How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?

[Who me]

On 5/22/2024 at 1:47 AM, bartmac123 said:

My nominal Catholic relative said that she felt that it was wrong to reject same-sex marriage because Christian can Not enforce their Christian view of marriage on others who are Not Christian.  She essentially felt that homosexuals' rights should be respected, and Christians can Not criticize the LGBTQ+ approval and acceptance of same-sex marriage because their perspectives are Not the same as Christians

It is a difficult  area to talk about graciously, as any contrary  view is often seen as hatred.

I think there are two areas to concentrate on.

1, that God's  plan for humanity is life long marriage between one man and one women as shown in genesis.

By concentrating on what is supposed  to be the norm one avoids critiicsing other views.

2. The claim is Christian cannot enforce their views on others, yet that is precisely  what the lgtb are doing, forcing everyone to endorse there views.

What percentage of the population, according to national censuses, are lgtb. Here in the UK it is less then 5%, so who is compelling  who?

[Neighbor]

10 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

I don't think the government has any business in marriage.

But, the USA, government anyway has entered the marriage business giving legal rights to widows as example and defines income taxation, social security benefits,  in terms of one's government endorsed legal marital status.

That does put a financial obligation upon all in the USA to provide benefits in a same sex marriage, an extra financial burden to all. And so all are affected by the acceptance of same sex marriage, in more than morality, in the pocketbook.

[BibleStudent100]

On 5/21/2024 at 5:47 PM, bartmac123 said:

My immediate response was more aligned with "fire and brimstone preaching" by passionately criticizing the LGBTQ+ culture by using the following scriptures:

When asked about our view on homosexuality by someone who has little faith in the veracity of the Bible, it serves little purpose to quote the many Bible verses that condemn homosexuality, especially now, when the LGBTQ+ agenda has become totally acceptable and even “honored” in our society. 

So I take a different tack:  “The Bible does NOT promote the hatred of gays!   It tells us to ‘pursue peace with all people’ (Hebrews 12:14).  So it is wrong to engage in bullying, hate crimes, or any other type of mistreatment of gays.”  In less than a minute, I have given a good start to a Biblical perspective.  If time allows, I continue:

Our Christian mission is to follow God’s standard on behavior and just as one should not commit adultery or engage in fornication, people can change:  “…that is what some of you were” (1 Corinthians 6:11.  So even if those who stopped practicing homosexuality still feel any inclination toward that lifestyle, these urges can be kept under control:  “Keep walking by spirit and you will carry out no fleshly desire at all” (Galatians 5:16). 

[TheBlade]

On 5/21/2024 at 6:47 PM, bartmac123 said:

A while back, I was debating with a nominal Catholic relative of mine about why same-sex marriage was sinful.
My nominal Catholic relative said that she felt that it was wrong to reject same-sex marriage because Christian can Not enforce their Christian view of marriage on others who are Not Christian.  She essentially felt that homosexuals' rights should be respected, and Christians can Not criticize the LGBTQ+ approval and acceptance of same-sex marriage because their perspectives are Not the same as Christians.

My immediate response was more aligned with "fire and brimstone preaching" by passionately criticizing the LGBTQ+ culture by using the following scriptures:

Even though the aforementioned bible verses and passages are correct in condemning LGBTQ+ culture, I was Not satisfied with how I debated with my relative.  The reason being is that I was quick to condemn by resorting to "fire and brimstone preaching"

It made me think by asking the following question:

"How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?"

Please do Not misunderstand me.  The use of "fire and brimstone" biblical passages and verses certainly have their place in defending Christian values.   However, "fire and brimstone" biblical passages and verses should Not be the sole approach, and in many cases Not the first step in arguing against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction.

"How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?"

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge and condemn the world [that is, to initiate the final judgment of the world], but that the world might be saved through Him.

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is the age of Grace and that alone can really confuses some for to them it seems as of GOD is just allowing sin. This is not the OT Christ came died already for the sin of the world. Hello good news. Some want to just remind that person who's stuck in that cell just why the are there.. yet not tell them He came to set you free, He took your place. Focus on that light not the darkness. More come to Christ with love not turn or (Forgive me Father) burn. No.. no one said that lol. 

Only because you said "fire and brimstone". Take it as a grain of salt its ok. Preacher asked Christ why have you not judge those other preachers with "fire and brimstone" to that Christ said "oh but do you know the good they do for me". You know what song is playing? "GOD REALLY LOVES US"

[Tristen]

On 5/22/2024 at 10:47 AM, bartmac123 said:

My nominal Catholic relative said that she felt that it was wrong to reject same-sex marriage because Christian can Not enforce their Christian view of marriage on others who are Not Christian.  She essentially felt that homosexuals' rights should be respected, and Christians can Not criticize the LGBTQ+ approval and acceptance of same-sex marriage because their perspectives are Not the same as Christians.

And yet, your "relative" has no problem criticizing Christians for exercising our "right" to freedom of religious expression, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. "She" is permitted to "criticize" your Christian opinions, but you are supposedly "wrong" if you dare "criticize" homosexuality. Your "relative" is therefore being logically inconsistent.

In terms of "rights", we are all permitted to have and promote our own views. Your "relative" wants to restrict your rights - giving deference to the rights of the secular "progressive" ideology. No one gets to place their own ideology beyond scrutiny and criticism. No one gets to tell the opposing view that, "I am correct, and no one is allowed to criticize me".

The argument presented by your "relative" is therefore technically tyrannical. Every tyrant thinks their own "rights" are paramount - while at the same time being happy to suppress the "rights" of those who disagree. But that mentality defeats the very purpose of "rights".

 

On 5/22/2024 at 10:47 AM, bartmac123 said:

Even though the aforementioned bible verses and passages are correct in condemning LGBTQ+ culture, I was Not satisfied with how I debated with my relative.  The reason being is that I was quick to condemn by resorting to "fire and brimstone preaching"

It made me think by asking the following question:

"How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?"

I'm not sure why you can't speak God's truth in love, gentleness and humility. It is very easy to say that the Bible makes God's views on these sins very clear - and then go through the relevant scriptures.

The Bible tells us that God considers homosexuality to be a moral sin. According to scripture, sin corrupts and destroys us. According to Christian philosophy, sin is the thing that we need to be saved from. It would therefore be unloving for a Christian to affirm sin. There is no need for "fire and brimstone" - because the same truth is equally applicable to all sin - not just homosexuality.

Despite claiming to be "Catholic", it would appear that your "relative" respects secular ideology more than she respects the authority of the Bible. That's a much bigger problem for someone professing to be Christian.

 

[RdJ]

4 minutes ago, Tristen said:

And yet, your "relative" has no problem criticizing Christians for exercising our "right" to freedom of religious expression, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. "She" is permitted to "criticize" your Christian opinions, but you are supposedly "wrong" if you dare "criticize" homosexuality. Your "relative" is therefore being logically inconsistent.

In terms of "rights", we are all permitted to have and promote our own views. Your "relative" wants to restrict your rights - giving deference to the rights of the secular "progressive" ideology. No one gets to place their own ideology beyond scrutiny and criticism. No one gets to tell the opposing view that, "I am correct, and no one is allowed to criticize me".

The argument presented by your "relative" is therefore technically tyrannical. Every tyrant thinks their own "rights" are paramount - while at the same time being happy to suppress the "rights" of those who disagree. But that mentality defeats the very purpose of "rights".

 

I'm not sure why you can't speak God's truth in love, gentleness and humility. It is very easy to say that the Bible makes God's views on these sins very clear - and then go through the relevant scriptures.

The Bible tells us that God considers homosexuality to be a moral sin. According to scripture, sin corrupts and destroys us. According to Christian philosophy, sin is the thing that we need to be saved from. It would therefore be unloving for a Christian to affirm sin. There is no need for "fire and brimstone" - because the same truth is equally applicable to all sin - not just homosexuality.

Despite claiming to be "Catholic", it would appear that your "relative" respects secular ideology more than she respects the authority of the Bible. That's a much bigger problem for someone professing to be Christian.

 

Tyrannical? She only said that she felt that it was wrong to reject same-sex marriage because Christian can Not enforce their Christian view of marriage on others who are Not Christian.

I take that as enforce your view is that they get less rights. If a hetero couple is allowed to live in sin by law or to remarry by the govt when there's no Biblical reason and it's adultery or to get a pie from a bakery with zero questions asked to see if the marriage is not sin then gays should too. Else it's discrimination. I can't really blame them that they want rights too when hetero's can just do what they want. If the majority decides to forbid gay marriage then also forbid hetero remarriage with no Biblical reason. Tyrannical is those hypocrits in some country in Africa who rape women and have to have sex all day, but want to throw gays in prison.

[RdJ]

There was a guy on a Dutch reformed forum. He called himself gay because he was not attracted to women, but I would think don't call yourself that since he was reborn and it worked the same for him as for everybody. First he often got indecent thoughts from satan when he saw a good looking guy and he would rebuke it and now he rarely had it anymore and he stayed single and celibate but he didnt want to marry a woman. He used to speak in a church, but they treated him like he was a piece of filth, so he wanted nothing to do with that church anymore. That's discrimination oh and the worst thing: they banned him from that supposed christian forum but let his former rapist talk there and tell lies that homosexuality is fine with God.

Edited May 24, 2024 by RdJ

[RdJ]

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

 Tyrannical is those hypocrits in some country in Africa who rape women and have to have sex all day, but want to throw gays in prison.

I was just making this up because those are always the worst but look it's true:

https://oblogdee.blog/2013/03/20/ugandan-catholic-priest-suspended-for-speaking-out-against-sexual-immorality/

[In the Clouds]

Homosexuality seems to be the dominant topic of this discussion; but, what about some of the other sins that are mentioned here?  And what about those who are directly affected by others who commit them and not just outsiders looking in trying to put this in perspective?

My father was a cigarette smoker; but, it was my nonsmoking mother who got lung cancer and died from it.  Second hand smoke?  We can't prove that nor the lung issues my siblings and I suffer.  Figure out the odds of us just getting sick naturally.  So, are we to be compassionate and turn the other cheek?  My father through his selfishness caused all kinds of havoc and debilitating illness to us.  I resent that he caused harm to my mother.  Just how can you be gracious about that?  Love the sinner but not the sin.  As far as I am concerned, people who are knowingly and purposefully unclean should be separated so others can live.

[Tristen]

15 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Tyrannical? She only said that she felt that it was wrong to reject same-sex marriage because Christian can Not enforce their Christian view of marriage on others who are Not Christian.

The OP suggested that Christians should not be permitted to "criticize" things that are contrary to our faith ("Christians can Not criticize the LGBTQ+ approval and acceptance of same-sex marriage because their perspectives are Not the same as Christians"). Yet she is free to "criticize" your Biblical view. The attempt to restrict the opposing view is a "tyrannical" tendency.

 

21 minutes ago, RdJ said:

If a hetero couple is allowed to live in sin by law or to remarry by the govt when there's no Biblical reason and it's adultery or to get a pie from a bakery with zero questions asked to see if the marriage is not sin then gays should too.

Assuming you are talking about the famous case, you have your details askew. The baker was happy to sell the gay couple a cake - "with zero questions asked". However, the baker was not prepared to apply his God-given talents to decorate the cake in a manner that contravened his faith. I suspect, if asked to decorate an "adultery" themed cake (or satanic-themes cake), he would also have refused.

 

25 minutes ago, RdJ said:

Else it's discrimination

Is it not also "discrimination" against the Christian's beliefs to try and force him to act against his religious convictions?

Why does the Christian man have to subjugate his rights to the rights of the homosexuals?

This is what I mean. The fair-minded says, "We respect that you have beliefs that don't allow you to fulfil our request - and we will find another baker". Whereas the tyrant says, "How dare you deny our request you bigot. We will sue you for discrimination - to either force you to cede your Christian beliefs to our secular progressive ideology, or else drive you out of business".

 

35 minutes ago, RdJ said:

I can't really blame them that they want rights too when hetero's can just do what they want

The same-sex marriage issue was never about rights, but about definitions. A gay man could always marry a woman - as the definition of marriage has always, until recently, meant a covenant between a man and woman.

Marriage has earned its place as a special, transcendent relationship based on thousands of years of tradition. Homosexuals wanted their partnerships to have the same social recognition (or sanctity, or 'specialness') as marriages - and therefore fought (successfully) to have the term "marriage" redefined to include gay couples. The outcome has been to diminish all "marriage" from a holy covenant before God, down to a paper contract before the state. Furthermore, if "marriage" can be redefined to mean whatever each generation decides it means, then it is no longer a special, transcendent relationship.

Alternatively, homosexuals could have coined their own term for their relationships - giving the gay relationship the opportunity to earn its own social recognition - and leaving the sanctity of marriage intact - equally recognized by the state so there is no "discrimination".

 

53 minutes ago, RdJ said:

If the majority decides to forbid gay marriage then also forbid hetero remarriage with no Biblical reason

The issue was never about forbidding "gay marriage" - but about the validity of redefining the term "marriage" from an exclusively heterosexual relationship to a relationship that could include homosexual couples. Under the original definition, "gay marriage" was a contradiction.

Your example here is therefore a False Analogy in this context. An atheistic "marriage" (for example), or a "remarriage" founded on adultery still fulfills the basic definition of "marriage" (as being between a man and woman). Extending the term "marriage" to include gay couples is a fundamental change of definition.

 

1 hour ago, RdJ said:

Tyrannical is those hypocrits in some country in Africa who rape women and have to have sex all day, but want to throw gays in prison.

Yes - violence and persecution of dissidents are also typical of "tyrannical" thinking. Something else typical of "tyrannical" thinking is the suppression of opposing views.

I'm not saying your "relative" is a tyrant. I'm saying that, according to your narrative, she is engaging in a "tyrannical" style of thinking - as opposed to encouraging the free and open exchange of ideas. While in her mind she is free to both have and express her views openly, your Bible-based views "should" be altered or suppressed - because they disagree with her view. That represents a stark logical inconsistency in her position.