I agree with this but I also say Christ made a distinction in the four gospels between the saved and lost by the word sinner.
Refusing Service II
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Aaron, Mar 6, 2014.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
He came to save the lost.
For doing so he was lumped in with the drunkards and the gluttonous and other sinners.
Where does Christ draw draw such a distinction? -
-
That is not ministry, and, I'm finding it amazing that you can't see the difference.
But there are no "gay" crowds. There are no "homosexual" persons. There is sodomy, and there are those who wish to be identified by that perversion, and the church is, by and large, buying into the lie.
Does one discriminate against an idolater, or a thief or an adulterer because he refuses to commemorate their vices? How is it that one who refuses to commemorate sodomy is thusly indicted.
Because you have been conditioned by the politics and spirit of the age to think that way. My call to you is to yield to the sound mind of the Spirit of God, but my ministry to those who practice sodomy is to warn them to flee from the wrath to come.
And if they flee, I'll bake them a cake. -
Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
The "righteous" here are not the "saved."
They are the "self-righteous" hypocrites, the Pharisees.
Christ is saying that he came to save "sinners" those willing to admit their sinfulness, not the self-righteous who can't be saved until they humble themselves and admit that they are sinners. -
-
Look at the words you use:
1. An idolater is one who worships idols. Is it wrong?
2. A thief is one who steals. Is it wrong?
3. An adulterer is one who commits adultery. Is it wrong?
You use the above labels and readily identify them as such by the wrongful actions that they commit.
Then, you hypocritically say: "There is no such thing as a 'homosexual person.'"
What babble!!
If there is no such thing as a homosexual person, one who commits homosexual acts then there is no such thing as an idolater, one who commits idolatrous acts. Both are defined by the sinful acts that they do. Your bias blinds you to proper definitions and fair objectivity. It comes across as hatred of the person rather than the sin.
I am not the one that has been conditioned by the world.
You have been conditioned, by what I am not sure. -
When one calls himself a homosexual, there is only one thing he is saying, and you're trying to say that refusing to participate in the celebrations and parades of depravity and sodomy is "discrimination."
YOU are warped. -
I use the word "homosexual" because it is an accurate term, as is "lesbian." But sodomy is not so accurate, unless the context is specific. We are not stuck in the 17th century bound to Shakespearan English. Grow up! The English language has many adjectives and synonyms which the writer can use to describe the ideas he needs to get across.
One does not need to use "Aaron-approved vocabulary" on this board.
And that is a good thing because I have had to edit some of its profanity.
Perhaps if you learn more about our language and how to use it you would be better off. -
-
DHK said: ↑Notice your own contradictions here.
You are totally illogical; have contradicted yourself and have shown your bias and bigotry to others.
Look at the words you use:
1. An idolater is one who worships idols. Is it wrong?
2. A thief is one who steals. Is it wrong?
3. An adulterer is one who commits adultery. Is it wrong?
You use the above labels and readily identify them as such by the wrongful actions that they commit.
Then, you hypocritically say: "There is no such thing as a 'homosexual person.'"
What babble!!
If there is no such thing as a homosexual person, one who commits homosexual acts then there is no such thing as an idolater, one who commits idolatrous acts. Both are defined by the sinful acts that they do. Your bias blinds you to proper definitions and fair objectivity. It comes across as hatred of the person rather than the sin.
Perhaps you are thinking of joining Westboro??
I am not the one that has been conditioned by the world.
You have been conditioned, by what I am not sure.Click to expand... -
Aaron said: ↑Continuing the thought from another post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2093303&postcount=137
[Isa 3:9 NIV] . . . they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves . . .
Contrary to the false accusations of discrimination, what is being resisted is the parade of sodomy. That is the only way one who calls himself a homosexual can express himself as one. He parades his sodomy. That's what it means to "come out."
But far from resisting a person, what is being resisted is a behavior.Click to expand... -
Judith said: ↑So shouldn't the same diligence be applied to all sin?Click to expand...
What kind of question is that? -
DHK said: ↑And who was he writing to when he said that?
To the Corinthian believers
In application then? Are you going to marry a lesbian anytime soon? How about recommend such a marriage to your children?
If not, why the verse of being unequally yoked?
The other application of the verse could be going into business, making that person your business partner. Are you planning on starting a business with someone who is gay? If not, why are you bringing 2Cor.6:14 into this conversation? What relevance does it have?
It is simply a red herring that has nothing to do with anyone here.
Paul distinguished between those inside the church and those without. I suggest you do the same. Those within the church assembly were to be judged that the church body remain pure. "For what have I to do with those that are without."
Those "on the outside of the church body," are those that we are to be reaching with the gospel. Paul mentions them:
1 Corinthians 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
These are the ones that you are to go to and to witness to. God has given to each of us "the ministry of reconciliation. Each of these need to be reconciled with God. It is our duty to give them the gospel that they might be reconciled to God. If you don't do it, who will?Click to expand...
THAT would be partaking in their wicked ways and deeds of darkness! -
DHK said: ↑Who was the woman in John chapter four that Jesus went to?
What kind of reputation did she have?
Jesus deliberately went through Samaria, deliberately sat at Jacob's well, deliberately went out of his way to talk to this woman.
He said (because he was God, and knows all things) "You have five husbands and the one you have is not your own."
But Christ was patient with her.
It seems as if you have no patience with any sinner.Click to expand... -
DHK said: ↑I read through the thread Aaron. I read of your attitude. There is no need for the emotional response.
Do you know what it means to "love the sinner and hate the sin"?
What if God called you to have a ministry among the gay crowd. Would you obey him?Click to expand...
Point is that the Chritianity in USA has gone too far to seeing this lifestyle as being OK, just get saved, and don't worry about even trying to change! -
thisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑Aaron, brother ... and I mean that sincerely --
NOT beyong salvation, butalso NOT to have us accepting that lifestyle as being able to retain when they become saved, and no way to saying its legitmate lifestyle, nor ordaining pastors, gay weddings etc!
problem not with gay persons per say, but with attitude that we MUST service them right at where their evil behaviour happens, and that we cannot have that lifestylr creep into church, and seen as OK now saved, so carry on!Click to expand... -
DHK said: ↑1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.Click to expand...
-
Inspector Javert said: ↑The 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution forces American citizens under threat of punishment to engage in business contracts with someone with whom they do not desire to engage in a business association???
Interesting....
And here I thought it was designed to allow blacks and all other naturalized citizens to hold office and vote unless and except they be guilty of treason....and to be guaranteed due process irrespective of race.
I didn't know it demanded that persons engage in undesired business contractual obligations which violate their conscience.
Maybe I should read it again.
Well....
It certainly didn't cover women at the time....so, no, I imagine you very much would have to add "homosexuals" to it in order for those who drafted the Ammendment to know it referrenced that particular class of persons. But, since we are not advocating refusing anyone who considers themselves a "homosexual" the opportunity to either vote or hold elected office; I fail to see the relevancy.
Fully 50% of the U.S. citizenry was not covered by it, hence the 19th Ammendment. And, by extension I assume so-called "lesbians" as a subset. Remember, this Ammendment covers males aged 21 and over who are either Natural-born citizens or freedmen. It covers neither lesbians nor any female, nor any male under the age of 21 (until section one of the the 26th Ammendment).
They are being discriminated against???
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about homosexuals using the force of law to destroy the businesses and livelihoods of heterosexual Christians who, (due to matters of conscience) refuse to engage in particular business contracts with them.
I didn't know that we were discussing Homosexuals being forced into un-desireable business associations.
This isn't about it "happening to them".
I know of no scenario wherein a heterosexual couple has forced a homosexual to engage in business with them against their conscience or sued them and had the force of law ruin their livelihoods for their refusal.
What position???
Is Aaron, or anyone else here advocating forcing homosexuals to engage in business contracts irrespective of conscience?
Are you?
If you are....then, you are advocating tyranny and an abuse of basic human freedoms.
I would never force a homosexual to engage in a business contract which violates their conscience.
You, it seems (unless I misunderstand your point of view) would use the force of law to deny a heterosexual Christian that priviledge.
You advocate tyranny.Click to expand...
exactly as the founding fathers themselves would have addressed this situation!
Are you a attorney by chance?Click to expand... -
Inspector Javert said: ↑The 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution forces American citizens under threat of punishment to engage in business contracts with someone with whom they do not desire to engage in a business association???
Interesting....
And here I thought it was designed to allow blacks and all other naturalized citizens to hold office and vote unless and except they be guilty of treason....and to be guaranteed due process irrespective of race.
I didn't know it demanded that persons engage in undesired business contractual obligations which violate their conscience.
Maybe I should read it again.Click to expand..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [Emphasis added]Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑Well....
It certainly didn't cover women at the time....Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑But, since we are not advocating refusing anyone who considers themselves a "homosexual" the opportunity to either vote or hold elected office; I fail to see the relevancy.Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑Fully 50% of the U.S. citizenry was not covered by it ...Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑... hence the 19th Ammendment.Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑Remember, this Ammendment covers males aged 21 and over who are either Natural-born citizens or freedmen.Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑They are being discriminated against???Click to expand...
You say that's not discrimination? I say it is. Were the baker a pastor and the shop a church, and we both entered and asked the pastor to hold a ceremony for both couples to renew our vows, the pastor would have every right to refuse to do the second couple's "ceremony." The church does not have to be a party to sin. But a bakery is not a church, it is a business, and a business is open to serve the public. Not the heterosexual public, not the white public, not the Catholic public. Just the public. Opening a business implies doing business with that public -- all of that public, and the Fourteenth Amendment backs that concept. The bakery is not participating in the sin by baking a cake, but if the baker feels strongly about not baking the cake, he/she still has the right, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to refuse without giving grounds. That's his/her out. The laws proposed in Arizona and Kansas would have violated the Equal Protection clause, and as such should have been defeated, especially given that they were totally unnecessary, and that the courts would have tossed the law at the first challenge.Inspector Javert said: ↑I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about homosexuals using the force of law to destroy the businesses and livelihoods of heterosexual Christians who, (due to matters of conscience) refuse to engage in particular business contracts with them.Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑I didn't know that we were discussing Homosexuals being forced into un-desireable business associations.This isn't about it "happening to them".Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑I know of no scenario wherein a heterosexual couple has forced a homosexual to engage in business with them against their conscience or sued them and had the force of law ruin their livelihoods for their refusal.Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑What position???
Is Aaron, or anyone else here advocating forcing homosexuals to engage in business contracts irrespective of conscience?Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑You, it seems (unless I misunderstand your point of view) would use the force of law to deny a heterosexual Christian that priviledge. You advocate tyranny.Click to expand...
Page 3 of 5