Where Is The Balance?

In the past week, I’ve been called a bigot, a hater, had people wish I died, and had people wish Christians had died, been rounded up and killed, or experienced their own personal holocaust.

All this came from proponents of gay marriage. The media won’t cover most of this. The media sees most stories as victims versus victimizers and those who support gay marriage are the victims. They get the positive media coverage.

In reality, though, throughout this week I’ve seen a number of Christians engaged in as much hate filled rhetoric as gay marriage proponents, including the pastor in North Carolina who encouraged parents to beat up their gay acting sons.

As a Christian, I cannot support gay marriage, nor can I accept practicing homosexuality as anything but a sin. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians out there who seem convinced they aren’t sinners. In fact, we are all sinners and as I have matured in my faith, I have a harder and harder time understanding how so many Christians can be so tolerant of so much sin, but treat homosexuality as some sin set apart from all other sins making it a worse sin than, for example, adultery.

Continue reading at www.redstate.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Robert De Leon

You are right. A sin is a sin, and even we Christians have a tendency to sin. Only God's Grace may sustain us. Same gender sexual actions are as bad as adultery and theft is as bad as same gender sexual actions. God condemns any transgression to His Commandments, atheists, believers, Christians and non-Christians alike.
Robert.
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  "THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
  
  This topic is of utmost interest to all of us, whatever our religion, since we are all sinners and in need of forgiveness and reconciliation with God. Sadly, there is a fundamental difference between the teaching of Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians on this subject.
  
  The Catholic Church teaches that Christ instituted the sacrament of penance. Rome teaches that divine forgiveness is granted through the priest’s absolution to those who confess their sins to a priest and make satisfaction for them. On the other hand, Christians believe that Christ sent his disciples to proclaim the Gospel; whoever repents and believes is forgiven on the merits of the sacrifice of Christ, whoever rejects Christ is lost. Christians confess their sins to God and when necessary to each other as well to maintain peace in the church.
  
  To support their position, Catholics appeal mainly to John 20:23: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” It is immediately apparent that the crucial aspects of the Catholic doctrine of penance are absent in this passage: there is no mention of priests, secret confession or satisfaction by penance.
  
  Clearly, Jesus gave the disciples the power to forgive. “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them…” The question we must ask is not whether Christ gave them power to forgive – Catholics and Evangelicals agree up to this point. We need to ask about the kind of power He gave them. Did He make them judges and invested in them power to pass judiciary sentence, granting or withholding divine pardon, as Rome teaches? Or did He make them His ambassadors to proclaim forgiveness through faith in His name, as Evangelicals believe? In other words, can a sinner receive forgiveness directly from God through faith, or must he avail himself of the Catholic priest’s mediation?"
  
  More on Just for Catholics: http://www.justforcatholics.org/forgiveness.htm
  - Dionesius3
    
    Rigth to the point and correct in every aspect. Great post Des,
  - daves
    
    As Americans, we have the right to believe whatever we want. We do not have the right to force those beliefs on others. Just because people think homosexual marriage is a sin does not mean that it should not be illegal.
    
    Of the commandments, adultery, covetousness, bearing false witness (except in court), keeping the sabbath, and worshiping other gods are not illegal. Most of them have never been illegal and our country has done just fine for the last 200 plus years.
    - Evermyrtle
      
      We are not the ones who are qualified to say what is or is not sin or what should be accepted or not accepted. The rules, GOD'S rules are all written in the Bible. Homosexuality has been going on something like 6,000 years, and always been an abomination to GOD, to the point entire cities were destroyed by HIM. This was because the people refused to give it up. Why does it need to be legalized, now? What is different now, than in times past?? Well, the difference is that we are in the end days. Every evil shall come to a head just before JESUS CHRIST returns.
      - daves
        
        What is different now is that gay people are a little more brave than in past times. They now have the courage to stand up to the bigotry against them.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Progression of Homosexual Demands:
        
        Initially, homosexual lobbyist groups said, "All we want is to be left alone."
        
        Then, a few years later, they said, "We just want our lifestyle to be accepted."
        
        Not long after that it was, "We want our lifestyle to be legally recognized as a civil union."
        
        And finally it went all the way to, "We want nothing less than marriage," which, since creation, has been defined and accepted as a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
        
        Now, in England at least, they are demanding that churches be "compelled" to do that which is contrary to their deeply held convictions. I guess the homosexual lobbyists' attitudes are, "Forget their consciences and their Biblical teaching and belief system.
        
        Now they demand that we teach children to uphold homosexuality as a virtue. We are watching the breathtaking success of homosexual lobbyists as they intimidate well-known evangelical mega-church pastors into apologizing for their former, but now defunct, Biblical conviction on the issue.
        http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/new-gay-case-puts-spee…
        
        Now do you see why we oppose the homosexual agenda, daves?
    - Linda F.
      
      And just because people believe that homosexuality is perfectly fine and that it is *not* a sin, that does not mean that they have the right to attempt to force others to agree with them! And it also does not give them the right to attempt to redefine what God has already defined! Not only that, but it does not give them the right to insult and threaten people who dare to disagree with them! And, finally, it does not give them the right to attempt to force church leaders to marry them!
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        "that does not mean that they have the right to attempt to force others to agree with them!"
        
        You do not have to agree. People often disagree on issues. Christians disagree with each other on this site all the time. No one is forcing to agree with them. But that does not mean you are allowed to prevent others from having the same rights as you.
        
        "And it also does not give them the right to attempt to redefine what God has already defined"
        
        The bible says many things that we do not incorporate into law. Usury, for example. How many banks are required to follow the bible on rules for lending money?
        19 " You shall not charge interest to your brother — interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest.
        20 "To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19,20)
  - Evermyrtle
    
    We can and must forgive each other when we are wronged. Nobody can wipe sin from a person's soul, but GOD. No priest or Pope is qualified to wipe out our sin,
    
    To call the Pope "Father" is wrong, also. I have my earthly father and there is one Heavenly FATHER. That is GOD, HE only, can fo give sins.
    - Robert De Leon
      
      Evermytle:
      As a good Protestant "deformer" you interpret in a wrong way the Word of the Lord, that is to say the Bible. Your comments are based on misunderstanding, making mistakes, deleting and reducing the Holly Book.
      The Pope is our Holly Father just because our Dear Lord Jesus Christ chose to St. Peter as the first one as you can read on the Bible. Protestant "deformers" expect to see the word "Pope" on the Bible? It was not written. But on the Bible we neither find next words: Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian and so on and so on.
      Did you get the point?
      Robert.
      - Evemyrtle
        
        I promise the Pope is not my FATHER! like I said i had one father who is no longer with us, my other FATHER IS GOD. I FIND HIM IN HIS WORD,THE BIBLE. Your father the Pope is not mentioned there.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        NO, I did not get the point. You are under strong delusion, which if that suits you it is alright wit me. I will not argue. That is your choice. BUT, AS I SAID, THE POPE IS NOT MY FATHER!!!
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        "…The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ, and has worked all his life to bring peace on earth. But the One he claims to represent had another purpose. Jesus said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Jesus preached one God, one way of salvation – the Pope gives false hopes to those who worship other gods and seek salvation apart from Jesus Christ, to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists. Thus he is loved by all, but Christ was hated by all, and crucified!
        
        He claims to be the successor of St Peter, but unlike Peter, Pope John Paul II taught others to trust in Mary and to surrender the hour of death wholly to her care. The apostle Peter taught people to call on the only name given by God for our salvation, the blessed name of Jesus the Messiah. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
        
        The Pope claims to be the infallible teacher of all Christians, but he distorts the clear meaning of Scripture to uphold traditional Catholic dogma. For example to defend the Mass (which is said to be a re-enactment and a carrying on of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross), Pope John Paul wrote: "Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ constantly 'enters into God's sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption' (cf. Heb 9:12)" (Crossing the Threshold of Hope).
        
        Compare the Pope's words with what the Bible actually says: "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).
        
        Notice how the word 'entered' is changed to 'enters' – giving the impression that this action is continuous rather than a simple action completed in the past. Moreover, the word 'once' is omitted, and the quotation is preceded by the word 'constantly.' Also, instead of 'having obtained' he writes 'obtaining', as if redemption is in the process of being accomplished! The meaning of this scripture is reversed! If Jesus 'constantly enters' the holy place, Christ is no better than the Levitical priests and if He has not obtained redemption, his blood is as powerless as that of goats and calves. But thanks be to God, His Word teaches the very opposite: "By his own blood he entered in once (not constantly enters) into the holy place, having obtained (not obtaining) eternal redemption for us."
        
        What do you choose to believe: God's Word or the teaching of the papacy? Would you trust your salvation wholly in the hands of Jesus Christ alone? Or would you continue to perform religious works, do penance, rely on the daily sacrifice of the Mass, call on the name of Mary in the hope that perhaps you will be saved in the end?
        
        If you trust in Jesus Christ and rest on His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, you cannot continue to submit to a man, whoever he may be, who by reason of his office usurps the title of Head of the Church and teaches a different gospel. Christians acknowledge one head, the Lord Jesus: "Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23).
        
        The religion of the papacy cannot give you confidence to face eternity. Did you notice the contradiction in Archbishop Leonardo Sandri's announcement of the Pope's death: “Our Holy Father John Paul II has returned to the house of the Father. Let us pray for him." Why should anyone pray for someone who is in the Father's house? Catholics pray for the souls in purgatory, not for the saints in glory. If he is in heaven, he needs no prayer for the repose of his soul, and no masses in suffrage for his soul. But the Catholic religion cannot give assurance of salvation, not even to her "Holy Father"!
        
        Thank God for the comfort and assurance of the Gospel: "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The day a believer in Jesus dies, that same day he or she will certainly be with the Lord forever! Praise the Lord!.."
        
        MORE: http://www.justforcatholics.org/popes.htm
      - myth buster
        
        If you spoke the truth, there would be no point in the Anointing of the Sick, but as it is, the Anointing of the Sick is commanded by Scripture and affirmed by Scripture as efficacious for the forgiveness of sins (James 5:14-15).
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        What? How is James 5:14-15 of any support for all the made up doctrines of Rome like your claim for Peter's papacy? Can you be more random and more irrational? I know you can but how about you get factual for once?
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        "The Pope is our Holly Father just because our Dear Lord Jesus Christ chose to St. Peter as the first one as you can read on the Bible."
        
        Unfortunately Bob that is a satanic lie from the darkest hole of hell and precisely that is why you cannot support that from the Word of God. All you can do is lie that you can. Sad.
  - myth buster
    
    He made them overseers of His Church, vested with the power to forgive sins, to anoint successors, and to change common bread and wine into His Body and Blood, that we may eat and drink the same.
    - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
      
      Nobody is changing anything into anything. Look at the Lord at Cana. He did change water into wine and it was actually wine and not make believe wine which is your transubstantiation…
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

'…Given the broader worldview that many Americans (including Christians) embrace—or at least assume, same-sex marriage is a right to which anyone is legally entitled. After all, traditional marriages in our society are largely treated as contractual rather than covenantal, means of mutual self-fulfillment more than serving a larger purpose ordained by God. The state of the traditional family is so precarious that one wonders how same-sex marriage can appreciably deprave it.
Same-sex marriage makes sense if you assume that the individual is the center of the universe, that God—if he exists—is there to make us happy, and that our choices are not grounded in a nature created by God but in arbitrary self-construction. To the extent that this sort of “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” prevails in our churches, can we expect the world to think any differently? If we treat God as a product we sell to consumers for their self-improvement programs and make personal choice the trigger of salvation itself, then it may come as a big surprise (even contradiction) to the world when we tell them that truth (the way things are) trumps feelings and personal choice (what we want to make things to be)…"

MORE: http://bit.ly/M40hN5
Buck

The difference is this , accepting that sin , or disavowing that sin in repentence and sinning no more , while it is true some sin has become so much a part of life that we can find it hard to avoid , and none of us are without sin , sodomy is not one of these . Sodomy is still abhorrent in moral society and what we are fighting are those that want to make it another " common " sin and therefore more acceptable to our society . We do not ned this as society is becoming way to close to the status of Sodom and Gamorah . We ALL need to work at INTENSIFYING our Christianity if we want ANY hope of saving our national welfare .
Randy131

We as Christians are commanded to, and can only, forgive sins committed against us, but homosexuality is a sin against GOD, and only He can forgive that sin. But no matter how many sins we forgive against us, only GOD has the last word for forgiving any and all sins, for the person who committed them. The warning of 'Judge not, lest ye be Judged' is a directive for the treatment of others, but GOD still demands from us ' Righteous Indignation for the Sin, greater than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven', so we all need to act accordingly.
- aceituna
  
  Judge not etc. does not apply when we are just repeating what God has said in his Word. By the way did you realize that both homosexuality and adultry are really sins against our own body, the temple that God has given us to live in here on earth and that by engaging is these activities we are defiling this temple.?
  - Evermyrtle
    
    Even though it is a sin against our own bodies it is an abomination to GOD and it was GOD that destroyed the two cities because of it. HIS WORD says a lot about it becoming so prominent just before JESUS returns.
- Evermyrtle
  
  Very well said, an excellent explanation!!!
  - Evermyrtle
    
    My comment, above was for the comment that Randy131 made. I do appreciate such well explained comments!!
Duke1CA

Appreciate the article. There is a real tension for Bible-believing Christians when it comes to befriending LGBT people because we cannot really support and encourage them in their relationships but need to encourage them to leave them, just as we would a married person having an affair. And no matter how patiently and lovingly we seek to do this it will be misinterpreted in many cases as condemnation of them and not just of their sin. It seems to me that the only ones we can have ongoing relationships with are those who acknowledge that same-sex tendencies and activity are always sinful and who are seeking help to overcome this sin or are at least open to the possibility that their same-sex activities and tendencies are wrong. The former will include true brothers and sisters in Christ and in either case these people may be sincere seekers of God. But others are still in open rebellion against Him and must be consistently called to repent. We must still love them and do good to them, but as spiritual enemies until they change their beliefs and commit to changing their lives.
msjallen

There is no balance when it comes to the Word of God. If God says homosexuality is a sin then He didn’t make them that way since God is perfect. It is one’s own sin nature that causes us to sin and make the wrong decisions in life especially when we don’t know what God’s Word says or we chose to ignore it. When the homosexual lifestyle is called an abomination or sin in the Bible it means it can be overcome just like any other sin through learning what the Word of God says and applying it to one’s life. I personally knew two guys who did change their lifestyle of homosexuality after learning what God’s Word said about it. Geneses 19:5-8, Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13, Jude 7, 1Tim:9-10, & Romans 1:26-27
- Dionesius3
  
  If you are "in Christ" you are a "New Creature" and all the "Old Things" have passed away. Christians do NOT have a "sin" nature. When a Christian sins they have to forcibly act against the Holy Spirit which dwells within them. They have to "lie" to themselves and "sear" their own conscience in order to commit a Sin. The "lost" person does indeed posses a "sin nature" and CAN NOT act against it. But a Christian does not have a "sin Nature".
Richard

The full article states "We are to hate sin, but we are to love sinners." I don't agree. Psalm 11:5 states that God hates the wicked, not just their wicked deeds. The old fable that God loves all sinners but only hates their sin is not correct.
Second thing is that liars, adulterers and those who do not obey their parents are in the same category in the bible as sodomites. So keep the correct perspective on sin.
Parktx

There is a right way and a wrong way. Gods values or mans values. Nothing beats a mother and father. Same sex couples are ill equipped for raising children. Quit trying to make Christianity religious.
Dionesius3

This Sin is a sin not only against Nature, but it is a Sin against Society, and Civilization. You are right that sin is sin in an individual sense. But you are wrong to say that all sins are the same. Do you honestly believe that stealing a package of gum at the local store is equal to the acts of Hitler? Yes indeed, both have sinned, but one has commited an act that damaged very little while the other has literally erased a whole generation of humanity from the earth.
Some sins are indeed different in their immediate, and ultimate effects, and are therefore punished at different levels of intensity here on earth. In eterinity, who knows, but for now DON"T run around trying to say this is no worse than— You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  Amen. You might find this very interesting from Kierkegaard a smart and funny guy whom by no means I endorse in entirety of his writings but here and in this work of his which I highly recommend for reading and it is only 8 pages long:
  
  "The crowd is untruth. Therefore was Christ crucified, because he, even though he addressed himself to all, would not have to do with the crowd, because he would not in any way let a crowd help him, because he in this respect absolutely pushed away, would not found a party, or allow balloting, but would be what he was, the truth, which relates itself to the single individual. And therefore everyone who in truth will serve the truth, is eo ipso in some way or other a martyr; if it were possible that a human being in his mother's womb could make a decision to will to serve "the truth" in truth, so he also is eo ipso a martyr, however his martyrdom comes about, even while in his mother's womb. For to win a crowd is not so great a trick; one only needs some talent, a certain dose of untruth and a little acquaintance with the human passions. But no witness for the truth – alas, and every human being, you and I, should be one – dares have dealings with a crowd. The witness for the truth – who naturally will have nothing to do with politics, and to the utmost of his ability is careful not to be confused with a politician – the godfearing work of the witness to the truth is to have dealings with all, if possible, but always individually, to talk with each privately, on the streets and lanes – to split up the crowd, or to talk to it, not to form a crowd, but so that one or another individual might go home from the assembly and become a single individual. "A crowd," on the other hand, when it is treated as the court of last resort in relation to "the truth," its judgment as the judgment, is detested by the witness to the truth, more than a virtuous young woman detests the dance hall. And they who address the "crowd" as the court of last resort, he considers to be instruments of untruth. For to repeat: that which in politics and similar domains has its validity, sometimes wholly, sometimes in part, becomes untruth, when it is transferred to the intellectual, spiritual, and religious domains. And at the risk of a possibly exaggerated caution, I add just this: by "truth" I always understand "eternal truth." But politics and the like has nothing to do with "eternal truth." A politics, which in the real sense of "eternal truth" made a serious effort to bring "eternal truth" into real life, would in the same second show itself to be in the highest degree the most "impolitic" thing imaginable."
  
  ~ Soren Kierkegaard in "The Crowd is Untruth – On the Dedication to That Single Individual"
  
  ~ http://www.ccel.org/k/kierkegaard/untruth/untruth…
  - Dionesius3
    
    I love this work of his, It is so much richer in the original German, but is good in English as well.
    I particularly love this statement-." A politics, which in the real sense of "eternal truth" made a serious effort to bring "eternal truth" into real life, would in the same second show itself to be in the highest degree the most "impolitic" thing imaginable."
    - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
      
      Yes, Kierkegaard is a king of one liners, that is for sure. Do you know German? I used to but it went away. I can still read front page newspaper articles but I would not dare to go with what is left to theology works. Too bad. I can understand how richer it would be though.
      - Dionesius3
        
        Yes I can still read in German, But it gets rustier every day. I have read much of Luther in German, I wrote a Master's Thesis on his Anti-semitism, which wasn't all true and has been Over stated. The German language just has a way of specifing things that English really can't do.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        I agree with that observation and those train long German words in the context of their tenses and grammar are very frequently mistranslated or imprecisely translated. Luther was a prolific writer with a whale load of works. I am just starting with that too.
    - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
      
      Kierkegaard published in German too but a real treasure and a humongous one would be to read Dr.Luther :) in German.