Absolutely not. I don't agree with that group at all.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin...like every other sin. God hates sin. YES! But God loves His creation...that is, us. He wants us to turn away from EVERY sin, to be reconciled to Him so that we can eternity with Him rather than eternity separated from Him. He sent Jesus Christ to be God on Earth to die for ALL sin and be resurrected to offer the free gift of salvation...the reconciliation we need. The choice is ours. To accept His free gift and turn away from all temptation...all sin...to live a life that is holy and pleasing to Him.

Practicing homosexuality flies in the face of turning away from sin. Doesn't matter what the exc...

Absolutely not. I don't agree with that group at all.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin...like every other sin. God hates sin. YES! But God loves His creation...that is, us. He wants us to turn away from EVERY sin, to be reconciled to Him so that we can eternity with Him rather than eternity separated from Him. He sent Jesus Christ to be God on Earth to die for ALL sin and be resurrected to offer the free gift of salvation...the reconciliation we need. The choice is ours. To accept His free gift and turn away from all temptation...all sin...to live a life that is holy and pleasing to Him.

Practicing homosexuality flies in the face of turning away from sin. Doesn't matter what the excuse is for the practice. We can "justify" all kinds of sins...doesn't make them any less of a sin.

I am VERY tired of the pro-gay agenda...and the continued persistence of promoting homosexuality. As long as we are not physically harming someone (and I am not talking about someone being 'offended'), I do not believe that homosexuals need to be welcomed into Christian colleges and clubs for the purpose of promoting their agenda.

<<To me, refusing to even meet with them is an admission of fear. What would it hurt anyone?>>

WiccanTexan: What would be the point of the meeting? It is a complete waste of time. Gays need to stop forcing their agenda. This idea of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality among the vast other politically correct things is absurd. I don't have to tolerate behaviors...legal or not...that I disagree with. I have to treat human beings as human beings, but beyond that, I don't owe any "special" interest group any more tolerance for their behaviors than I give average Joe.

It's not an admission of fear. That's ridiculous. And that statement just further propgates the falsehood that to disagree...

<<To me, refusing to even meet with them is an admission of fear. What would it hurt anyone?>>

WiccanTexan: What would be the point of the meeting? It is a complete waste of time. Gays need to stop forcing their agenda. This idea of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality among the vast other politically correct things is absurd. I don't have to tolerate behaviors...legal or not...that I disagree with. I have to treat human beings as human beings, but beyond that, I don't owe any "special" interest group any more tolerance for their behaviors than I give average Joe.

It's not an admission of fear. That's ridiculous. And that statement just further propgates the falsehood that to disagree with homosexuality is to be afraid of it. I know gay people. I'm not afraid of them. I don't agree with their sexual behaviors...and I don't have to.

Of course, I know "why" I should care...and why I bother to clip and share. I was being sarcastic. I was just trying to be as illogical as the supposed "open-minded" (close-minded) crowd. It's hard. I'm not used to being illogical.

Well, WiccanTexas, I sort of see your point, however, the truth contained in God's Word cannot be bent and twisted to fit into the mold of the unbeliever. There is a saying.."So open-minded that your brain has fallen out." The "open-minded" spewage is just the unbelievers attempt to make believers water-down their faith. I'm not about to water down the Truth of God's Word. If that makes me "narrow-minded" to the supposed high-minded people of this fallen world, s...

Of course, I know "why" I should care...and why I bother to clip and share. I was being sarcastic. I was just trying to be as illogical as the supposed "open-minded" (close-minded) crowd. It's hard. I'm not used to being illogical.

Well, WiccanTexas, I sort of see your point, however, the truth contained in God's Word cannot be bent and twisted to fit into the mold of the unbeliever. There is a saying.."So open-minded that your brain has fallen out." The "open-minded" spewage is just the unbelievers attempt to make believers water-down their faith. I'm not about to water down the Truth of God's Word. If that makes me "narrow-minded" to the supposed high-minded people of this fallen world, so be it. My eternity...my soul....my salvation is secure. I don't need to bend and twist the Word of God to make unbelievers more comfortable. And that is NOT what God wants me to do either. If I am less than honest...water it down to be more politically correct or socially acceptable...about the Truth in God's Word, then I am not a true believer in the Truth.

So...to rebuff the most asinine quote posted by Lillyth: The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin. I don't care if it is mentioned 6 times or 600 times...it is called an "abomination" to the Lord. Uh, that's kind of clear. If you're so open-minded that you interpret differently how God expresses His feelings on homosexuality...you are just fooling yourself...not God. And it only makes sense that heterosexuality would be addressed more in the Bible. DUH! Do I really need to explain this???????

<<How many different interpretations of the Bible must exist? After all, it all originated from story tellers and these stories have been refined and interpreted by "editors" for more than 2000 years. >>

This tells me that you know nothing about the Bible and how the Bible came int existence, but have either assumed these falsehoods yourself or have been listening to other high-minded people whose brains have fallen out.

<<Everyone has a God-given right to interpret the chapters of the Word of God in the way their brains can make sense of it...don't they?>>

Hmmm...I don't see that in the Bible...except for free will to accept or reject God. I think the Church of the High-Mindedness strike...

<<How many different interpretations of the Bible must exist? After all, it all originated from story tellers and these stories have been refined and interpreted by "editors" for more than 2000 years. >>

This tells me that you know nothing about the Bible and how the Bible came int existence, but have either assumed these falsehoods yourself or have been listening to other high-minded people whose brains have fallen out.

<<Everyone has a God-given right to interpret the chapters of the Word of God in the way their brains can make sense of it...don't they?>>

Hmmm...I don't see that in the Bible...except for free will to accept or reject God. I think the Church of the High-Mindedness strikes again to confuse "interpret" with "application". Sure, there are lots of interpretations...some by those seeking after Truth and Godly wisdom...others seeking their own whatever, but there is only one Truth....with many applications to our lives. -- I recently read a wonderful article that explained the literary complexities of the Bible. I wish I had a link because it was fascinating...and it was written by a non-believer.

And dear....please don't presume to tell ME about the bible and "Truth" I was, after all, in the general vicinity at the time!! LMFAO*

Gen 2:7 - Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he
breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a
living being.

8 Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned.

9 Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree,
enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden.

15 Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it.


...

And dear....please don't presume to tell ME about the bible and "Truth" I was, after all, in the general vicinity at the time!! LMFAO*

Gen 2:7 - Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he
breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a
living being.

8 Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned.

9 Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree,
enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden.

15 Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it.

Now this next is crucial: note Yahweh's precise words:

16 Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden.

17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are
not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die."

Gen. 3:1 - The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts
that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, "Did God really say you
were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?"

2 The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden.

3 "But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death'"

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "No! You will not die!

5 "God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

What a remarkable statement! "Your eyes will be opened and you will
be like gods, knowing good and evil." The Serpent directly contradicts
Yahweh.


Obviously, one of them has to be lying.

Stay tuned for the next comment where we will discover who lied, and who was the truthy one!!!

And now we come to the crux of the Fall.
Yahweh had said back there
in chapter 2:17, regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that "on
the day you eat of it you shall most surely die."

The Serpent, on the
other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter 3:4-5: "No! You will not
die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be
opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

So what
actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this
remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse:

22 Then Yahweh God said, "See, the man has become like one of us,
with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allow[b]...

And now we come to the crux of the Fall.
Yahweh had said back there
in chapter 2:17, regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that "on
the day you eat of it you shall most surely die."

The Serpent, on the
other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter 3:4-5: "No! You will not
die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be
opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

So what
actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this
remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse:

22 Then Yahweh God said, "See, the man has become like one of us,
with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch
his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and
live forever."


Get that? Yahweh himself admits that he had lied!

In fact, and in
Yahweh's own words, the Serpent spoke the absolute truth! And moreover,
Yahweh tells the rest of the Pantheon that he intends to evict Adam
(and presumably Eve as well) to keep them from gaining immortality to
go with their newly-acquired divine knowledge.

To prevent them, in
other words, from truly becoming gods! So who, in this story, comes off
as a benefactor of humanity, and who comes off as a tyrant?

THE SERPENT
NEVER LIED!


Ummm, so, really. What was that about "THE TRUTH???

Debbyski: It's a very liberal and weak argument to say that 'Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, so it must not that big of a deal'. We know that Jesus mentioned marriage as well as hos God created them "male and female". And we also can logically deduce that we do not have ever word that Jesus ever spoke written down. What we also know is that God hates ALL sin equally. Homosexuality is clearly mentioned in the Bible as a sin....whether you "think" the Bible is archaic or "primitive".

What is being lost here is the point of the clip....about a homosexual group trying to force their way into and effectively their immoral and unBiblical behavioral onto a private Christian college.

Did I...

Debbyski: It's a very liberal and weak argument to say that 'Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, so it must not that big of a deal'. We know that Jesus mentioned marriage as well as hos God created them "male and female". And we also can logically deduce that we do not have ever word that Jesus ever spoke written down. What we also know is that God hates ALL sin equally. Homosexuality is clearly mentioned in the Bible as a sin....whether you "think" the Bible is archaic or "primitive".

What is being lost here is the point of the clip....about a homosexual group trying to force their way into and effectively their immoral and unBiblical behavioral onto a private Christian college.

Did I ever say, "I hate those who practice homosexuality." ???? I know plenty of people who practice homosexuality...and none of them are like these audacious groups like the one who invited itself to BJU.

<<You don't have to "bend and twist" it. Just realize that using primarily Biblical text as proof or explanation doesn't mean the same to the non-practicing person as it does to you.
Jesus managed to do pretty well without a text to quote from. Why is it so difficult for his followers to share their love for their faith in the same simple way, without having to rely on the book for most of the reasoning?>>

WiccanTexan: Well...you are seriously mistaken if you believe that Jesus did not use or quote from the Hebrew Canon. It is recorded in the New Testament that he "read" from the scrolls. He quoted Scriptures routinely.

What "simple way" are you referring to? Are you referring to love? O...

<<You don't have to "bend and twist" it. Just realize that using primarily Biblical text as proof or explanation doesn't mean the same to the non-practicing person as it does to you.
Jesus managed to do pretty well without a text to quote from. Why is it so difficult for his followers to share their love for their faith in the same simple way, without having to rely on the book for most of the reasoning?>>

WiccanTexan: Well...you are seriously mistaken if you believe that Jesus did not use or quote from the Hebrew Canon. It is recorded in the New Testament that he "read" from the scrolls. He quoted Scriptures routinely.

What "simple way" are you referring to? Are you referring to love? One thing Love is not, it is not allowing those around you to believe they can transgress against the God who created them without consequence...that consequence being eternal separation from God.

So, you want Christians to separate themselves from the Word of God? You know, unbelievers need to understand too...that it is not easy for true believers to understand your unbelief and your lack of understanding. Uneblievers wrongly think Christianity is a Sunday practice or ritualistic ceremony type thing. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Well...you are seriously mistaken if you believe that Jesus did not use or quote from the Hebrew Canon.

Quoting is not the same thing as using ONLY text to prove a point. Jesus had plenty of good parables, and plain talk, to convey his message.

No, I don't want Christians to separate themselves from the Word. I'd like to see them less dependent on it exclusively. And just as a side point, "unbelievers" really is considered insulting to those of other religions, at least from my perspective. Again, it's that "know your audience" thing; you may not deliberately want to present yourself as superior, but that is how it comes across.

I am a "true believer" in...

Well...you are seriously mistaken if you believe that Jesus did not use or quote from the Hebrew Canon.

Quoting is not the same thing as using ONLY text to prove a point. Jesus had plenty of good parables, and plain talk, to convey his message.

No, I don't want Christians to separate themselves from the Word. I'd like to see them less dependent on it exclusively. And just as a side point, "unbelievers" really is considered insulting to those of other religions, at least from my perspective. Again, it's that "know your audience" thing; you may not deliberately want to present yourself as superior, but that is how it comes across.

I am a "true believer" in the Divine. I don't use the Christian verbage. But to rate me as an "unbeliever" is unbelievably arrogant.

Debbyski: It's a very liberal and weak argument to say that 'Jesus
didn't mention homosexuality, so it must not that big of a deal'.

Please explain why you think that argument is weak Annmiari. How is it a weak argument to say that even though homosexuality existed in Jesus' time, He neither condoned nor condemned it. In fact, he didn't say one word about it. Do you suppose it just slipped his mind?
But since you bring up marriage, I'm sure you are aware that Jesus railed against divorce. Does it seem very convenient that "sin" is being defined as homosexuality, but divorce is not, which we know that Jesus railed against?
You want to talk morality, then let's talk moralit...

Debbyski: It's a very liberal and weak argument to say that 'Jesus
didn't mention homosexuality, so it must not that big of a deal'.

Please explain why you think that argument is weak Annmiari. How is it a weak argument to say that even though homosexuality existed in Jesus' time, He neither condoned nor condemned it. In fact, he didn't say one word about it. Do you suppose it just slipped his mind?
But since you bring up marriage, I'm sure you are aware that Jesus railed against divorce. Does it seem very convenient that "sin" is being defined as homosexuality, but divorce is not, which we know that Jesus railed against?
You want to talk morality, then let's talk morality, which I understand as the difference between right and wrong. We can take a lot of our cues from the New Testament. Jesus spoke out against killing, and I believe it is immoral to do so. Jesus praised the peacemakers and I believe it is immoral to invade and destroy another country that did not threaten or attack us. Jesus sent the rich away empty-handed and I believe it is immoral to fatten the pockets of our wealthiest citizens while forcing the next generation to pay our debts. Jesus healed the sick and I believe it is immoral and WRONG to ignore the plight of millions of Americans who can't pay for a doctor because they have no health insurance.
And that's just the beginning of the moral challanges, Annmairi.

<<transgress against the God who created them without consequence...that consequence being eternal separation from God.
Annmiari, I'm curious about this statement. I am admittedly not christian and as there are so many "varieties" fo christian, please forgive if this question seems over simplified. Do you believe in a loving and forgiving god? Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins?>>

Thorne: God Almighty of the Old Testament and the New Testament has many attributes. God isn't merely 'loving', but He is Love. He is also Sovereign, Complete Wisdom, Ever-Present, Unchanging, All-Powerful, Faithful, Good, Holy, All-Knowing, and Just.
--- (Note: this is not an exhaustive list of ...

<<transgress against the God who created them without consequence...that consequence being eternal separation from God.
Annmiari, I'm curious about this statement. I am admittedly not christian and as there are so many "varieties" fo christian, please forgive if this question seems over simplified. Do you believe in a loving and forgiving god? Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins?>>

Thorne: God Almighty of the Old Testament and the New Testament has many attributes. God isn't merely 'loving', but He is Love. He is also Sovereign, Complete Wisdom, Ever-Present, Unchanging, All-Powerful, Faithful, Good, Holy, All-Knowing, and Just.
--- (Note: this is not an exhaustive list of attributes of God...only the ones I had in my homeschool study. There are many, many web sites and books with info on God's attributes.)

But, you asked me, do I believe that God is forgiving? Perhaps you are asking this because you don't think that a "loving" and "forgiving" God would condemn sinners and actually send people to hell. I think...with my own cognitive abilities...and without relying on scripture (attn: WiccanTexan)...that people draw this conclusion based on what they 'want' God to be. I believe that God exists...just as He exists and has always existed. I admit that I don't have all the wisdom or knowledge that God has. To say that "God wouldn't" is...in my opinion...an arrogant attempt to tell God what He should do, be, etc. ---- People will die and be separated eternally from God for their own arrogance...

Do, I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins? Absolutely. I have accepted His gift of Salvation. I have Repented of my transgression against God. I have been made a New Creature with a New Nature that seeks to live for God and as God wants me to live. I have been baptized in water as an outward expression, testimony of my faith and belief in Jesus Christ. --- When one truly accepts salvation, truly repents of their transgressions against God, they will n

sking this because you don't think that a "loving" and "forgiving" God would condemn sinners and actually send people to hell.

No. Aside from the fact that since I don't believe in the christian God, I'm not making any pre-judgements. I'm sincerely interested in what YOU believe. My understanding is not that the christian god would;nt send people to hell, rather that if one repents of the "sin", one is forgiven, correct?? Now, I know that "go and sin no more" is part of the deal, but do you really believe that's possible? And do you truly believe that you and your life are above reproach?? Is Homosexuality a "bigger" sin than for instance, murder?? I mean, Thou s...

sking this because you don't think that a "loving" and "forgiving" God would condemn sinners and actually send people to hell.

No. Aside from the fact that since I don't believe in the christian God, I'm not making any pre-judgements. I'm sincerely interested in what YOU believe. My understanding is not that the christian god would;nt send people to hell, rather that if one repents of the "sin", one is forgiven, correct?? Now, I know that "go and sin no more" is part of the deal, but do you really believe that's possible? And do you truly believe that you and your life are above reproach?? Is Homosexuality a "bigger" sin than for instance, murder?? I mean, Thou shalt not Kill is one of the commandments. There is no commandment against homosexuality. (I know it's mentioned in the bible, I'm just wondering about "levels" of sin and the commandments.) Like thou shalt not covet (thy neighbor's wife, slave, sheep, land....etc.)
IMO, most Americans, christian or not, are big on "coveting". So will one suffer eternal seaparation from god for coveting?

Debbyski: - It's weak because God made it clear in the Hebrew Canon (the Old Testament) that homosexuality was a destable abomination. Just because we don't see Jesus speaking directly about it in the 4 gospels does not invalidate what God had already said about it. --- The Apostle Paul...the persecutor of Christians originally known as Saul....most definitely did speak out against homosexuality and all immorality of the behalf of the name of Christ. God is very clear in both the Hebrew Canon AND the New Testament about the issue.

Sin is many things...not 'just' homosexuality.

Well, for the sake of argument let me once again steer the conversation back to the clip. Let's suppose that BJU e...

Debbyski: - It's weak because God made it clear in the Hebrew Canon (the Old Testament) that homosexuality was a destable abomination. Just because we don't see Jesus speaking directly about it in the 4 gospels does not invalidate what God had already said about it. --- The Apostle Paul...the persecutor of Christians originally known as Saul....most definitely did speak out against homosexuality and all immorality of the behalf of the name of Christ. God is very clear in both the Hebrew Canon AND the New Testament about the issue.

Sin is many things...not 'just' homosexuality.

Well, for the sake of argument let me once again steer the conversation back to the clip. Let's suppose that BJU expelled students for divorce and wouldn't accept divorced students...based on their Biblical-based view that divorce is a sin. (I don't know BJU's policy on divorce, but from the things I do know about their policy, the scenario is likely.) My opinion remains unchanged: BJU is a private entity and they have the right to not accept divorced students and dismiss students after a divorce. No pro-divorce group has any right to show up to BJU to force a meeting to try to convince BJU to change it's policies.

<<My understanding is not that the christian god would;nt send people to hell, rather that if one repents of the "sin", one is forgiven, correct??>>

Forgiveness through the death of Jesus Christ is conditional upon repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. Forgiveness is a gift offered by God to everyone, but each individual must accept it by repenting and trusting in Christ to receive it.

<< Now, I know that "go and sin no more" is part of the deal, but do you really believe that's possible? >>

"Go and sin no more" was what Jesus said to a woman caught in adultery. It was completely in her power to not commit adultery again. It is a conscious decision.

<<And do you truly believ...

<<My understanding is not that the christian god would;nt send people to hell, rather that if one repents of the "sin", one is forgiven, correct??>>

Forgiveness through the death of Jesus Christ is conditional upon repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. Forgiveness is a gift offered by God to everyone, but each individual must accept it by repenting and trusting in Christ to receive it.

<< Now, I know that "go and sin no more" is part of the deal, but do you really believe that's possible? >>

"Go and sin no more" was what Jesus said to a woman caught in adultery. It was completely in her power to not commit adultery again. It is a conscious decision.

<<And do you truly believe that you and your life are above reproach??>>

No. I am not above the ability to sin and I commit sins just like any other person. What is different is that I am not willfully living and thriving in my sin. I hate it when I sin. I hate transgressing against God...knowing that I have offended God. My soul is convicted. My conviction brings me to repentance. I am forgiven of my sins already, but my repenting and acknowledging of my offense(s) is an important part of the relationship with God.

<<Is Homosexuality a "bigger" sin than for instance, murder?? I mean, Thou shalt not Kill is one of the commandments. There is no commandment against homosexuality.>>

All sins are equal. There are no levelsof sin or one being bigger than another. And for that reason alone, it doesn't matter which sins we commit...we are bound for eternal separation from God IF we have not accepted the gift of salvation and repented for our sins against God. Sins committed once one has repented...accepting God's gift of salvation...are forgiven...but a real life change...truly being a follower of Christ will make one despise the sins they commit. It doesn't make true Christians sinless or as you said "above reproach". And being forgiven isn't a license to sin either.

Debbyski: - It's weak because God made it clear in the Hebrew Canon
(the Old Testament) that homosexuality was a destable abomination. Just
because we don't see Jesus speaking directly about it in the 4 gospels
does not invalidate what God had already said about it. -

We used to have a priest at our parrish, Annmairi, and he was fond of saying "You can't put God in a book, because when you do that, you ultimately become the owner of that book."
I learned a lot from that priest.
For those looking to base their biblical crusade against homosexuality, on the surface, at least, one must admit they find plenty of ammunition. Leviticus, Sodom & Gomorrah, and The Book of Kings. I...

Debbyski: - It's weak because God made it clear in the Hebrew Canon
(the Old Testament) that homosexuality was a destable abomination. Just
because we don't see Jesus speaking directly about it in the 4 gospels
does not invalidate what God had already said about it. -

We used to have a priest at our parrish, Annmairi, and he was fond of saying "You can't put God in a book, because when you do that, you ultimately become the owner of that book."
I learned a lot from that priest.
For those looking to base their biblical crusade against homosexuality, on the surface, at least, one must admit they find plenty of ammunition. Leviticus, Sodom & Gomorrah, and The Book of Kings. I could argue with you on all of these point by point, but this forum doesn't permit it. Of course with Jesus on the sidelines, those looking for confirmation of the sin of homosexuality are stuck with St. Paul, and he does indeed deliver the goods. The man from Tarus was not only misogynistic, anti-Semitic (while himself a Jew) and pro-slavery, he was also homophobic. He had little time for marriage, and even less time for homosexuality. Not to mention his patriarchal assumptions of antiwoman, a typical first-century mind-set. But you know what I think was the true beauty of Paul? It was the fact that a man who started out persecuting Christians and denouncing them for depending less on the law and more on God's grace is himself saved by God's grace. Stripped down from all the prejudices of his time, Paul's meaning is the eternal one: that, in God, all things are possible.
As for your second argument, it defies the inclusiveness of Christianity to have policies as BJU does, in my opinion.

1st of all...disageeing with homosexuality is not a fear. This label of "homophobia" is for newspaper headlines. It is such a farce to say that everyone who disagrees with homosexuality has a "phobia".

So...onto Paul. WHAT????? I don't know the person you are ranting about. That's not the Paul I see when I read the New Testament. yes...he denounced immorality...which includes homosexality. But anti-woman? Anti-Semitic? I don't see that in Paul at all. --- Yeah, Paul didn't get married. And he did think that people could serve Christ better unmarried than married. So? That was his opinion...and he does have a point.

The "inclusiveness" of Christianity? I don't worship at the altar of po...

1st of all...disageeing with homosexuality is not a fear. This label of "homophobia" is for newspaper headlines. It is such a farce to say that everyone who disagrees with homosexuality has a "phobia".

So...onto Paul. WHAT????? I don't know the person you are ranting about. That's not the Paul I see when I read the New Testament. yes...he denounced immorality...which includes homosexality. But anti-woman? Anti-Semitic? I don't see that in Paul at all. --- Yeah, Paul didn't get married. And he did think that people could serve Christ better unmarried than married. So? That was his opinion...and he does have a point.

The "inclusiveness" of Christianity? I don't worship at the altar of political correctness (you might have guessed that already). Oh, so I guess our churches should drop their policies too. BJU is a private school. Their policies are based on the Bible...and like the clip says, "Your argument is with the Bible..." not with the entity with the policies.

1 Cor.14: 34--35 }
"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
{ Titus 2:9-10 }
"Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior."
"For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the...

1 Cor.14: 34--35 }
"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
{ Titus 2:9-10 }
"Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior."
"For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last."

That's just a few. But I find it interesting that you would choose not to comment on the beauty of Paul and instead seem to be more enthused about the teachings of Paul instead of Jesus, which I find to be your argument.

LOL @ Eve

K, I got one....
3 pagan ladies were walking along a country lane. It was beautiful weather and springtime. One of the ladies said, "well, this is odd. Weren't we just driving down Fairfax"? Another replied, "The last thing I remember is the sound of squeeling brakes and then a big crash!" The third replied, "Well, girls, we must be dead. I think this is the afterlife". The road curved a bit and before the ladies where these huge, ornate gilt and pearl gates.
The ladies exchanged perplexed glances.
Then a man in flowing white walked out to greet them. He extended his hands, smiling warmly and said, "Welcome to Heaven, ladies".
The women looked at St. Peter, and the short o...

LOL @ Eve

K, I got one....
3 pagan ladies were walking along a country lane. It was beautiful weather and springtime. One of the ladies said, "well, this is odd. Weren't we just driving down Fairfax"? Another replied, "The last thing I remember is the sound of squeeling brakes and then a big crash!" The third replied, "Well, girls, we must be dead. I think this is the afterlife". The road curved a bit and before the ladies where these huge, ornate gilt and pearl gates.
The ladies exchanged perplexed glances.
Then a man in flowing white walked out to greet them. He extended his hands, smiling warmly and said, "Welcome to Heaven, ladies".
The women looked at St. Peter, and the short one said..."Ummm, Peter. There must be some mistake. We're witches. We were kinda counting on the Summerlands. We NEVER uintended to end up here"!
St. Peter just smiled and exclaimed, "Oh! Well met! 3 of our pagan sisters. Here, let me take you, the Summerlands are just around the corner, I think you may have missed the turn"
As St Peter walked the witches down the road, the crested a bluff and looked down and there...spreading as far as the eye could see, were the beautiful, green Summerlands, just as the l;adies had believed.
"Well, ladies, I'd better get back to the gate," St Peter said. "Just follow the path"
Just then, the witches noticed several people crying, wailing, pillung their hair and banging their heads on the ground as they looked over the Summerlands. One woman said, "Wait, Peter!! What's wrong with those folks?"
St Peter replied "Them? Oh. They were fundamentalist christians. They're in Hell".

LMFAO!!!!

I'd have to agree with CW, Lil. A cute joke, but not really in context or appropriate.

AM,

This article (and practice) is another case of religios groups expecting special treatment, or exceptions from the rule. No other educational institutions are allowed to discriminate on basis of race, gender, religion, etc. Why should a christian college be allowed to? So, it's a "christian" college. Everybody sins, you say. And if god hates all sin equally, why aren't gay people just more sinners? One would think that if a gay, christian student (a christian, gay student)

the article states:

Scripture
specifically prohibits lewdness, fornication, adultery, homosexuality
and any oth[b]...

I'd have to agree with CW, Lil. A cute joke, but not really in context or appropriate.

AM,

This article (and practice) is another case of religios groups expecting special treatment, or exceptions from the rule. No other educational institutions are allowed to discriminate on basis of race, gender, religion, etc. Why should a christian college be allowed to? So, it's a "christian" college. Everybody sins, you say. And if god hates all sin equally, why aren't gay people just more sinners? One would think that if a gay, christian student (a christian, gay student)

the article states:

Scripture
specifically prohibits lewdness, fornication, adultery, homosexuality
and any other sexual expression outside of marriage between one man and
one woman. BJU's desire is to develop Christlikeness in our students
and to teach them to base life's choices on God's Word. Achieving those
goals requires that BJU policies align with Scriptural teaching.
Therefore, BJU policies prohibit any form of sexual activity outside of
Scripture's boundaries (or marriage between one man and one woman).
Each year our students voluntarily sign a statement that they will
conform with these policies," the school said.

(emphasis mine)


Okay, so you have a bunch of kids, either well meaning or willing to lie, who will sign this agreement in order to be allowed to attent BJU.

Do you really think there aren't some lewd, fornicating, adulterous, and homosexual kids who have signed that statement??

And why should anyone have to agree to a "morals clause" to attend school? Even a private one?


What about divorce, then?
By your definition a divoced person would be in the same spot as the homosexual. Either repent of his/her sin and sin no more, (remailn celbate/never remarry) or go on to remarry, and

Back to the (slightly) OT discussion of your particular brand of christianity, You say:

What is different is that I am not willfully living and thriving in my
sin. I hate it when I sin. I hate transgressing against God...knowing
that I have offended God

go on to remarry and be "willfully living and thriving in [one's]
sin". In this case, the way the bible rails at divoce and adultery, (to a much greater extent and waaay more often than it does against homosexuality)
Isn't the christian who divorces and remarries praying for salvation, just like the christian gay??
Remember, I'm not talking about Queers like me; I'm talking about christian gays.
Christian gays who have pr...

Back to the (slightly) OT discussion of your particular brand of christianity, You say:

What is different is that I am not willfully living and thriving in my
sin. I hate it when I sin. I hate transgressing against God...knowing
that I have offended God

go on to remarry and be "willfully living and thriving in [one's]
sin". In this case, the way the bible rails at divoce and adultery, (to a much greater extent and waaay more often than it does against homosexuality)
Isn't the christian who divorces and remarries praying for salvation, just like the christian gay??
Remember, I'm not talking about Queers like me; I'm talking about christian gays.
Christian gays who have prayed for guidance and begged forgivness for
what your bible has called sin (Why any gay would ever hold to these
beliefs, is beyond me)