Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Hey, we made it quite a few pages without anyone dropping the, "You must be gay" bomb. The streak has been broken!

Really though, I didn't know the word, "cute" was effeminate. My kids are cute. Does that sound effeminate?

Very effeminate when you are speaking to another man, especially a hairy legged combat veteran, of two wars.

I'd prefer no one use the "cute" word when addressing me.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

But like I said earlier, Paul refuted Peter because he was wrong. I sincerely believe that the argument and reasoning you and others are using is wrong, and needs to be refuted. Homosexuality is already intruding into the church, and decisions such as yours, if all pastors were to do the same would hyper intensify that proliferication of that sin IN the church.

1. Only problem is he is Paul and you are Peter. He is trying to explain grace and you are busy protesting the law breakers. Just as happened with the Apostles

2. If pastors did the same as Smitty more homosexuals would be won to the Lord instead of seeing them for the homophobes they are.

3. Jesus' method of reaching sinners was not to run down their lifestyle. Harsh words of condemnation where only used on church folk. ANY NT scripture to the contrary?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

FTR....

I do not love a sinner. I don't love any sinner. If you are a sinner, I do not love you. I don't love any kind of a sinner.

To love a sinner is to love both the good and the evil in the sinner which is the whole of the sinner himself. I will love the good and hate the evil in him since both the good and evil is integral to his life.

I love my Lord wholly. Because I love Him beyond measure, I will reach for the sinner for whom Christ died.

I disagree with this, though I have heard this doctrine that you can't seperate the sin from the sinner, therefore to hate sin is to hate sinners.

I don't buy it. These are people who are lost, hurting, and in bondage to sin.

I don't love any kind of sin either. Not homosexuality, not adultery, not greed, not lying, not anything. I wish I could say that I never sin, but alas, I'd be lying. However the difference between a redeemed person and the sinner is that WHEN we do sin, it tears us up. I feel as if I have let my Lord down, like letting down a parent who trusted in you, but worse. I am ashamed of myself, I am discouraged, and if I really fail (like get upset with my wife or something) it ruins my whole day. I hate sin in myself, and I hate it within anyone else.

Yet I no more hate the sinner than I hate myself. However the sinner does not repent of their sins, but rather seek justification either from themselves or some outside source, and it is bad when they feel like they get that from the church.

They don't need support, they need love, and they need to be told what they must do to remedy the sin problem. Told in love, not hate, not self righteousness, but told nonetheless in clear and concise terms so that they can choose to accept or reject the remedy for their sins (the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I disagree with this, though I have heard this doctrine that you can't seperate the sin from the sinner, therefore to hate sin is to hate sinners.

I don't buy it. These are people who are lost, hurting, and in bondage to sin.

I don't love any kind of sin either. Not homosexuality, not adultery, not greed, not lying, not anything. I wish I could say that I never sin, but alas, I'd be lying. However the difference between a redeemed person and the sinner is that WHEN we do sin, it tears us up. I feel as if I have let my Lord down, like letting down a parent who trusted in you, but worse. I am ashamed of myself, I am discouraged, and if I really fail (like get upset with my wife or something) it ruins my whole day. I hate sin in myself, and I hate it within anyone else.

Yet I no more hate the sinner than I hate myself. However the sinner does not repent of their sins, but rather seek justification either from themselves or some outside source, and it is bad when they feel like they get that from the church.

They don't need support, they need love, and they need to be told what they must do to remedy the sin problem. Told in love, not hate, not self righteousness, but told nonetheless in clear and concise terms so that they can choose to accept or reject the remedy for their sins (the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Great post. Too bad you can't realize how much on the same page you are.

Smith DID tell them that and REFUSED to perform the ceremony.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

Great post. Too bad you can't realize how much on the same page you are.

Smith DID tell them that and REFUSED to perform the ceremony.

Would you say that he is not very intelligent? Would you say that he is kind of thick headed, slow and uneducated and much your inferior?

Just wondering how you were able to come to such a erudite conclusion in regards to this poor humble man?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

1. Only problem is he is Paul and you are Peter. He is trying to explain grace and you are busy protesting the law breakers. Just as happened with the Apostles

LOL Grace is used as approval of ANYTHING these days. Both Peter and Paul wrote that grace wasn't grace wasn't to be used as a cloak for unrighteousness.

This scripture from the old testament kind of reminds me of the "free grace" doctrine promoted nowdays by some:

Jeremiah 7:8 Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit . 9 Will ye steal , murder , and commit adultery , and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; 10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say , We are delivered to do all these abominations?

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

2. If pastors did the same as Smitty more homosexuals would be won to the Lord instead of seeing them for the homophobes they are.

Really? Hows that working out for presbyterian church USA, the methodist church, the episcopalians and other denominations that have come out in favor of homosexual marriage, and even performed ceremonies. Are they getting closer to a biblical christianity and revival? Or more and more apostate?

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

3. Jesus' method of reaching sinners was not to run down their lifestyle. Harsh words of condemnation where only used on church folk. ANY NT scripture to the contrary?

Here we are, the tried and true smear tactic "you just don't love sinners." Classic. I'm shocked that this came up again. Its like the pro-homsexual marriage group has three revolving arguments, or is it the same stated 3 different ways? Anyway,

No scripture to the contrary as for harsh words of religious folks. I'm pretty sure I just pointed out that Jesus spoke the truth in love, even if the message wasn't desirous. He did tell the people in John 6 they were only following Him for the fish and the loaves. He told the Rich Young Ruler the truth about his condition, and "loved him". He even called Judas "friend". He spoke to the multitudes in parables that had some stern warnings.

Hashness of rhetoric isn't what I'm going for. Again, I'm pretty sure I'v said I'm for speaking the truth IN LOVE when dealing with sinners. But here speaking amongst pastors and preachers, I'm saying we shouldn't be playing games with sin, and especially a sin so unnatural and lascivious as homosexuality.

Furthermore, Jesus NEVER built up a sinners lifestyle. What MS is doing by coucniling someone in sexual sin but then attending their "wedding" would be as if the woman who Jesus spared after she was caught in adultery, went back to the man and married Him, and Jesus showed up and brought a gift.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

Great post. Too bad you can't realize how much on the same page you are.

Smith DID tell them that and REFUSED to perform the ceremony.

Yes, I would have have refused to also. I think the line was crossed going to the 'wedding'. IMO whatever stand was taken was greatly compromised, and in so doing the perception of the seriousness of the sin was dramatically lessened.

I'm not suprised he refused, I would expect that. I am beyond amazed that he attended, and that he is very proud of doing so.

[MrMasterMind]

Jason either it is late or you are so blinded right now.

You're sole recourse seems to be to go back to same old well of homosexuality is wrong, when no one has disagreed. Sad really.

Take all that out of your last post and you have nothing left. It did not even attempt to talk to a single issue raised. THE issue is NOT whether or homosexuality is wrong, it is the best way to reach them.

Sorry you just cannot see that.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Yes, I would have have refused to also. I think the line was crossed going to the 'wedding'. IMO whatever stand was taken was greatly compromised, and in so doing the perception of the seriousness of the sin was dramatically lessened.

I'm not suprised he refused, I would expect that. I am beyond amazed that he attended, and that he is very proud of doing so.

Then there is no doubt the conduct of Jesus Christ would have amazed you as well.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

What difference does it make if it's being "celebrated"? Is a wedding a "celebration" anyway? Personally, I wouldn't see it that way. But no matter....if the principle is, you being present in the commission of sin is the act of issuing approval, shouldn't you run when sin is being committed since your presence represents approval? Whether or not you know in advance doesn't seem to matter. I mean...if someone sprung a porn film on you at a party, wouldn't you need to leave or would turning your head be enough?

What kind of argument is this? Ar you saying you WOULD stay, so as to not offend, and of course "love the sinner"? Please tell me you wouldn't, but I don't think anything else can shock me after these 80 pages.