My question, which LBBC has yet to address (or maybe even hear), is whether or not a Christian's strong stance on a morality issue (even if they are right) should be secondary to the Christian's call to love the lost. Pharasees did a lot of judging (and lots of times were even morally correct in what they were saying).

 

I know this isn't an easy question and there are lots of what if's and side issues that can be argued, but put simply if one rails (or calls their congressmen) against providing domestic partner benefits to the significant others of gays, you can win the argument, but you probably aren't going to love many gay people into God's kingdom.

 

You can do both.

 

Jesus did both.

 

Christians try to do both.

 

Critics of Christians assume that if you stand against something, you cannot love them.

 

I love my children. But I do point out to them when they are doing something they should not. Doesn't effect one iota whether I love them or not. They try the argument, you don't love me. But it is far from the truth.

 

In fact, I submit to both of you, Christians would NOT being SHOWING LOVE if they did not point out sin.

 

Even in the famous and often misquoted cast the first stone, Jesus told the girl to go sin no more. I guess he was not showing love by asking her to sin no more??????

Some people dont believe in the claims that Jesus made though, or his rules. Why should your Religion govern their lives.

Some people dont believe in the claims that Jesus made though, or his rules. Why should your Religion govern their lives.

As Heresay has already pointed out, it matters not where people's sense of morality comes, collective morality is the foundation of our legal system. That is just how representative democracies work. People who sincerely believe that government should not or cannot legislate morality are anarchists.

Some people dont believe in the claims that Jesus made though, or his rules. Why should your Religion govern their lives.

But as a Christian, who believes that my side is right, why shouldn't I try to spread my values, in order to help save those who don't?

 

It is similar to the Catholic Eucharistic prayer that prays for the conversion of the Jews; they came under a lot of criticism, but one Jewish rabbi came out and said, "If I were a Christian, and I believed that Christ was the way to salvation, it would be my duty to try and convert others."

If someone is working for the university and getting their money taken out for benefits it should go to whomever they see fit, it's their money. This doesn't just mean homosexual employees but also heterosexual employees who aren't married.

 

The the same should be said for the Social Security funds that are taken from every LEGAL employee in the United States. It's their money.

Maybe, but if I am gay and LBBC, the Christian, doesn't want me to have health insurance provided through my significant others employer. Am I really to believe that he has my best interest in mind when he shares his faith?

 

Why don't you get a job with benefits and then your partner wouldn't have to provide benefits for you.

First of all I thought that this also covered a sibling, etc (someone who has lived in the household for one year). I also thought the employee had to pay to have this person insured. I know this was in the Ky Enquire within the past two weeks.

Some people dont believe in the claims that Jesus made though, or his rules. Why should your Religion govern their lives.

 

Okay, we are back to it seems you are saying that I should not use my faith (or any Christian for that matter) to make decisions in our lives including those decision to support candidates or issues.

 

You are wanting to impose YOUR VIEWS on matters on issues for me, but don't want me to impose my views on matters on issues for you.

 

I will state it another way.

 

Some people don't believe in the claims that gooch made though, or the what gooch thinks the rules should be. Why should gooch's view govern my life?

 

With the utmost of respect to an obviously intelligent poster, you are missing the forest for the trees.

 

Christians are called to love sinners, but the 'stance' and the 'call' are inseparable. Christians do not love "gays" into God's kingdom, they love people, period. Christ brings them to the Kingdom, not us. There is no prioritization of God's 'calls.'

 

What you are referring to is how a Christian goes about communicating their stance, which should be in a loving fashion. If it is not, they have sinned. But a person who feels insulted because a Christian has said 'Hey, I'm not in favor of extending domestic partner benefits to you,' is just going to have to feel insulted, because Christians are also called to arm themselves against sin and not sit idly by.

 

I don't believe the question is hard at all.

 

 

Please stop the room from spinning. I am dizzy from the spinning here.

 

You can do both.

 

Jesus did both.

 

Christians try to do both.

 

Critics of Christians assume that if you stand against something, you cannot love them.

 

I love my children. But I do point out to them when they are doing something they should not. Doesn't effect one iota whether I love them or not. They try the argument, you don't love me. But it is far from the truth.

 

In fact, I submit to both of you, Christians would NOT being SHOWING LOVE if they did not point out sin.

 

Even in the famous and often misquoted cast the first stone, Jesus told the girl to go sin no more. I guess he was not showing love by asking her to sin no more??????

 

All I am asking for you to do is examine if reaching lost people is as important as pointing out sin?

 

Hearsay thinks he can point the finger and win people. I don't think I can.

Why don't you get a job with benefits and then your partner wouldn't have to provide benefits for you.

 

Why don't you figure out exactly where I am coming from rather than just spouting off?

Finally I am really done here, but I will circle back around and state one more time that just like in sports the more you narrow the talent pool, by definition the less talented staff you will have.

 

LBBC would say hog wash, but he has spent days (probably a conservative estimate) arguing the opposite position on the private/public debate where he openly states the issue really is open/closed enrollement. :banana: Isn't that right LBBC?

 

All I am asking for you to do is examine if reaching lost people is as important as pointing out sin?

 

Hearsay thinks he can point the finger and win people. I don't think I can.

 

Reaching lost people and pointing out sin happens at the same time.

 

As I pointed out earlier, when Jesus reached out to the one lady, he left her with the charge to go sin no more.

 

Jesus pointed out sin and reached lost people all the time.

Finally I am really done here, but I will circle back around and state one more time that just like in sports the more you narrow the talent pool, by definition the less talented staff you will have.

 

LBBC would say hog wash, but he has spent days (probably a conservative estimate) arguing the opposite position on the private/public debate where he openly states the issue really is open/closed enrollement. :banana: Isn't that right LBBC?

 

Apples and oranges as is a favorite statement here on BGP.

 

But to bite at your bait, I have shown over and over and over and over and you continually forget over and over and over, you can have open enrollment and because of geography, it means diddly and squat.

 

If I remember right, you keep looking at that issue from Jefferson County eyes and refuse to open and look at the rest of the statement. The state of KY does not revolve around Louisville, you guys just believe it does.