Michael Sams coming out party

[ShocksMyBrain 9,362]

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Well, if it walks the walk...

You are entirely free to believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say, just as I am fully free to call you out on how abhorrent those beliefs are. I'm not telling you you can't believe them, I'm just telling you I think you are wrong.

I think it's hilarious you conservatives think that disagreement means we are trying to silence you. I think it stems from you guys trying to silence us for years, so you just think that's the way things work.

I will never understand your thought process. If you say something, and we call it bigoted, you have 3 options: You can change what you say, you can ignore that we called it that, or you can give us evidence to the contrary to make us change our minds. That's how debate works. But somehow, conservatives have twisted that around into debate means that you get to yell at us but we can't yell back.

Because I feel that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I'm bigoted. I had several good friends while at AUburn that were a part of AGLA. we had several discussions about homosexuality, religion, and politics. I maintained my opinion that it was an improper and disordered lifestyle while they disagreed with me, never once did they call me a bigot or homophobic. I think drug abuse and prostitution are wrong (allegedly victimless) but that doesn't mean I hate those persons, I only dislike what they're doing/living. So, we can agree to disagree but my opinion in itself doesn't make me a bigot just a those who approve of a certain lifestyle aren't necessarily more intelligent and the like.

And, reiterating for a third time, bigotry is not disagreement. I dislike drugs and prostitution as well, but, like you, I do not make a value judgement that they are less than me. You disagreeing with homosexual behavior is your choice, but it first evoke bigotry until you try to engage an apparatus to change them because you think it is lesser than you as a person.

I've said that over and over.

A good example comes to mind, provided by war esgle6. Disagreement is calling the act an abomination. Bigotry is calling someone am abomination because of that act.

[PastorChris 0]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

[WarAJEagle 5]

YES.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

Ooh! Ooh! I want to ask this question - it's always a fascinating discussion. PC, who do you think are "worse"? Those people, or a nonbeliever? And if you want to break it up further, feel free to compare an unconverted nonbeliever and apostates like me.

[JDUBB4AU 5,110]

Guys I don't agree with that but that's my opinion . But that's what makes America great. Its his choice to be gay and its my choice to love my wife. We all have a choice

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

Amen, I am that man and under conviction to desire change. What you and I know and hopefully show proof of in our actions is that sanctification (becoming more like Christ) is an ongoing process. I won't be "perfect" until I get home. The great thing is that there is tension for the believer between what is and what the truth calls us to be.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Well, if it walks the walk...

You are entirely free to believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say, just as I am fully free to call you out on how abhorrent those beliefs are. I'm not telling you you can't believe them, I'm just telling you I think you are wrong.

I think it's hilarious you conservatives think that disagreement means we are trying to silence you. I think it stems from you guys trying to silence us for years, so you just think that's the way things work.

I will never understand your thought process. If you say something, and we call it bigoted, you have 3 options: You can change what you say, you can ignore that we called it that, or you can give us evidence to the contrary to make us change our minds. That's how debate works. But somehow, conservatives have twisted that around into debate means that you get to yell at us but we can't yell back.

Because I feel that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I'm bigoted. I had several good friends while at AUburn that were a part of AGLA. we had several discussions about homosexuality, religion, and politics. I maintained my opinion that it was an improper and disordered lifestyle while they disagreed with me, never once did they call me a bigot or homophobic. I think drug abuse and prostitution are wrong (allegedly victimless) but that doesn't mean I hate those persons, I only dislike what they're doing/living. So, we can agree to disagree but my opinion in itself doesn't make me a bigot just a those who approve of a certain lifestyle aren't necessarily more intelligent and the like.

And, reiterating for a third time, bigotry is not disagreement. I dislike drugs and prostitution as well, but, like you, I do not make a value judgement that they are less than me. You disagreeing with homosexual behavior is your choice, but it first evoke bigotry until you try to engage an apparatus to change them because you think it is lesser than you as a person.

I've said that over and over.

A good example comes to mind, provided by war esgle6. Disagreement is calling the act an abomination. Bigotry is calling someone am abomination because of that act.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by my statement because I meant exactly the opposite of devaluing a person because of their lifestyle. I was saying that we were piers, friends, comrades, whatever you want to call despite our differences. What I was attempting to convey with my statement was that just because you may not agree/like a persons actions doesn't imply that you have some imbedded prejudice that devalues a person in any manner. I don't like smoking but I don't think that devalues a smoker as a person.

That's exactly what I was saying. That makes you not-a-bigot.

[finxster 4]

Without the Bible, man would have no concept of faith, true, morality, justice, and love.

That is funny, since Jainism and Buddhism have been able to do it without a hint of barbarism. There is not a single sentence in the Bible that could not have been thought up and written by a man in the first century. There are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, how to treat your slaves, how slaves should act towards their masters, when to kill people and why...but absolutely nothing of actual use provided by an omnipotent God. What would we ever do without it.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Guys I don't agree with that but that's my opinion . But that's what makes America great. Its his choice to be gay and its my choice to love my wife. We all have a choice

+1. I think we should all choose to love JDUB's wife. Wait...

[finxster 4]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

So for you and them not to sin, you should be killing these heretics as prescribed by the Bible? I mean even Jesus said to kill the child that curses their Father or Mother.

[JDUBB4AU 5,110]

Hahahaha. I think everyone loved my ex wife . Hahahah. Y'all can't have this one

[finxster 4]

Very simple. People's views and opinions about interracial dating are not based on the Word of God. There is no where in the Bible that says that a white man can't marry a black, Hispanic, or Asian woman and vice versa. This is a cultural issue and not a Biblical issue.

So since Jesus felt it was fine to have slaves, as long as you didn't beat them too bad, you must have a "Biblical issue" with the ending of slavery???

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

Geez, I stumbled onto one of those arguments undergrads have in the cafetaria. Extremists are rarely bright or informed, can we ignore everybody's preferences so long as they don't hurt us? Lefties ignore the few religious folk that condemn you without ever having met you, righties ignore the few alternative lifestyle folk that believe they know more than you could possibly ever know simply because of their outside the norm lifestyle.

Forget respect for now, for the sake of the rest of us, just ignore each other.

Back to the thread, high(ish) profile athletes coming out in the US is quickly becoming decreasingly rare. US national teamers have done it in many sports and it made news for about a day. In fact in several large US cities (can you think of some?) a positive fan stir has been created by cultivating a gay athlete.

[PastorChris 0]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

Ooh! Ooh! I want to ask this question - it's always a fascinating discussion. PC, who do you think are "worse"? Those people, or a nonbeliever? And if you want to break it up further, feel free to compare an unconverted nonbeliever and apostates like me.

I can't say I have ever had anyone be so enthusiastic to have his spiritual life evaluated like this before...

Of course no person can truly know the state of another's heart. The Bible gives us some guidelines to examine fruit, but I cannot state who is "worse."

However, Jesus himself once stated "Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." (Matthew 10:15) He said this about people who receive the Gospel from the apostles but reject it. It is hard to know for sure but I think it is safe to say that there is some way in which those who hear the truth and reject it are "worse off" than those who did not.

Personally, I have less patience for those who profess to be Christians but fail to live by God's standards. Please don't take offense to this next statement, but I expect people who are not Christians to act like they are not Christians. In other words, I am not surprised or offended when a nonbeliever sins. I am much more surprised and offended when a "christian" sins against me...

[PastorChris 0]

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

Amen, I am that man and under conviction to desire change. What you and I know and hopefully show proof of in our actions is that sanctification (becoming more like Christ) is an ongoing process. I won't be "perfect" until I get home. The great thing is that there is tension for the believer between what is and what the truth calls us to be.

Well said!

[PastorChris 0]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

So for you and them not to sin, you should be killing these heretics as prescribed by the Bible? I mean even Jesus said to kill the child that curses their Father or Mother.

I truly do understand how confusing this is. You are right that the Old Testament commanded corporal punishment for sins like, adultery, homosexuality and even disobeying parents! But what Jesus said is that He came not to abolish the law but fulfill it (Matthew 5:17) and that our responsibility as Christians is to magnify God's mercy while leaving judgment to Him (Romans 15:8-9; 12:19). So, we lovingly call people to repent of their sin and receive forgiveness and grace from Christ so that Christ's death will count for them; else, when they die God will settle their sin account by administering his just wrath to them for eternity.

So, it is not that the Old Testament commands to put those sinners to death does not matter any more... it is just that every sin will endure God's sentence of death either through the death of Christ (applied to every one who repents and believes in Christ) or it will be postponed till their own death.

[finxster 4]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

So for you and them not to sin, you should be killing these heretics as prescribed by the Bible? I mean even Jesus said to kill the child that curses their Father or Mother.

I truly do understand how confusing this is. You are right that the Old Testament commanded corporal punishment for sins like, adultery, homosexuality and even disobeying parents! But what Jesus said is that He came not to abolish the law but fulfill it (Matthew 5:17) and that our responsibility as Christians is to magnify God's mercy while leaving judgment to Him (Romans 15:8-9; 12:19). So, we lovingly call people to repent of their sin and receive forgiveness and grace from Christ so that Christ's death will count for them; else, when they die God will settle their sin account by administering his just wrath to them for eternity.

So, it is not that the Old Testament commands to put those sinners to death does not matter any more... it is just that every sin will endure God's sentence of death either through the death of Christ (applied to every one who repents and believes in Christ) or it will be postponed till their own death.

Ok. So why do Christians believe that now, and didn't for the past 10-15 centuries? Like I stated before, the book has not changed. The new Testament has been around since around 350 AD, and yet The Crusades, the killing of heretics, and the killing of witches transpired with the full knowledge of Jesus's teachings.

[Weegle777 78]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

Ooh! Ooh! I want to ask this question - it's always a fascinating discussion. PC, who do you think are "worse"? Those people, or a nonbeliever? And if you want to break it up further, feel free to compare an unconverted nonbeliever and apostates like me.

I can't say I have ever had anyone be so enthusiastic to have his spiritual life evaluated like this before...

Of course no person can truly know the state of another's heart. The Bible gives us some guidelines to examine fruit, but I cannot state who is "worse."

However, Jesus himself once stated "Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." (Matthew 10:15) He said this about people who receive the Gospel from the apostles but reject it. It is hard to know for sure but I think it is safe to say that there is some way in which those who hear the truth and reject it are "worse off" than those who did not.

Personally, I have less patience for those who profess to be Christians but fail to live by God's standards. Please don't take offense to this next statement, but I expect people who are not Christians to act like they are not Christians. In other words, I am not surprised or offended when a nonbeliever sins. I am much more surprised and offended when a "christian" sins against me...

You have less patience for people who profess to be a Christian and fail to live by God's standards? Seriously? With that statement, you have just said that you have no patience for any person on this planet but yourself. No one can live by God's holy standard, no one. If we could, we would have no need for Jesus.

[PastorChris 0]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

So for you and them not to sin, you should be killing these heretics as prescribed by the Bible? I mean even Jesus said to kill the child that curses their Father or Mother.

I truly do understand how confusing this is. You are right that the Old Testament commanded corporal punishment for sins like, adultery, homosexuality and even disobeying parents! But what Jesus said is that He came not to abolish the law but fulfill it (Matthew 5:17) and that our responsibility as Christians is to magnify God's mercy while leaving judgment to Him (Romans 15:8-9; 12:19). So, we lovingly call people to repent of their sin and receive forgiveness and grace from Christ so that Christ's death will count for them; else, when they die God will settle their sin account by administering his just wrath to them for eternity.

So, it is not that the Old Testament commands to put those sinners to death does not matter any more... it is just that every sin will endure God's sentence of death either through the death of Christ (applied to every one who repents and believes in Christ) or it will be postponed till their own death.

Ok. So why do Christians believe that now, and didn't for the past 10-15 centuries? Like I stated before, the book has not changed. The new Testament has been around since around 350 AD, and yet The Crusades, the killing of heretics, and the killing of witches transpired with the full knowledge of Jesus's teachings.

I agree that history is rife with people claiming Christ while doing un-Christian things. But I think your last statement is telling. Those people may have had knowledge of the Bible, but that does not mean they had understanding.

I know it is easy for someone like me to simply say "they" were wrong, making it seem like I am superior to them. I truly hope that it is not the case, for all I can do is state the best I can what I believe the Bible to say.

And that is all I can encourage you to do. Don't take my word for it, but go and study for yourself. I may read 100 reviews of a movie that say it is horrible, but until I watch it for myself I won't really know. Even then my opinion is still just as subjective as theirs.

Here is where any such analogy breaks down when examining the Bible. It is not open to subjective interpretations. It has ONE meaning... the one God had when He commanded people to write it down. We have to humble ourselves and seek God rightly in order to see His meaning and not any meaning we want it to have.

So, I certainly cannot judge the men who slaughtered Muslims in the name of Christ or who justified trading black people as property, but I can definitively say they did not understand the Bible if they thought God condoned those things...

I hope this helps a little.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The one he commanded people to write down? I did not realize anyone in 350AD spoke the King's English.

[PastorChris 0]

I certainly make no claims to have the definitive opinion or final say in this discussion about Michael Sam, homosexuality, and the correct Christian response. However, I do hope that I might add to the dialogue some things that might have been overlooked or at least assumed.

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

The obvious implication is that while one person lauds the decision of a young man to declare his homosexuality and another person condemns it, this is not a matter of bigotry or judgmentalism. It is a matter of categorizing an act based on two different standards.

Second, those who would paint Jesus as a loving God who would merely hug a gay man's neck and let him live his life that way are misrepresenting the fuller more complicated picture of who Jesus is and what He came to do.

Of course He loves all people, but there are varying degrees that his love is revealed to us and in differing times. While we live on this earth God's standard of holiness is not diminished or mitigated by his love. Rather, God has chosen to extend grace and mercy while we live so that we might repent and turn to Him. The truth is that one day his mercy will run out for sinners who have repented and believed in Jesus as Lord. But until that day of Judgment the responsibility of Christians to magnify God's love and grace BY calling men everywhere to repent and believe. This is an incredibly difficult balance for Christians to maintain which is why we need the guiding help of his Holy Spirit each day.

Third, the correct Christian response to rules and laws in society IS to obey the government. But we are also supposed to be active in transforming that government into a form that honors the things that God cares about. So of course Christians should be active in matters of justice in the legal system as we have opportunity. Of course we vote to restrict abortions. We are commanded to defend the weak and stand up for life.

Anyway, I am sorry this turned into a dissertation. I just wanted to help give some perspective that might be helpful.

I completely disagree with your conclusion on secular and Christian morality. If this were the case, then why are Christians today so different then in centuries past? Has the Bible changed since the Crusades, or when heretics were burned at the stake? No, Christians have also followed this "sliding scale of subjectivism". Passages are chosen by the individual to be followed, based on what they believe is moral. The bible is not their standard for their morality.

You are exactly right! Which shows that the Church is filled with sinners! Some have been truly converted and seek after God... many unfortunately do not and slur the name "Christian."

But that does not change the official position of Christianity that God's law is our supreme authority. Unfortunately, there are many who profess Christ but refuse to submit to Him.

Ooh! Ooh! I want to ask this question - it's always a fascinating discussion. PC, who do you think are "worse"? Those people, or a nonbeliever? And if you want to break it up further, feel free to compare an unconverted nonbeliever and apostates like me.

I can't say I have ever had anyone be so enthusiastic to have his spiritual life evaluated like this before...

Of course no person can truly know the state of another's heart. The Bible gives us some guidelines to examine fruit, but I cannot state who is "worse."

However, Jesus himself once stated "Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." (Matthew 10:15) He said this about people who receive the Gospel from the apostles but reject it. It is hard to know for sure but I think it is safe to say that there is some way in which those who hear the truth and reject it are "worse off" than those who did not.

Personally, I have less patience for those who profess to be Christians but fail to live by God's standards. Please don't take offense to this next statement, but I expect people who are not Christians to act like they are not Christians. In other words, I am not surprised or offended when a nonbeliever sins. I am much more surprised and offended when a "christian" sins against me...

You have less patience for people who profess to be a Christian and fail to live by God's standards? Seriously? With that statement, you have just said that you have no patience for any person on this planet but yourself. No one can live by God's holy standard, no one. If we could, we would have no need for Jesus.

I was confessing my personal sin. I was responding to a question posed to me about who I considered "worse." I answered by giving some idea of what Jesus said in a similar situation and then I confessed my failure in that regard. You are exactly right that I am horrible sinner. I know no one can live by God's standard, certainly not me! I need God's grace and forgiveness. And I receive it when I humble myself and repent of my lack of patience.

Of course I should not have less patience with hypocrites. That is sinful... but I do. And I confess that it is wrong.

Thanks for making sure I didn't give the impression it is okay by God to have less patience with people! I didn't want to give that impression.

[sevenlee36 1,654]

He should of waited till after signing a big contract. It will probably hurt his draft status, by how much is the question.

[PastorChris 0]

The one he commanded people to write down? I did not realize anyone in 350AD spoke the King's English.

Well, the original New Testament manuscripts were written in Greek, the common language of the time. So, obviously all our Bibles today are translations...

[Auctoritas 2,828]

So...if there are translations that all say different things, how are they not "interpretations"?