Christianity and Love, Part 2

Great Debates
181

Granted that FriendofGod said he did not want to get into a creationism/evolution debate, and in view of slythe’s last comment, I want to make one final comment to Friend, and then either let sleeping raptors lie or take it to a new thread. That said:

Not quite on target, Friend. I did not say that there was a contradiction between the scientific evidence for evolution and Genesis 1. I said there was a contradiction between the scientific evidence for evolution and man’s theory that Genesis 1 was a literal account. So I don’t have to see any contradiction in what God did (in creation or in inspiring Genesis 1), because the Bible is full of metaphorical usages.

You do. You have to look at the world God created and suggest that he’s playing a game, “planting evidence that contradicts the Bible” to test our faith. Another case of overcomplication.

I wonder who’ll flame me first if I suggest you need to be simple-minded on this! :wink:

182

The sarcasm in this case was targeted at the title of the thread. I confess I didn’t read the OP, but it is quite clear that the discussion has moved away from “Christianity and Love”. If you wish to discuss the definiton of love, bring it on on a new thread.

183

Friend of God: You stated that you and Polycarp had come to the same conclusions regarding the creation of the world. (Sorry I’m not quoting it, but my server’s having problems re-opening the original thread.)

Well, actually no. You and Poly come to very different conclusions based upon the same evidence.

The evidence which you and Poly both agree upon and use:
A.) God would not lie to you.
B.) The Bible is the work of God, and was written by Him through dictation or inspiration to his agents.
C.) The Bible states in Genesis that the world was created in six days (possibly seven, depending upon whether God received comp time for the seventh day, but I’d prefer not to get into a discussion of the Almighty’s billable hours).
D.) Scientists have, based upon the fossils excavated and the known rules of physics, geology, biology and chemisty, estimated the Earth as having been created several billion years ago and that animals evolved over the course of billions of years.
See, what you say is that because of A, B, and C, then D must not be true.

What Polycarp says is that because of A, B, and D, then C must not be true, or at least not a literal direct truth.

Therefore, the two of you don’t come to the same conclusion.

184

Slythe

I’m sure you’re not willfully ignoring the fact that science cannot support many of your beliefs, including the belief that willful ignorance is a shameful state. If you believe only what reason has (to your satisfaction) proven, then your entire belief system is a tautology.

185

Actually, the OP was about same-sex couples, love, sex, and Christianity. Needless to say…

Esprix

186

Actually, with the usual cluster of tangents that every long thread undergoes, I thought we had done a fair-to-middling job of staying on target. At least my idea in posting to this has been to discuss the idea that love is the keynote in Christianity, and I’ve stated and restated at length that same-sex love is not ipso facto something evil by Christian thought – although a healthy majority of Christians would take out their handy-dandy spiritual guidebooks and find clause 17(b)(2) to condemn it.

Regarding the direction it has gone at the moment, the question of how one makes these sorts of fundamental axioms that lead one to understand what to apply, when, and how, seems to be one that requires resolution, or at least some definition, in order to understand how people come to the conclusions they do.

Or maybe we need a thread entitled “Ask the Guy Studying the Ethics of Self-Referential Threads That Have Headed Way Off the OP” :smiley:

187

Poly

With all due respect, Poly, I think those bolded loves might refer to two different things.

188

Pardon me, I was channeling Gertrude Stein. :wink:

Um, no, Lib. Any scholar of philosophy, the Classics, theology and/or ethics, etc., will come up with the four Greek terms to describe types and conditions of love. (Listed later in this post.)

It would be my assertion that English and not Greek has the right of it. There is only one unary love, expressed in different ways and in different forms between different people, but nonetheless the same thing. The breakdown simply deals with modes of expression. You may express your love for Edlyn, Spiritus, your child, and God in different ways. But the underlying love is one.

For the record, the four forms are:
[li]Agape: Self-sacrificing all-for-the-beloved love. Platonic ideal love. The love in “For God so loved the world…” and “Greater love hath no man than this…”[/li][li]Eros: Sexual love, for one thing, but also possessive, romantic, desire love.[/li][li]Philia: The love of true friends. Companionate love that makes no demands.[/li][li]Storge (pronounced STORE-gay or -geh): Familial love, very relaxed and nearly unexpressed in day-to-day situations, though as strong and commanding a love in crisis as any other.[/li]
Consider that most love is a combination of these. A married couple still feels some of the eros that was dominant in their courtship and honeymoon, has the philia of lifelong companions, tends to go storge on the typical ongoing day-in-the-life main, and has the underlying current of self-sacrifing agape as a recognized potential when the rubber hits the road. A mother who finally has a child after years of trying has an element of eros, posssessive love, in the mix, even though we’re not assuming anything Oedipal here. And in one active thread, straight men talking about close friends and specifically denying any sexual component have pointed out repeatedly and totally unintentionally how easily philia will turn into agape in crisis.

So I don’t see any difference in kind between the love between Esprix and Dr. Boyfriend on the one hand and the love between, say, Ruth and Naomi on the other – or the love between God and man on the gripping hand. Surely there is a difference in emphasis, but think of any four or five couples you are acquainted with and tell me their marriages evince identical loves. They are totally different people with totally different ways of showing the one kind of love that exists between them as couples.

189

And remember, folks - love is good, but sex is bad (for any relationships that aren’t male/female, married, monogamous, Christian, 2.5 kids, dog and a white picket fence, that is).

:rolleyes:

Esprix

190

Poly

Neither do I. But that wasn’t what I was talking about. By “same sex love”, I thought you meant homosexuality, which, as everyone here knows, is not morally different from heterosexuality, in my opinion. But there is a difference between loving someone else and loving yourself in an orgasmic state — same sex or not.

191

Esprix:

Well, I would be a little concerned about anybody who has sex with 2.5 kids (especially the 0.5 kid – messy!) or the dog. And I’d encourage that any love of the white picket fence be of the Platonic kind…anything else would be painful! :smiley:

192

John, a quick comment . . .
What I was getting at is that Poly and I both came to the same conclusion that God cannot lie, but we arrived there in totally different ways. In other words, we differed in the points that YOU mentioned, but our differences lead us to the conclusion that God is not a liar.

Poly, a few quick comments…

You said "I said there was a contradiction between the scientific evidence for evolution and man’s theory that Genesis 1 was a literal account. "

Well then, I must disagree (gosh I hate disagreeing with you Poly!). If you read Genesis 1, you see no evidence at all that it’s intended to be read as anything other than a factual account of what happened. Same with other fantastical stories in the Bible (ie, Jonah and the whale, God stopping the sun and moon for a few hours, etc).

Are you ready for this? I think I actually agree with David B’s logic on this one! As he pointed out, if you agree that one passage of the Bible is just allegorical based on no scriptural evidence, you can pretty much do that with any passages of the Bible. What if I read the passage that says “Husbands love your wives just as Christ loved the Church” and I thought, “Oh that’s just an ALLEGORY. You can’t take it literally! I feel like mouthing off to my wife today …”. Obviously a silly example (as usual) but it makes my point.

You also said: “You have to look at the world God created and suggest that he’s playing a game, “planting evidence that contradicts the Bible” to test our faith.”

I disagree here too. According to the Bible, God is NOT the author of confusion. If things are confusing, you can bet God is not the cause of it. Remember there is a real, living, breathing, entity in the universe that DOES want to confuse you … Satan. His goal is to make you doubt everything that God says is true, which is the same goal he’s had since day one. And he’s good at it.

Finally you said “Another case of overcomplication. I wonder who’ll flame me first if I suggest you need to be simple-minded on this!”

Actually I am being simple minded. I read Genesis 1 and take it for what it says it is … an account of the birth of the universe. Nothing complicated about it at all! Again, I DON’T want to get into a huge creation/ev debate (and if you want to start a thread, go for it of course!), but I don’t find the evidence for evolution all that compelling anyway. To me there are WAY too many gaps and too many leaps of faith you have to make to believe it’s true. You might believe differently, but even if I thought the evidence was OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of evolution, it wouldn’t bother me. Either there’s a clue in Genesis 1 - 3 that explains it and I haven’t found it yet, or science is just flat wrong and will figure it out someday.
I have this funny feeling this thread is winding down. It’s been interesting to say the least. I’ll probably not post much for a week or so just to breathe, and then will probably start one of the topics I’ve been mentioning that I wanted to start. Poly, I’ll look for any response you might give here.

193

FriendofGod wrote:

So then, you must believe that the Earth is rectangular:

“After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.”
– Revelation 7:1

“When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth”
– Revelation 20:7-8

“I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you.”
– Isaiah 41:9

(All passages above are quoted from the NIV translation.)

Hmmm … if Satan were really good at sowing confusion since day one, I’d think the best way to do it were if Satan were the actual author of the Bible. How do you know the “holy” scriptures were really dictated to Man by God, and not dictated to Man by Satan disguised as God?

194

FriendOfGod said, in reference to creation vs. evolution:

Obviously, he didn’t read Polycarp’s previous post, which said:

The point is, if God created the world, He also created the fossil record and all the other geological evidence for an old earth. You cannot logically say that God created the world, but Satan created all the parts that science can see. I really hate it when Christians harp on and on about Satan, because Satan’s power is NOTHING compared to God’s!! God is the supreme power in the universe. He is all-powerful and omnipresent, not Satan! And yet, many Christian denominations talk about nothing but the power of Satan. I suppose you could believe that God created the “real” world, while Satan created some kind of Matrix-like reality which is the one we can see. That would mean the people who got raptured were simply people who took the red pill! :cool: But most people believe the world we see IS the real world and those who are religious believe God created it. I believe that God created the world using evolution as His tool. And, according to the Bible, all that’s needed for salvation is belief in Jesus. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in evolution, creation science, Noah, Moses, or any of that! And if it doesn’t matter whether you believe it, why should you?

RickSummon

195

First, thanks to Rick, who very ably reiterated my thinking on why Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally and expanded on it quite cogently.

Second, FriendofGod said:

Yes, he is, isn’t he?! :wink: Actually, Friend, do you know why our co-poster took that name? It was, IIRC, largely because he wanted to serve as “Devil’s Advocate” whenever anybody (you, me, David B., Lib., whoever) starts pontificating, pointing out the flaws in his/her assumptions or logic. And you’ll note where he did it to me a page or so back. [And “Devil’s Advocate” is a good Christian tradition, albeit not from your tradition or mine. Whenever the Roman Catholic Church is looking to recognize someone as a “saint” (i.e., a person picked out from among the faithful to serve as an example, and recognized as such by formal review of life and works and then a formal ceremony of canonization – the Church does not consider itself to “make saints” by canonization, but to put the church’s formal recognition on saints whom God has called), one scholar is designated to find the evidence against canonical sainthood, to be sure that whoever they recognize is really a good example. He is the advocatus diaboli for that case. And our “Satan” asks wise and intelligent questions that cut to the core of our arguments, and does the job very well.]

Without belaboring the creation/evolution debate, which I think we all, without exception, would just as soon drop, let me make one final comment. FriendofGod said:

I don’t, as I’m sure you read, see it that way at all. In the absence of a claim made on the basis of Scripture, the evidence for a billions-years-old earth inhabited by creatures that reach their present forms by genetic change, i.e., evolution in the strict theoretical sense with no philosophical add-ons, is really overwhelming. Granted that such change occurs on a time scale that makes direct observation rare (David B. has links, which I’m sure he’d be willing to post, to occurrences of speciation that have been observed, it is quite provable on the basis of earth science rules, which vary from physical science rules. The logic here is, given the natural physical laws we know, what phenomena might account for the observed data. And if we get U-shaped valleys, hanging tributaries, rock scratches, poorly sorted morainal sediments, etc., we end up concluding that there was a glacier in those valleys some time in the past, because those are the effects we observe in connection with glaciers today. And if this popuation of moth changes in response to changes in its environment, it seems reasonable to conclude that this population of amphibians found as fossils changed in response to changes in its environment back then.

I concur that, if you allow that there is a God who had some connection with the book, one’s initial reading of Genesis 1 would indicate a straightforward account of how he created. In the absence of inspiration by a real God, it becomes a classic creation myth – one of the “better” ones – no creation of forests and swamps by drops of the creator’s seminal fluid falling on the ground, no creation of mountains by dismemberment of enormous evil giants. Half the world’s creation myths sound like they were made up by a 15-year-old boy with unresolved issues about sex and violence!) But IMHO if you take the Genesis story in conjunction with the world God created, the conclusion needs to be that it is fabular, a mythical story explaining in simple terms, for simple folk, that God is responsible for all of Creation and considers it good. This is not putting a negative spin on it in any way – stating that the Parable of the Good Samaritan is not a factual account of a historical man named Ezekiel bar Zebediah who went down to Jericho, fell among thieves, and was rescued by a man named Zedekiah who lived in the outskirts of the City of Samaria, is in no way putting down the vital point Jesus made in telling the story. Nor is calling Genesis 1 a mythical account of how God worked putting down the point it makes. “Myth” is not a smartalec disrespecting of the story so classed but a categorization into literary genre. There are quite factual myths about historical figures, such as Joan of Arc and Roland.

The problem, IMHO, lies in where one places one’s trust. And I mean no slam of anyone who has posted in suggesting that people often make erroneous choices. To accept the evidence of the natural world and the conclusions one can draw from it is good. To suggest that only what is available to the senses exists is to cut off a wide assortment of possible insights into the natural world itself, ignoring for the moment anything “supernatural.” There is no solid, unequivocal evidence for the Big Bang, for example. But what evidence we have for the early universe points to it. There is no solid, unequivocal evidence for the Resurrection. But what evidence we have points to it. David may be right in his “naturalist” explanation calling for the rapid generation of an urban legend in response to misinterpretations of statements made by Jesus prior to his death. But it fails to account for a lot of phenomena reported in the New Testament, including the apostles’ own accounts of their human attitudes being transformed in ways that many Christians have provided present-day anectodal evidence of.

The same problem differently viewed accounts for the blinders of some conservative Christians. They put their trust, not in a God who created the world and inspired the Bible, but in the Bible itself. They are at bottom not theists but librists. Their faith is in the book, not in Whom it speaks of. It’s a very comforting notion to have something at hand in which you can place unqualified trust. God is sometimes not so forthcoming. When faced with a tough decision involving how to express one’s love towards another person, it would be so nice to flip open Paul’s letters or Deuteronomy and find the precise rule of behavior one is directed to follow. But that’s not what He expects. Certainly some hints can be gleaned from the Bible; that’ what it’s there for. But the rule of one’s life as a Christian is not to look up rules in a book, but to ask the author of that life, who loves you and the other person, what He wants to see done. To advert to the original post one final time, Fred Phelps has scriptural warrant for his views. But I think he’s lost sight of God in the process.

BTW, a few loose ends:

Libertarian said, apropos of using his libertarian objectivist Christianity in answering Gaudere:

No sweat, Lib. The Boss was faced with that situation too; see the account of John’s Baptism of Jesus! :wink:

To JMullaney on doctrine of the Trinity: Yeah, I do take your point that my quick summary fails to make adequate distinction between the Persons of the Trinity and to take Jesus’ humanity into account. The problem with talking about the internal (as opposed to economic) Trinity is that no matter what you say, you fail to pick up on some detail that throws the imagery off. I chose to focus on the unity of the Godhood expressed in three ways, rather than the ternary nature of the three Persons, and to completely bypass the Two Natures of Christ (which was dealt with at length in a series of arguments with ARG220 months ago, BTW – Adam’s view of Christ was so superhuman that no one could find any common humanity with the Man Who wept on hearing of Lazarus’ death or sweat blood in Gethsemane). So I do grasp and agree with your nuances, but avoided turning this thread into Polycarp’s Discourse on the Trinity, with suitable analytical dissection of all assertions by Gaudere. :slight_smile: Bluntly, I didn’t figure anybody would be that interested.)

Finally, and reverting to the OP once more, while FriendofGod and Esprix may have resolved any conflicts they have had in their e-mail exchange, I have not yet seen FoG state on this board his response to Esprix’ question of whether he believes in the good faith of gay Christians. And others than Esprix have friends who were slammed by FoG’s assertion there. I’d very much like to drag that back out and get an answer, not to create problems but to resolve them.

196

Well shucks, Poly, you make an old demon blush! :slight_smile:

I do think that our friend was talking about the red-suit-and-brimstone Satan in his post (as opposed to myself of the Buffalo hockey playing Satan), but I take my compliments where I can get them! :smiley:

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one day, 12 hours, 8 minutes and 59 seconds.
3700 cigarettes not smoked, saving $462.53.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes.

197

Well, sir, if you look at scholarly examinations of the Biblical texts, you find that prior to the Exile in Jewish thought “the Satan” is a middle-management type in the Heavenly Court, the angelic dude whose job it is to test the faithfulness of men by accusing them of their sins to God, with an admixture of temptation to sin (can’t do your job if there’s no sin to report, after all!). Imagine him as kind of a cosmic tattletale, and you get the picture.

Under the influence of Zoroastrianism, with its two-god set of Ahura Mazda the Good God (who makes lousy cars) and Ahriman the Bad God (who is fated to lose to AM in the final combat but is definitely an independent god of evil), Satan moved up to Chief Honcho of the Heavenly Rebellion – backed up by the “Lucifer, son of the morning, cast down from heaven” imagery in Isaiah and elsewhere, along with equation with the Serpent of Eden.

I tend to give little thought to (that) Satan, since I figure that there is plenty enough evil stirred up by human for his/her fellow human without bringing him into the picture.

A more conservative Christian will of course disagree here. And have Scriptural cites to back him.

198

We took it to e-mail, but FriendofGod seems more concerned with making his point his way rather than addressing my offense. I’ve also asked him to make a public clarification of his statements, but he has not yet done so. Personally, I’m not holding my breath.

Thanks for thinking of me, tho. :wink:

Esprix

199

Polycarp, you said:
"Finally, and reverting to the OP once more, while FriendofGod and Esprix may have resolved any conflicts they have had in their e-mail exchange, I have not yet seen FoG state on this board his response to Esprix’ question of whether he believes in the good faith of gay Christians. And others than Esprix have friends who were slammed by FoG’s assertion there. I’d very much like to drag that back out and get an answer, not to create problems but to resolve them. "

Thank you for your gracious way of bringing up this topic. I hadn’t planned on discussing this before because it was off the topic of the debate we were on before, but now that debate is long gone and over. I also wasn’t going to talk about it because I knew Esprix was upset about it, and I didn’t think it would be a good idea to discuss it while he felt that way. Via email, he has shown me that he pretty much still feels that way. I just emailed him and told him I would address the issue here in this post, primarily in response to you, Polycarp. I sense you genuinely want to know where I was coming from.

I do ask that you guys read through my entire comment before reacting one way or the other, or assuming anything.

Here we go . . .

First (point #1 of 3),
I believe it’s entirely possible for a genuine, born-again Christian to have homosexual tendencies. However, I will not single out homosexuality. It’s also possible for a genuine, born-again Christian to have tendencies toward sex outside of marriage, or sex with someone who isn’t their mate.

Throughout the ages, the tendency toward sexual sin has been one of the most vexing of all sins to Christians. And it involves so much more than sex … it involves the emotions. It involves heartfelt feelings. There are books written to Christian women about the dangers of “emotional adultery”, where you don’t commit the act, but the feelings are so strong.

It’s one of the most powerful traps a person can possible fall into. It can also be one of the most joyous blessings in a person’s life when they line it up with God’s plan.

I’ve mentioned before that a Christian has a heightened awareness of their own sins. If there are sexual sins or tendencies, they become aware of them and desperately want to rid themselves of them. Some are successful, some are not.

I’ve known genuine believers for years who have agonized over the sin in their life and have just not found the solution yet. Nonbelievers would scoff and say, “You’re just trying to get away with it.” No. Yes there’s enjoyment at first, but the bitter taste that sin leaves causes you to want no part of it.

So that’s one side of the coin. Believers can have tendencies and temptations toward all kinds of sexual sins, not just homosexual. (“If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” - I Jn 1:10). Read Romans 7 for a description of the incredible agony a believer feels when he/she’s in sin.
Now, that was point 1 of 3. Hang with me.

Point #2: there is an entirely different kind of person out there as well . . . someone who doesn’t claim to be a Christian and who lives a LIFESTYLE of some brand of sin, be it adultery, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, or some other thing.

To be honest, I have no problem whatsoever with someone in this category. If you aren’t a Christian, I ASSUME you will do whatever you want to do! That’s pretty much the definition of a nonChristian … someone who runs their life by their own rules. That’s what I expect, just like THEY would expect me to try to live my life by the Bible.

Believe it or not, the Bible makes a strong case for this in 1st Corinthians 5:9 -

“I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people – NOT AT ALL meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.”

So far we have the Bible making two things plain – a Christian shouldn’t be bothered or surprised at all by nonbelievers acting in an immoral way … and a believer can sometimes be caught up in a sin-habit that causes agony in their soul because they can’t seem to shake it.

Now, point #3. There’s one final side to this coin as well. Let me preface it with these verses:

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I say?” (Lk 6:46)

“By their fruit you will recognize them . . . Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 7:16a and 21)
There is a third category. People who claim to be born-again Christians, and yet they live in open, blatant sexual immorality as a lifestyle.

God loves people like this just as much as He loves anyone else. And because He loves them, He issues a command in the Bible that is, on it’s surface, shocking. But it’s goal is pure, deep love.

If God didn’t love people in this category, He would just mosey on and say “Oh well, they just don’t get it”. But no. He knows the ONLY way to get someone out of this deep deep deception is through drastic measures. Hence the following stunning scripture:

(continuing the passage started earlier …)
“But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who CALLS HIMSELF A BROTHER but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man, do not even eat.” (1 Cor 5:11)

Wow. That’s sobering just to type that out. The passage continues …

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” (I Cor 5:12-13a).
It seems the only way people in this category can be reached is to have a clear, unmistakable line drawn for them in the sand …

Follow Christ, or follow your lifestyle of sin … but you can’t do both. You have to choose.

I’ve known people who’ve had this line drawn for them by loving leaders in the church (in every case I know of, it was a male/female couple living in sexual immorality outside of marriage). Most of them were grateful that someone cared enough to break them out their deception. Some, sadly, got offended and left.

I had to do this only once in my life, and I pray I never have to again. It was one of the most gut-wrenching, awful experiences in my life, but what could I do? The Bible was pretty clear-cut. It literally brought me to tears. The brother I challenged didn’t respond well at first. Now, thankfully, several years have past and he is actually grateful I challenged him. He is married and walking solidly with Christ today.
The point is this, and I’m sorry but I cannot and will not tiptoe around it or apologize for it.

The Bible says plainly that you have a choice. You can choose to follow Jesus, or you can choose a life of immorality - be it sex outside of marriage, adultery, drunkenness, or homosexuality. But you CANNOT do both.

The Bible puts it this way in rather stark, and clear, terms:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Cor 6:9-10)

Another sobering verse. That “do not be deceived” seems pretty blatant and clear. A paraphrase would be, “Don’t even TRY to kid yourself”.

Thankfully, it doesn’t stop there.

“And that is what SOME OF YOU WERE. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (v 11)

So there it is. Probably not what anyone on this board wanted to hear or hoped to hear, but that’s the message of the Bible. Don’t kid yourself that you can run your life and do whatever you want and be right with God.

But at the same time, if you’re willing to SUBMIT your life to God, He can give you a deep, fulfilling joy that is deeper and greater than anything that sinful lifestyles can even dream of providing. The sin is the cheap counterfeit.

God provides true, fulfilling, LASTING joy and offers it to all who want it.

200

So, FriendofGod, in a nutshell, your original statement stands - no homosexual can be Christian, because, thankfully, any real Christian wouldn’t want to be homosexual, and of course if they are homosexual (or, more precisely, a practicing homosexual), and they say they’re Christian, they’re lying, to themselves and to God, because, really, if they really wanted to be a real Christian, God would help them overcome such sin. And you’re the authority on such matters, of course, because you can quote the appropriate scripture and point out to your “false brethren” their wicked ways, and you’re proud of it. Get saved, praise the Lord, hallelujah.

So it seems that all of my gay Christian friends, are, indeed, liars - they’re not really Christian at all.

Please excuse me while I wash my hands. I’m feeling rather dirty right now.

Polycarp, let me once again thank you for being a breed of Christian above and beyond this tripe. If it were not for you and others like you (particularly on this board), I would chalk Christianity as a faith up to dangerous fanaticism and disregard it completely. As it stands, I can still respect it as a matter of religious faith, but I certainly will never be one.

Esprix