Christian Choices vs. Lost Peoples Choices

I was just reading through a thread on the board where someone was chiding over a certain groups recent win of the right to marry. The author of the thread seemed quite upset at this win. I don't know, maybe I ought to place this thread in the Holy Rants section for RK to moderate in case it gets to be a hot subject.

Anyway, ok, so the homosexuals or as the scriptures call them, sodomites, won this right to be married. Should that get Christians all in a tizzy? Well, it is a loss for Christian values, but it isn't something a Christian practices unless they are so backslid, they won't see forward. I don't believe that's possible for a Christian to practice homosexuality without being totally miserable. I've lead a few homosexuals to the Lord and from the point of them being saved, they stopped practicing this abomination.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

But the facts are, according to the scriptures, the lost are doing what they do because it's natural to them just like a Natural Brute Beast does what it does...

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, [as] they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots [they are] and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam [the son] of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
(Nobody can accuse Peter of mincing words, now can they?)

So my question probably is: can we place the same requirements on the lost who are acting according to their nature as a brute beast as we would a fellow Christian? If this nation were still a "Christian" nation, then yes.

 

And we wonder why parts of the Bible are banned in various area's of the world.

 

I have never expected non-believers to conform to the morality of God.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard, yet I've heard preaching all my life that expects a Studebaker to be an apple. You are absolutely correct. Even well behaved, socially acceptable non-believers are still the walking dead, enslaved to their natural desires of the flesh.

From a biblical perspective, the Gospel is supra-cultural. One is expected to be a Biblical believer, acting in accordance with the filling of the Holy Spirit, regardless of governmental structure, citizenship, societal mores, or loss of or lack of personal liberty.

North American Christianity is having a hard time of it now because we have depended on the government to set forth the standard of morality instead of the Church, and we have, in large degree, given up our right to effectively argue for change because we have also ignored from a century the God-given obligation of the Church (at large) to care for the poor, the widowed, and the orphan, and have delegated... or abrogated... that responsibility to the government.

 

This all started even before there was really North American Christianity, particularly of the 20th and 21st century variety.

 

True dat.

 

No. We can't place those same requirement on the lost.
Ultimately who is it that enables us to say no to sin. God. Specifically the Holy Spirit living within us. Who we at times ignore and do the things we ought not do, then repent. We can't expect, or require, someone who does not believe in God, have the Holy Spirit, to behave as one who does and is led by the Spirit.

 

So then actually, we can't blame someone (the lost) for doing what comes naturally to them. Even if it means they are going against God's nature. It's God that'll do the judging. It's our duty to witness to them isn't it? So that if they accept Christ as Savior, that which was was once natural for them to do, then becomes un-natural for them to do as a born again child. So then are we to accept the sin because it's natural to them? God forbid that we do. But aren't we to hate the sin, but love the sinner?

So that brings me to my next question, how do we react before the "world" when confronted with even this particular sin?

 

I don't know. This seems to be one of those statements like "God helps those who help themselves" that's attributed to, but actually isn't in, the Bible. But I've never actually seen it in the Bible. Have you?

 

How is that any different than a Muslim trying to force someone in this country to accept Sharia Law. We are not Muslims, nor are we a Muslim nation. Why should we accept a foreign God's law?

 

Well, I don't know... Does God hate them or love them? (John 3:16) Are we supposed to love as God does as much as humanly possible? Here is a for instance:

Do you like all the brethren? No, I know I don't, but I sure nuff know I love them. Look at the top of the forum. What verse is up there? 1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. That's one of the things that shows us we're saved.

So now we have the world. And God loved the world enough that He gave His only begotten Son a sacrifice didn't he? And being a child of God, we're supposed to embody the fruit of His Spirit, aren't we??? Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

By the way, anyone ever notice that the "Fruit of the Spirit" is singular and not plural?

 

I'm certainly not saying we're not to love. I'm just wondering about that statement. Although I guess you could say it's implied. Though I've seen many people abuse the "implied" method so I was just wondering if there actually was a scripture that spelled it out clearly.

 

Yes, I have. And I've heard several different theories.
I'd be interested in hearing your take on it.

 

It is implied in Galatians 5 and elsewhere I reckon. So does the Spirit tell you to hate or love an individual. Or more specifically, does the Spirit tell you to hate sin but have enough compassion to love the one trapped in sin?

I believe because it's singular, it's one package rolled up into one.

 

Changed your message on me??? Certainly I wouldn't accept Sharia law unless I had no choice, but would I hate the individual enforcing or living under it?

 

The phrase is original to Augustine (as far as I know). What about it conflicts with what you know about Scripture?

 

I actually don't find that message anywhere in Scripture.

 

The problem is that it is not found in Scripture.

It's a theological answer to a man made question