Sodomites in the church

Then the police are acting outside the Constitution, and the accused cannot be convicted. Since the Lawrence v. Texas decision by the US Supreme Court in 2003, state and local laws against sodomy are no longer valid.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

Excerpt from the above link . . .

Frankly, I don't want an America where police do bedroom checks about who is doing what with whom.

 

One sin is greater than the other because God calls certain sins an abomination and some sins we know carry greater penalties. By the way there is no way on earth that I would have an obese person speak from the pulpit on gluttony.[/quote]Well, here are a few more Biblical "abominations" for you . . .

Eating seafood that lacks fins and scales (Levitius 11:11)
Eating certain birds of prey (Leviticus 11:12)
Eating all insects (Leviticus 11:23 and 11:41)
Remarrying a person one previously divorced (Deutoronomy 24:4)
Telling lies (Proverbs 12:22)
Being proud in heart (Proverbs 16:5)
Cheating in business (Proverbs 20:10 and Proverbs 20:23)

And many many more. Have you ever lied? Eaten shrimp? Looks like it is as bad as sodomy.

 

Any good defense attorney will inform them of it. In face, they surely know, but are probably just harrassing. Do YOU want the police doing a bedcheck at your house?

 

Yes and then follow it up with the passing out of condoms and birth control pills, burning of a flag, voting for a democrat, flashing the peace sign while listening to the Dixie Chicks

***Inappropriate insinuation removed***

 

They never did bedchecks. In the Lawrence case it was something they cited as a result of being called for another crime. A moral people would have laws against sodomy, not just out of religous grounds but for the damage it causes in the spreading of disease. It is a depravity akin to bestiality and (so far) we still have laws against fornicating with animals, yet the police do not do bedchecks for Rover.

 

Rufus, I understand all that, but that is not the point. The point is that state sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Deacon supports arrest for the act of sodomy. When done in private, it is legal. I wonder what he thinks is happening in North Georgia (isn't that "Deliverance" country? :laugh Public sexual conduct is still subject to public decency laws.

 

Well sir, first they come for the homosexuals; what happens when they come for you? Either all Americans have liberty, or none do. We do not live in a theocracy like ancient Israel. We are a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. If we lived by Old Testament law, we'd all be stoned to death for something. I know of others who hate or hated homosexuals. One lives in Kansas and harrasses people at funerals. Another was chancellor of Germany in the 1930s & 1940s.

 

No, you are entitled to your opinion, flawed as it is. I am opposed to big brother government, pure and simple. Sorry you are so easy to give away liberty.

Buh bye!:wavey:

 

I wouldn't have a problem if he/she knew our church's position that homosexual sex is a sin and that their opporunity to share as a guest about their area of expertise was not an opportunity to challenge the views of the church. I would definitely not be okay with having them preach a sermon but I don't see a problem with informational sharing in a workshop or class setting.

We've had secular folks come into our church to share about things like financial planning and parenting to complement the existing Christian teachers of those topics. I wouldn't be surprised if there were things about their lifestyle that were opposed to our church understanding of sin, but their presence was as an informational expert and did not in any way condone anything in their lifestyle.

I have lots of criticisms of Rick Warren having read many of his books and finding problems in the materials his church publishes, so I would never equate him with a pope. We have members of our church who do not want anything to do with RW because he represents a commercialization and right-wing americanization of church that they do not want to associate with. But at the same time I recognize the good he is trying to do in his position of prominence, the biblical verses he is trying to live out and the attitude and creativity he is doing it with.

 

No it's more like a good example of someone expressing dismay at the tone of your OP.

Um, I don't know. Because that's what we should be doing? Believe it or not, some of these people don't come to our churches because of people like you. If we're not reaching out to them, we should just put a flashing neon sign on our church's front doors that says "Go to Hell!"

Admirable, but they weren't having a worship service, were they? No it was a "summit" on AIDS. Whether I agree with RW on alot of issues or not, he DID NOT HAVE THIS MAN SPEAK TO HIS CONGREGATION IN A WORSHIP SERVICE.

Because it wasn't a worship/preaching service. It was a meeting.

I don't know, but I'm sure you're going to tell us.

But not the gays! I mean, even heaven's got its standards!

Because, and I know you won't get this, sometimes you earn the right to talk to people about Christ. My wife spent 6 months in Cambodia (a heavily Buddhist nation) building relationships with people there before she ever could share her faith. Do you know how missionaries in some foreign countries share Christ? By going to live with the people for years at a time before even sharing their faith. How do you approach the subject of God's love with a dying culture who believes the Church has written them off? I don't know, maybe educate and begin work toward curing them physically? The moment you tell a dying man he's going to Hell because he's gay and has AIDS... you've lost your credibility. Not in the sense that you're not obeying the Lord, but because you've lost the chance to reach a lost soul.

 

There's a nice post.

 

Someone mentioned an obese person speaking on Gluttony...
What about preachers with low credit scores preaching on finances...

ewwww... we don't want to go there do we!

 

If they had the appropriate source for the information our congregation needs to hear. Since Rick Warren believed his congregation (and the greater Christian community) needed to hear information regarding the AIDS crisis in Africa, he elected to do it.

Based on my limited information, I think he made an appropriate decision.

Is that good enough?

You act as if this speaker was somehow considered a spiritual authority, a speaker that Warren has somehow uncritically endorsed simply because he was asked to share information.

I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

A number of years ago I was on a rural highway and witnessed a bad traffic accident. Several motorists stopped to help, including me and a United Pentecostal preacher.

As we administered first aid (and prayer) to the victims, directed traffic and helped the emergency crews with their equipment, we weren’t concerned about theological differences. We were simply two people laboring together, doing the best we could for other people who were suffering in a crisis. It was only afterward when the ambulances had left and the highway patrolman had taken our information when we discovered that I was a Baptist “who believed in three gods and denied the gift of tongues” and he was “a cultist who rejected the Trinity.” We left the scene with profound differences in our spiritual outlook, but quite a bit more respect for each other as people.

But the point is this: In a crisis where there is human suffering, I think we miss the point when we reject Samaritans who are also trying to help their neighbor. That does not mean that we embrace them as brothers or sisters in Christ, but we should not shun or ignore them when they are trying to do good work.

 

I would support it because it opens an avenue of discussion that allows unsaved persons to understand that God, and His church, loves them and wishes them an eternal home.

So sad that you do not. Ooops, was that judgmental of me to assume that?

 

Keep your back to the wall if you do!

Seriously, the guy wasn't preaching. He was giving a speach regarding AIDS.

 

Wy not, maybe we'll get a raise so we can pay our bills...