A team of homosexual activists whose goal is to "dialogue" with Christian colleges about changing their beliefs regarding the "gay" lifestyle is coming to Bob Jones University, but campus officials already have made plans to, very politely, disinvite them from campus.
The "Soulforce Equality Riders" several weeks ago launched teams in two buses with directions to head to several dozen Christian colleges and "address discriminatory" policies on those campuses.
However, officials at Bob Jones University, a leader in Christian education as well as publishing and ministry, say there's no point in meeting with the group, scheduled to arrive tomorrow....
Well said, Bravo. Bravo! I understand your perplexity. I believe that the cause for it lies in the sad truth that, for many, the sin looms larger than the repentance. I believe it is our 'natural' tendency toward self-righteousness. We are more like Jonah; indignant that the Lord would save someone that we disapprove of. Continue to post, please. You have an engaging artlessness (in the ethically good sense).
Hey Leebird thanks for your clarification. It's cool. I don't mean to seem sensitive, I‚Äôve just often found if I don't come off sounding as conservative as possible people question my sincerity and even my salvation (though I never thought you were doing that). My major point (from an inside view) is not a defense of homosexuality; I‚Äôm just questioning why we Christians feel the need to make it sound really depraved to reinforce the fact that it is sinful. I just don‚Äôt think that is honest or necessary. I agree that God does not bless extra-marital sex between straight people but it would be unfair to claim that couples are not attempting to express real, legitimate love in such an act. The sinfulness of the act is found in that such couples settle for less than God‚Äôs best gift for them: marriage. Likewise it is unfair to claim that gay people are simply consumed by shameful lust and are not looking, albeit in an imperfect way, for true love and intimacy. The sin is settling for less than the gift God designed and that is more than sufficient grounds for believing that homosexual relationships are sinful.
Yes, I know, Bravo. The suffix says it all. That's what I meant, when I said that the term was used before the angels arrived; to indicate the harmlessness of the word, before it had the meaning that it has been given. My post was meant to be, not punitive, but salutary. Thank you for your response.
"LittleladyinChrist" please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that God believes same-sex relationships are good or blessed. See my earlier posts. All I am trying to dispel is the myth that the attraction people like me experience is merely uncontrollable . As though we are consumed by physical hunger. That simply is not the case. "Leebird" I don't wish for you to be apprehensive, and I think I have cleared up the "romantic" confusion sufficiently above. We are not in disagreement on that. However it means nothing more that angels use ‚ÄúSodomite‚ÄĚ in the context of the story than saying ‚ÄúTexan‚ÄĚ. It is merely used to tell you where the people live. It doesn‚Äôt mean gay. That‚Äôs a meaning WE have invested in the word ‚Äúsodomite‚ÄĚ. The story is not about gay men it is about men, most likely straight, who attempted to violate strangers. Like I said before, it‚Äôs the same kind of thing that happens in prison.
I have no intention of being apprehensive concerning my former posts, Bravo. I will stand on that from the outset. But I believe that the Lord does not see any physical/sexual man to man relationship as romantic. I say this in all meekness. So that there is no misunderstanding, I believe He does not see even a man to woman sexual relationship, outside of marriage, as romantic. He sees it as sin, no matter how beautiful we may think it is. If I am not mistaken,(if I am, 33k, please let me know)I believe 33k is merely enjoining the use of the word in question, in opposition to more virulent terms, whatever the connotation. The men in the city were called Sodomites before the angels arrived. This is no reflection on your heart turned to Christ.
No I really don't think I could reconsider the use of that word. I don't believe it has any place in the mouth of a believer. It is not a Biblical synonym for homosexual. Believe me when I say I believe scripture teaches us (most clearly in Leviticus and Romans) that same-sex relations are outside of God's intended design. But the story of Sodom specifically is not a condemnation of the kind of attraction I experience. I wanted a husband. I wanted to LOVE a man both romantically and physically. The Sodom story is clearly not describing that emotion. It is a story more akin to what happens in prison shower rooms than a genuine desire for intimacy. It is about subjugating and humiliating a foreigner not about romantic relationships.
May Christ continue to sustain you by His Grace in your walk with Him. I have had Christian friends who have known the same daily struggle.
Would you permit me please to exhort you as a brother not to dismiss out of hand the use of the word "sodomite" as it is a biblical word, and therefore far more fitting for a Christian to use than other modern euphemisms. You are right to oppose the ungodliness of the 'potato' statement, and it is saddening that biblical words are used in such an evil way.
The struggle against a sinful practice, is to be enjoined and applauded, Bravo. It is only the justification of it, that is to be contemned and vilified. Anyone hurtling invective at a penitent believer, engaged in mortal combat with such a powerful, internal temptation, is in need of admonishment, and the clarification of which side they are cheerleading for. Onward in your battle, Bravo, and praise God for each day of non-practice. The right hand of fellowship extended.
The main issue in my opinion is that the statement absolutely vilifies gay people by calling them a horrible name and subtlety advocates violence against them. There would be no other reason to bring up such a thing if it were not a veiled approval of the practice. Why do Christians treat gay men and women as though they are worse sinners than anyone else? Most of you don't know the daily struggle of Christians like me who live their lives in purity and obedience to Jesus and scripture, yet remain attracted to the same gender. Hearing fellow believers use vile slurs that obviously communicate anger and disgust really do make people like me feel unsafe in the church even though we are not engaged in sinful practice.
"Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy‚ÄĒmeditate on these things. "
It is necessary for us to engage in battle and debate with the wicked doctrines of the age but it is not necessary, edifying or "appropriate" for forms of torture to be added into the comment forums making them X-rated. Since there is no edifying reason exhibited for the posting it would seem to be per se gratuitous.
As for historical accuracy, whether this is "a factual jewish practice in the past", you would have to hold to the Book of Mormon to give any credence to it. Or do you think the modern state of Israel has had it on the statute book since 1948? Think about it.
Interested, Although I cannot speak authoritatively on everyone's statements, I believe what we are trying to say, albeit abruptly, is that, whether or not such a brutal deterrent was actually implemented, it need not be held up to the view of tender consciences. The image or even the concept, is a difficult one to erase.
I am interested in what is inapropriate about Barry's comment IF he is simply stating it as a factual jewish practice in the past. I haven't researched to see if his claim is true, but have you? I don't hear him saying it should be instituted as law or even agreeing with such so read it again. Whilst I would deplore a christian promoting any such thing why seek to stick an oiled hot potatoe in the mouth of sermonaudio to silence such? IF it is a FACTUAL STATEMENT THEN sermon audio are right to allow such to rermain unless of course barry says all sodomites today deserve the same.
In this, the New Covenant, we are to give such people the word of God, not potatoes. Give the whole truth: That sin will send one to hellish separation forever, that homosexulity is sinful rebellion against God's order, but Christ redeems and transforms in plentiful forgiveness to the one who submits to God's way in repentance and faith.
What shocks me is that the "oiled potatoe" comment is still considered by Sermonaudio not to be "obviously inappropriate".
We should criticise the comment for what it is "lacking" AND for what it is "containing". But if you criticise the content of people's postings Sermonaudio evidently construe that as "obviously inappropriate" (sic) and / or a "personal attack" (sic).
In fairness to the righteous, perhaps they are too vexed by the prosperity of the wicked to say anything anymore?
How in the world could you hold up such a disgusting torture practice as an example of the kind of treatment gay men and women deserve? An oiled potato? Are you joking? How in the world can a gay activist read what you just said and NOT come away believing we Christians want to physically harm them instead of introduce them to Jesus who has the power to redeem them? Do you honestly believe your potato "cure" is the way to stop people from having same-sex relations? I'm just totally shocked you would say something like that and equally shocked that in two days not one person has rebuked you for saying something so lacking in the grace and mercy Christ showed us when we were sinners. I don't advocate compromising the Truth but there is a big difference between disagreeing with the Lost and trying to witness them, and advocating torture.