Hope this poll is not accurate ( but it probably is )

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-shows-christians-america-really-203719289.html


When we look at why this may be, a think the article hits on the main reason...here..

" It's also part of a larger generational shift in the U.S. toward a more liberal Christianity, with polling showing conservative religious people are now outnumbered nationally by more progressive ones. "

I would have to say that the research was accurate.  Those are sad numbers indeed.

We were reading Matt 2 as part of Advent.
2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi^[a] from the east came to Jerusalem ² and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
³ When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. ⁴ When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ⁵ “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
⁶ “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
    are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
    who will shepherd my people Israel.’^[b]”

We all know how how Jesus was rejected by the religious leaders and we see here that they knew better. They knew the prophecy and told it to Herod.

My wife commented that it is happening again today. What I asked. She replied the religious people of today are rejecting the true Jesus  just like those did in His time.

1 sad thing about those numbers is the most consistently conservative are the 2 biggest cults.

Well at least the gay bashing on this forum is getting more strategic.

I read in the article that "acceptance"  and "tolerance" are on the rise in Christian circles.  Acceptance and tolerance do not equal approval.  Is it really so bad that Christian circles are finally showing the love of God to a community that we should have been loving all along?

You don’t pet a wolf. He’s a threat to the sheep and isn’t seeking friendship but blood in his attempts to maim and kill.

srguenther wrote:I read in the article that "acceptance"  and "tolerance" are on the rise in Christian circles.  Acceptance and tolerance do not equal approval.  Is it really so bad that Christian circles are finally showing the love of God to a community that we should have been loving all along?

Completely agree.

H.M. Murdock wrote:You don’t pet a wolf. He’s a threat to the sheep and isn’t seeking friendship but blood in his attempts to maim and kill.

LOL at comparing homosexuality to a vicious wolf. Oh yeah, totally borderline man-raepin sex fiends!

Don't look 'em straight in the eye or you might catch "the gay" from 'em!
Oh wait. If gay was a disease, that disqualifies it from being a sin/choice.
...since it's biblically proven that homosexuals CHOOSE their sexual orientation and heterosexuals don't.

Is it to early to vote to close the thread?
Kerrick?

d@v!d wrote:We were reading Matt 2 as part of Advent.
2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi^[a] from the east came to Jerusalem ² and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
³ When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. ⁴ When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ⁵ “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
⁶ “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
    are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
    who will shepherd my people Israel.’^[b]”

We all know how how Jesus was rejected by the religious leaders and we see here that they knew better. They knew the prophecy and told it to Herod.

My wife commented that it is happening again today. What I asked. She replied the religious people of today are rejecting the true Jesus  just like those did in His time.

Good post. Gets to the heart of the matter.

ThomasEversole wrote:Well at least the gay bashing on this forum is getting more strategic.

Why not have a intelligent and civil discussion without going for the emotional play ?

srguenther wrote:I read in the article that "acceptance"  and "tolerance" are on the rise in Christian circles.  Acceptance and tolerance do not equal approval.  Is it really so bad that Christian circles are finally showing the love of God to a community that we should have been loving all along?

So, one day there will be more " acceptance " and " tolerance " for adulterers and alcoholism in the Church ?

One thing that really bothers me is that the liberal world has hi-jacked the meaning of " love. " The most loving thing a Christian can do is call sinners too repentance and too a living trust in God. The problem seems to be that Christians are more afraid of coming off as " judgmental " and intolerant. And it seems that many segments of Christianity are compromising their standard of truth in order to blend in with society and the world in general. Calling someone who professes Christ too turn from sin is simply old fashioned holiness. And I understand that people fail give in all along the way. The whole idea is to have the Holy Spirit bring sinners into agreement with God in regards to their sin.

ThomasEversole wrote:

LOL at comparing homosexuality to a vicious wolf. Oh yeah, totally borderline man-raepin sex fiends!

Don't look 'em straight in the eye or you might catch "the gay" from 'em!
Oh wait. If gay was a disease, that disqualifies it from being a sin/choice.
...since it's biblically proven that homosexuals CHOOSE their sexual orientation and heterosexuals don't.

Thomas, since I'm not quite sure what your objections are, why not talk about what your feelings are about Christianity and this specific way of life ? Why do you feel that within the last 5-10 years that Christianity has changed so much in regards to this one particular sin ? ( sorry, I even framed that question assuming you believe that homosexuality is a sin )

d@v!d wrote:1 sad thing about those numbers is the most consistently conservative are the 2 biggest cults.

Probably because of the inherent works-righteousness base to their version of Christianity.

one day there will be more " acceptance " and " tolerance " for adulterers and alcoholism in the Church ?

in a lot of churches there already is and you know it S6..

As for the article..interesting..not really a topic I care about one way or the other..to each there own..if its legal, whatever..if not. whatever..thats my view..

sentient 6 wrote:

srguenther wrote:I read in the article that "acceptance"  and "tolerance" are on the rise in Christian circles.  Acceptance and tolerance do not equal approval.  Is it really so bad that Christian circles are finally showing the love of God to a community that we should have been loving all along?

So, one day there will be more " acceptance " and " tolerance " for adulterers and alcoholism in the Church ?

One thing that really bothers me is that the liberal world has hi-jacked the meaning of " love. " The most loving thing a Christian can do is call sinners too repentance and too a living trust in God. The problem seems to be that Christians are more afraid of coming off as " judgmental " and intolerant. And it seems that many segments of Christianity are compromising their standard of truth in order to blend in with society and the world in general. Calling someone who professes Christ too turn from sin is simply old fashioned holiness. And I understand that people fail give in all along the way. The whole idea is to have the Holy Spirit bring sinners into agreement with God in regards to their sin.

Acceptance and tolerance are not approval.  Adulterers and alcoholocs can be accepted and tolerated and still called to repentance.

sentient 6 wrote:

ThomasEversole wrote:Well at least the gay bashing on this forum is getting more strategic.

Why not have a intelligent and civil discussion without going for the emotional play ?

The emotional play is what killed off religious discussions here.  It wasn't new as that has always gone on.  Very few can walk the middle ground in discussion without getting inflammatory while maintaining their position and presenting their side in a way that is palatable.  Besides, the new way of debate these days is to just shout down everyone that disagrees with you with an insult.

sentient 6 wrote:
Thomas, since I'm not quite sure what your objections are, why not talk about what your feelings are about Christianity and this specific way of life ? Why do you feel that within the last 5-10 years that Christianity has changed so much in regards to this one particular sin ? ( sorry, I even framed that question assuming you believe that homosexuality is a sin )

Why would a homosexual choose to be gay?
...the persecution involved (from Christians and other gay haters) would deter ANYONE from that choice.

If its not a choice, how can that "orientation" be a sin? I've known quite a few gay people in my life, and 0% of them CHOOSE to be attracted to the same sex.

I fully agree that sex outside of marriage is out of bounds. Their solution is the same as the heterosexual one.

The Scriptures wielded against "this lifestyle" are never used in the proper context.

I absolutely agree that the homosexual acts in Romans 1:27 were in error / sin because they weren't in the context of marriage.
No different caliber of sin than heterosexual acts outside of marriage.

The other two New Testament verses used by Christian to go against homosexuality are 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 1st Timothy 1:10.
If you go to the original Greek of these verses, 1st Corinthians 6:9 uses the term Malakoi - which most modern interpretations of this word are "homosexual".  

1st Timothy 1:10 uses the term Arsenokoitai - which most modern interpretations of this word are "men who have sex with men".  

However, the concept of "sexual orientation" didn't exist in the ancient world.  Men having sex with men was ALWAYS associated with rampant lust and non-consensual sex.  (look at Sodom where angels disguised themselves as men and the male residents there tried to force themselves on them)

The correct translation of Malakoi is "licentious". (another word for promiscuous)
Correct translation of Arsenokoitai is "Abusers of Themselves with Mankind". (that's a very broad definition)

In closing, my frustration with this is that so many Christians still would rather take a verse in whatever context they want with no other research... because research is lies because it's not from the bible. That's the perfect ingredient for everlasting ignorance.

How many Christians treat homosexuality would be no different than me approaching anyone with tattoos and wielding Leviticus 19:28 against them.

Oh you have something to disprove that? Oh am I taking that verse out of context? So, you're disputing scripture with something that's not from the bible... so not only are you sinning because you have tatoos, but you're saying the bible is wrong...

Checkmate.
Works every time.

Still, nothing I said will make a difference. It's already checkmated. Kerrick? Can we close this before I go off from the rebuttals?

alldatndensum wrote:
The emotional play is what killed off religious discussions here.  It wasn't new as that has always gone on.  Very few can walk the middle ground in discussion without getting inflammatory while maintaining their position and presenting their side in a way that is palatable.  Besides, the new way of debate these days is to just shout down everyone that disagrees with you with an insult.

So would emotional play be like if you made an analogy and I responded with "That's absurd." or "Nice irrelevant meme type answer"?

...or could I play the "I shouldn't have to talk to you with kid gloves on because kid gloves are not metal" card to turn the debate anti-anti-emotional instead of not engaging emotionally at all?

srguenther wrote:I read in the article that "acceptance"  and "tolerance" are on the rise in Christian circles.  Acceptance and tolerance do not equal approval.  Is it really so bad that Christian circles are finally showing the love of God to a community that we should have been loving all along?

Look at the article again.

If there really is a culture war raging between social liberals and conservatives, polling data indicates the liberals have won one battle so thoroughly they're making inroads into enemy territory.
A new Pew Research Center survey suggests that growing numbers of Christians have come around on homosexuality, with a full 54% of all Christians agreeing that "homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society."
"While this is still considerably lower than the shares of religiously unaffiliated people (83%) and members of non-Christian faiths (76%) who say the same, the Christian figure has increased by 10 percentage points since we conducted a similar study in 2007," Pew writes.
According to Pew's data, the percentage of Christians who accept homosexuality has grown in virtually all denominations, with just evangelical Protestants, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses remaining opposed.

What are opposed are "acceptance" and "be discouraged."

What motivates encouragement or discouragement? Approval.

I do think if you take into context what is being said, it isn't talking about Christians being more open to minister to homosexuals now, but more like Christians believing that homosexuality isn't a sin and therefore should no longer be a criteria for "acceptance" or rejection.

Look at Thomas' explanation for the non sinfulness of homosexuality as a perfect example of what this article is talking about for Christian acceptance.


But, I do think the good side of all this LBGT movement is that Christians have encouraged to begin to deal with homosexuality as a sin that can be repented of like any other as opposed to the old days of shunning the new believer who is struggling with homosexuality.

ThomasEversole wrote:Why would a homosexual choose to be gay?
...the persecution involved (from Christians and other gay haters) would deter ANYONE from that choice.

If its not a choice, how can that "orientation" be a sin? I've known quite a few gay people in my life, and 0% of them CHOOSE to be attracted to the same sex.

Homosexuality is a choice. It begins with some who have same sex attraction. Instead of putting those feelings in check they cultivate them. God has said it is sinful behavior. The choice they have as we all do with any sinful behavior is to repent of it or to continue in rebellion.
It's the same with any sinful behavior. We covet what we don't have and if we don't put those thoughts and feelings into check, we end up stealing.

Just as the people in Jesus' day rejected him because they didn't like his teachings and would rather have a Messiah that served their sinful desires, people still reject Him today likewise. People want a Jesus that says homosexuality is OK and so they fashion a Jesus after their own liking. You can choose to serve the god of your own imagination, but eventually, you realize that you've been just robbing yourself of the best thing for your, God who He truly is. Worse, you'll also find that you are His enemy and He will judge you rightly for it.

So, I ask, is it worth it? Is the cultivation of your pet sin worth your soul?

Homosexuality is a choice.

All sexual orientation/acts is/are a choice as we all choose who we will have sex with..both in and out of marriage...
.............

you'll also find that you are His enemy and He will judge you rightly for it.

There is no judgment for the believer

So, I ask, is it worth it? Is the cultivation of your pet sin worth your soul?

people dont lose their soul or go to hell over homosexuality or any other sin..they go because they chose not to believe in the messiah...(I also believe that Jews go to heaven because of their covenant with God)

So is this the way to get a thread closed that you don't like?  Just start a theology debate?

I have plenty more I could say. But I won't. I doubt you'd listen anyway.