation, IMO. How did he say it? Did he say homosexuality is a sin or did he say, "Let me read the scriptures"?

I don't doubt there will be times it will matter, but it doesn't help when we say stupid things like - "God didn't make Adam and Steve!"

Just read the Word of God and stop all the hateful talk is my take on the issue. At least if I am in jail, I'm not fretting over how I presented Jesus Christ that brought me to that place.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is a problem with presentation, IMO. How did he say it? Did he say homosexuality is a sin or did he say, "Let me read the scriptures"?....

Just read the Word of God and stop all the hateful talk is my take on the issue. At least if I am in jail, I'm not fretting over how I presented Jesus Christ that brought me to that place.

So instead of saying, 'homosexuality is a sin," you think it's more socially presentable to just read scripture? Here's a couple,

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Lev 20:13)

Or, absent the violence, keeping just the divine condemnation part:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what if shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Rom 1:27)

[Seeker001]

In the end love will triumph over all forms of hatred.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

So instead of saying, 'homosexuality is a sin," you think it's more socially presentable to just read scripture? Here's a couple,

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Lev 20:13)

Or, absent the violence, keeping just the divine condemnation part:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what if shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Rom 1:27)

I "believe" it is more powerful to always cite scripture and not address any sin issue with a passionate plea, i.e. "God didn't make Adam and Steve."