What to Call them?

It's dealt with in Christ's teaching on marriage, and Paul's teaching on Headship (or Coverature).

 

You and I both know it is not absent in the NT

 

The Bible says.........

Galatians 3:22-25
V.22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
V.23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
V.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
V.25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The law, is “the schoolmaster”, that brings the lost to Christ.

If we ignore the sins of the unsaved, and treat them like they are right with God and on there way to heaven, than we stop them from realizing there need for Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
With that said, we need to be careful not to demonize them.
Their sin is no worse than the liar or the thief or the adulterer.

They need Christ, just like every other lost person does.

 

Jim1999

homosexuality, may or may not be a sin?
Read the bible.

 

Naw, read the Bible? I get all my sermons from the newspaper.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Romans 1:21-32
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It appears from the above Scripture that God not only condemns the perversion of homosexuality [verses 26-28] but also those who approve it [verse 32].

 

If you care for a novel read, try the account of Lot in Genesis and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. See all the evils that are being judged. They include far more than homosexuality. Even Lot tried to offer his daughters, and no mention of them being offered to women..I believe they were offered to deviant males. The Bible sure didn't put the emphasis on homosexuality as so-called Christians do to-day.

I still say we address homosexuals as people. That is what they are whether we agree with them or not. That is my point.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. Thanks for the reminder about reading the Bible.. I have forgotten, I think..Wait, I read it a few minutes ago, again. You should try it sometime..It is a marvellous adventure.

 

DonnaA,

You responded to this...

by saying...

But what these others are saying is, why do you (and a couple of other posters) think that if you send a letter to "Vicky and Melanie" or "Bill and Steve", you are expressing approval of the sinful lifestyle they are engaged in? Theres nothing about writing it that way that implies that in the least.

As a matter of fact, by saying it that way, they actually might appreciate the kindness, and maybe give you a more open minded *hearing* if you should ever have an opportinity to witness to them.

:godisgood:

 

Jim1999...

Absent from the New Testament???


Romans 1: 26, 27....

:godisgood:

 

Jim1999...

I agree 100% with you on that. They should not be "shunned" or treated like lepers.

They are people whom God very much desires to bring into a relationship with himself. He would like to use us to do that, but it can only happen if we are kind to the homosexuals.


:godisgood:

 

apparently anyone who beleives that scripture teaches homosexuality is sin is a 'so called christian' You are questioning the salvation of every christian on this board who believes homosexuality is sin because scripture says so.

no one has suggested otherwise.

 

anytime you accept homosexuals/lesbians as a couple, and address them that way you accept their sin.
How does anyone ever think they have a need of Christ if they have no sin, and you are affraid to call homosexuality sin, then they aren't guilty of anything, according to you, nothing to repent of. It's people like this who allows professing christians to contune to live in thier sin after salvation, even years later, affraid to call sin sin, expecting no changed lives at all.

 

Jim, I think the sins of sexual immorality were prominently judged over other sins.

Jude 1.7
just as (W)Sodom and Gomorrah and the (X)cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and (Y)went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an (Z)example in undergoing the (AA)punishment of eternal fire.

Yes, and this shows how influenced he was by living in that city, which is where he chose to live. This action was not right at all but an immoral action showing Lot's moral decline by living there.

 

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist and I am not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. I am merely responding to what the culture is telling me: That I better accept homosexuality or else.

Your post here is not a reply to what I said. I have facts on my side. The homosexual lobby is very strong here and is wanting everyone to give approval to their lifestyle.

 

Apparently they're getting it even from christians.

 

DonnaA...

Unfortunetly there are indeed some *professing* christians in the world, usually in extreme liberal *churchs* (no doubt filled with dead mens bones and white washed tombs) who do indeed approve of homosexuality.

But I dont believe I have read one post from anyone on this thread, and for sure not my posts, who have in any way expressed approval of homosexuality, as you seem to be implying.


:godisgood:

 

What I wouldn't do is address them as a couple, such as Mrs. Jane and Lori Brown. However I don't see a problem with sending any informal mail in one envelope only addressed it to both people with two separate names. I don't see that as endorsing anything, I see it as just addressing it to two people whom I want to correspond with who live at the same address. If there were two roommates of the same sex that were heterosexual and I was sending both of them one correspondence I would do the same. It is just the practical thing to do, I don't see it as endorsing or even addressing the issue at all. If however it was a formal invitation such as a wedding invitation I would send separate envelopes because otherwise it would be indicating them as a couple.

 

Is the issue here whether we accept/approve of their sin OR whether the LORD accepts/approves of their sin?

I, for one, do not believe the Lord needs my help in the accepting or approving of anything.

 

Then I supose how we live means nothing.