Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

It’s OK to Be “Anti-Gay,†as Long as You Don’t Hate People

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00

Relic

Member
.

It’s OK to Be “Anti-Gay,†as Long as You Don’t Hate People
By Peter LaBarbera


Born “gay� Oscar host and very “out†lesbian Ellen DeGeneres
revealed that she was molested by her stepdad as a teenager.

It’s OK to be “anti-gay,†as long as you don’t hate people. That is, as long as you understand that “gay†is not an innocuous, inborn trait but an adjective describing wrong and destructive behavior.

Sexual revolutionaries stole the real meaning of “gay†(merry, exuberant, according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary) decades ago, and it’s long gone now. So let’s try to redeem it by making some sense of what “gay†is and what it is not:

“Gay†is not an unchangeable trait like skin color and it has a moral component – unlike being left-handed or having blue eyes (to name two spurious analogies used by homosexual activists).

Nor is “being gay†“who you are,†as homosexual activists claim, but rather “what you do.†Even the word homosexual –– a Greek-Latin hybrid that dates back only to 1869 –– should be used only as an adjective, not a noun, as my friend and AFA-Michigan leader Gary Glenn reminds us (this is very hard to do, by the way).

The great news is that nobody has to be “gay.†Homosexuality need not be permanent in a person’s life, as proved by the thousands of former homosexuals living contented lives today. There are no ex-Blacks or ex-Latinos, while there are lots of ex-“gays†–– a fact that by itself should negate “gayness†as a civil rights category. (Strangely, many of the same liberals who lecture us about respecting “gays†either ignore or ridicule ex-“gays.â€Â)

Nobody “happens to be gay,†either (another “gay†shibboleth). Environment plays a big role. Many “gay†men and lesbian women testify to dysfunctional or abusive childhoods and broken relationships with one or both parents. Ellen DeGeneres, a very public lesbian and host of the upcoming Academy Awards, has revealed that her stepfather molested her as a teenager. She is just one of countless homosexuals who testify to abuse in their past. Yet the media robotically parrot the “born gay†line as if it were just days away from becoming a scientific fact.

The semantic struggle that conservatives and Christians face is that there is no neat, positive equivalent to “pro-life†in the debate over homosexuality. Pro-normal? Pro-hetero? Nothing seems to work, hence we are left with the rather vague pro-family to avoid the negative-sounding, condemnatory anti-gay.

The evil genius of ‘gay’
Words have tremendous power. The evil genius of America’s homosexual activist movement is that it took a taboo behavior that was universally regarded as an unspeakable sin until a few short decades ago –– and redefined it as “gay.†In doing so, it created America’s “queerest†minority, at least until the homosexuals’ cross-dressing, “transgendered†allies came onto the scene using copycat tactics.

“Gay†activists succeeded in personalizing a destructive impulse to make it sound like a harmless identity, or trait.

Now the same movement is busily working, with media in tow, to shift the tables on shame: more and more we will see the phrase admitted homosexuals be replaced by admitted homophobes –– a sign of our decaying culture if there ever was one. It is shameful to practice homosexuality, not to oppose it.

Hating bad behavior is OK
Hatred of individuals is wrong and unproductive, which is why we joined others in condemning former NBA star Tim Hardaway’s comment, “I hate gay people.†But I won’t knock Hardaway for strongly opposing, or even hating, homosexual behavior, which even many liberals privately admit they find repulsive. (The Catch-22 of our struggle is that it’s near impossible to discuss homo-sexual behavior because it grosses everyone out  the “ick factor† so the debate defaults to “gayâ€Â-preferred euphemisms like “discrimination,†“equality,†and “sexual orientation.â€Â)

I hate racism, communism, and Playboy’s counterfeit brand of masculinity. Tree-hugging environmentalists hate Caterpillar tractors and Hummer vehicles. PETA hates MacDonalds, and many “gay†zealots hate me  sending a steady stream of nasty e-mails our way.

In the same sense, millions of conservatives  most religious, some not  deeply oppose, even hate, “proud†homosexuality as the ultimate rebellion against God and nature. For their part, Christians are called to go beyond that by loving people enough to share with them the hopeful Gospel message that people can “come out†of homosexuality by repenting and turning to Jesus Christ.

Homosexual activists despise the “Love the sinner, hate the sin†formula, but it best encapsulates the correct Christian approach on this issue.

Responsible ‘homophobia’
There is a lot of confusion these days, especially among cultural elites, about being “anti-gay†or its sinister twin, “homophobic.†The latter comes from “homophobia,†a term made up by psychologist George Weinberg in 1971 as a catchy sound-bite to advance the “gay†cause. (Are you feeling manipulated yet?)

Based on the reckless way it gets tossed around, homophobia now includes mere opposition to homosexuality. Calling people “homophobes†is the new pastime for smug liberals –– useful as it is to avoid a serious debate on the issue and to intimidate decent people into silence.

Don’t let yourself to be cowed by the Left’s gay-speak. We don’t fear homosexuals. We disagree with them. Should we call liberals “morality-phobes†because they promote abortion, homosexuality, and sex outside marriage?

Is it wrong for parents to be “anti-gay†when it comes to fighting the promotion of unhealthy sexual behaviors and “queer†identities to children in schools? No, that’s called responsible parenting. Is it “homophobic†when parents refuse to sit back and allow their children to be indoctrinated with pro-“gay†pabulum? If so, then I say: bring on more homophobia.

It is actually our duty to be anti-“gay†–– agenda, that is. In the saner parts of America, being pro-homosexual is still controversial, but the media is working on that. They love to champion famous people like DeGeneres who “come out of the closet†as “gay†(a false metaphor of finding light and truth by embracing deviance). But we must ask: what is so special about this particular aberration that merits its celebration? Why are the media treating unnatural sex and gender confusion as the new civil rights?
February is “Black History Month.†Brace yourself for media and school celebrations of “Gay and Lesbian History Month†if we don’t turn back this assault on normalcy and Judeo-Christian tradition.

Onward Christian pacifists?
We’re accustomed to liberals getting on their respective high horses to lecture us for not joining the pro-“gay†chorus. What’s new is that some Christian leaders, too, are now preoccupied with not appearing “anti-gay.†Some naively mimic homosexual activists by denying that there is a “gay agenda,†while others argue that criticism of homosexuality per se should be avoided in the national battle to preserve marriage as one-man, one-woman. Stay positive, they counsel us, their eyes nervously watching opinion polls.

Insofar as “soft†evangelicals undermine much-needed efforts to “re-stigmatize†homosexuality in the culture  or when they go farther by implicitly sanctioning “gay†relationships or denying that (all) homosexuals can change  they are unwittingly helping to advance the Gay Revolution. Faithful Christians simply cannot stand for expanding “civil rights†to include behavior that God considers an egregious sin.

I find myself wondering more and more if Christians can lead in this Culture War. (Where are all those men who are “wild at heart,†anyway?) Ministry to homosexuals is wonderful, but it should not come at the expense of determined resistance to the “gay†juggernaut that is corrupting children and threatens, literally, to criminalize Christianity and healthy moral values.

Not so “gay†after all
Of course, “gay†sexual behavior is nothing to be “gay†(merry, exuberant) about. Nature and human anatomy discriminate against homosexuality: one “gay†writer, Jack Hart, admits that “some practices common among gays  especially rimming [sensored] and anal intercourse  are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease†(Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, Alyson Books, 1998, p. 213).

Society no longer promotes smoking, so why are we promoting this deadly lifestyle – especially to impressionable youth? The “gay liberation†movement (for men) culminated in a level of promiscuity and easy sex without precedent in history, and simply unimaginable people. This served as a catalyst for the modern plague of HIV/AIDS. In his book, And the Band Played On, “gay†San Francisco Chronicle reporter Randy Shilts (who himself died of AIDS at 42) describes the role of homosexual bathhouse orgies in San Francisco in spreading the disease –– yet, incredibly, such bathhouses are enjoying a comeback today.

A few months ago I got a call from a straight, libertarian man who was irked at our call to close down the “gay†bathhouses in Chicago. He asked angrily: “Why don’t you just let the gays do whatever they want and they’ll kill themselves off?â€Â

I answered that “We don’t want them to die,†because we don’t hate homosexual men. Call us old-fashioned, but we want them to find freedom through Christ and to stop practicing bad behavior.

Yes, it’s OK to be “anti-gay,†as long as you don’t hate people. We should respect individual persons, but not as “gays.†Put another way, we need to try to love people like Jesus did (“Go now and leave your life of sinâ€Ââ€â€John 8:11) –– enough to tell them the truth, even when they don’t want to hear it.

source: americansfortruth.com

.
 
jgredline said:

Isn't this guy really Elton John dressed up as a Religious Gay Guy???

jeffreyjohn.jpg


Maybe the name Jeffrey is an Alias of Eltons??!!

On a serious note, it is very sad that many blind will follow this guy into a ditch, condemned forever!
 
Many that have known me for some time know that I am a great supporter of Jay E. Adams.

This is a small snipit that Jay wrote. I hope it will encourage some to read the entire article.

http://www.oberlinlgbt.org/historical-d ... xpression/
Jay E. Adams said:
.....When homosexuality is discussed, the talk is usually derogatory, e.g., faggot, queer. Homosexuality is never presented openly as a legitimate way of relating to another person. (“How can this be me? I’m no queer!â€Â) Thus our first identification of this feeling is that it is QUEER. Labeling a feeling this way does a lot to the way we relate to it. (Not fair!)…The choice is either to deny it or admit to it and deal with those feelings.

Fear not, “Oh straight “(?) society, every homosexual is not on a constant ‘make’ for a ‘trick’. I do believe that sex or one’s sexual drive in a personal life is only one facet of a personality; however dominant a facet I contest that it is only part of the whole man or woman. Total revolution demands the re-evaluation of all existing institutions in our society. What may have served us in another time and place may very well be oppressive to us now. The validity of any institution is determined by whether it truly serves our human needs in a meaningful and fully satisfying way.

Marriage and the nuclear family are two of the most heavily defended institutions in American society. But the rising divorce rate alone would suggest there is something wrong here. Then there is the bearing and raising of children within the traditional institutions, a matter which seem poorly managed, if one can judge by the myriad problems adults trace back to their childhoods. At first glance it would seem that these are things that only concern heterosexuals, but mot of us are born into families, regardless of our sexual orientation and are taught the dubious values of these institutions. May gay people even use them as models for their own relationships, either advocating or proclaiming gay marriages. We should take every opportunity to develop something better in both cases.
 
Citing divorce doesn't mean there's something wrong with heterosexual marriage but a problem with the basic teaching thereof such as commintment as a lifelong relationship, the worth of the institution in general and the responsibilities that go with it. We as a society have just about trashed any and all semblence of commitment in anything in favor of freedom to do as we see fit on an individual basis without regard to the needs and wants of another.
We've been cheapening marriage for the past years and introducing another element such as homosexuality into the mix certainly does not mean we'll suddenly fix things by the addition of yet another freedom (freedom of gender) that will serve only to make marriage less than the institution that it should be.

"Fear not, “Oh straight “(?) society" suggests once again a phobia the gay agenda has been imposing to make themselves appear as the victims. But I wonder who really are the victims in this case when I see what the gay agenda has done to parent's rights concerning their children's education and the trend to keeping the parents isolated from what the kids are taught. And once again the victimization of the institution of marriage.

The gays want an "us" and "them" polarization for without it their cause will not be seen as a "revolution". Nor can they claim to be victimized and sidestep the issue of sin in their practice.
 
As always Potluck, one must be read in Context, and so it is with Jay E. Adams to whome it appears you have much in common on the basis of belief.

What intrigues me the most is that I believe he wrote that article back in 1971 and how consistant he has held his opposition to homosexuality as being anything other than a sinful act derived from our fallen state while offering biblical solutions to those with that particular notion.
 
Solo said:
Isn't this guy really Elton John dressed up as a Religious Gay Guy???

jeffreyjohn.jpg


Maybe the name Jeffrey is an Alias of Eltons??!!

On a serious note, it is very sad that many blind will follow this guy into a ditch, condemned forever!









Why do you assume that just because this cleric is in vestments that anyone who 'follows' him will be condemned and fall into a ditch? Talk about PREJUDICE!!!! :-?
 
Prejudice?

Jeffrey John twists and manipulates scripture to tickle the ears of those who would rather ignore what scripture actually says to please their own will.


http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28111


Potluck said:
April 1, 2007
'Gay' cleric: Christ did not die for sin

Calls Easter message 'repulsive,' 'insane' – makes 'God sound like a psychopath'



Church of England traditionalists, wearied by the battles over homosexuality in the church and the clergy, are about to take it on their spiritual chins once again when a leading "gay" cleric will tell listeners to BBC Radio 4 that Christianity's traditional teaching on Christ's crucifixion for the sins of mankind is "repulsive," "insane" and makes "God sound like a psychopath."

Rev. Jeffrey John, who was forced to withdraw before assuming a position as bishop in 2003 after it was learned he was in a longterm homosexual relationship, is scheduled to appear on Wednesday and will criticize ministers who use their Easter messages to preach that Jesus was sent to earth to die as an atonement for sin, reported the London Telegraph.

Christian theology has taught the doctrine of "penal substitution" – that humans, alienated from God by their sins and unable to save themselves, could only be forgiven by God sending Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in their place.

"In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him," said John. "This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we'd say that they [sic] were a monster."

John, who currently serves as dean of St. Albans, raised a furor when he and Rev. Grant Holmes, a hospital chaplain, entered into a civil partnership last August.

Church of England clergy may enter into "gay" marriage if they assure their bishop they are to remain celibate.

In rejecting penal substitution, John will reportedly propose a different interpretation of Christ's death, suggesting Christ was crucified so he could "share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us."

Too many Christians fail to understand God is about "love and truth", not "wrath and punishment," Johns said.

Rev. Tom Wright, the bishop of Durham, blasted the BBC for giving John such an influential forum to make provocative claims on traditional beliefs, saying John's statements attacked the central message of the Christian gospel.

"He is denying the way in which we understand Christ's sacrifice. It is right to stress that he is a God of love but he is ignoring that this means he must also be angry at everything that distorts human life," Wright said.

"I'm fed up with the BBC for choosing to give privilege to these unfortunate views in Holy Week," he said.

Change the interpretation of scripture to fit one thing and it's not so hard to change other things after that. It gets easier.
I doubt we've heard the last of Jeffrey John.


April 5, 2007
Crucifixion makes God seem like a psychopath, says cleric

One of the country's most controversial clerics was at the centre of a new controversy yesterday after saying that traditional teaching about the Crucifixion was "repulsive" and made God seem like a "psychopath".

"What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own son?" Dr John said.

"And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this, we would say they were a monster.
 
Steve said:
Why do you assume that just because this cleric is in vestments that anyone who 'follows' him will be condemned and fall into a ditch? Talk about PREJUDICE!!!! :-?
Jeffrey John is a heretic on his way to hell. I have not discerned this from his outward appearance as you have jumped to this conclusion, but I have discerned this from his heretical false teachings. It doesn't matter whether he wants to wear the pink everready energizer bunny suit to me as long as he preaches the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but when he starts preaching doctrines of devils in that bunny suit he is leading other to hell right with himself.

PS. Many, many religious leaders of today who dress like Jeffrey John are also on their way to hell and leading others to the same place, not because of the way that they dress, but because of the false teachings that they believe and teach.
 
i think it's important to make a distinction between the sin and the person. the unrepented sin will cause someone to go to hell forsure... as will all who have sex outside of marriage of 1 man and 1 woman (unrepented). and other sins that don't make us uncomfortable can cause us to go to hell... i use to be really hard on homosexuals until the Lord told me that just because a sin grosses me out doesn't make them any different than me and other sinners, God hates all sin. we are all sinners. we all need to let our brothers know if they are sinning with love and let them know of the reality of hell.... you must do this by preaching out of concern for the persons salvation because you love them and want them to go to heaven.....are we that hard on ourselves when we sin?
 
biblecatholic said:
i use to be really hard on homosexuals until the Lord told me that just because a sin grosses me out doesn't make them any different than me and other sinners, God hates all sin. we are all sinners.

Couldn't agree more.

Jeffery John proposes the pracrice of homosexuality is not a sin. That's obvious since he "got together" with another fellow rather "quietly". To rationalize his own behavior he had to make scripture say something it doesn't say. Once a person works to believe the rationale assumed at the start and makes it a solid belief it's a bit easier to do so again.
In order to further strengthen that rationale one must get support outside oneself either by surrounding oneself with like-minded people or teaching the doctrine and reaping the resulting support... or both. In this case Jeffery John chose to teach using his position to add to his appearance of credibility. So, he gets support from those who want to believe there's nothing wrong with the practice and points to Jeffery John as proof that even those in higher places advocate the same. But in truth Jeffery John is as lost as they are.
"the unrepented sin". The sin not recognised as sin is bad enough but to teach the same as truth is even worse. I can understand the secular believing this but Jeffery John really should know better. He claims to see and dons the vestments that makes him appear that he does. And that makes him a very dangerous man.
 
biblecatholic said:
are we that hard on ourselves when we sin?

You wouldn't believe how hard some are on themselves.

Well, maybe you would.
:smt102
 
PotLuck said:
Couldn't agree more.

Jeffery John proposes the pracrice of homosexuality is not a sin. That's obvious since he "got together" with another fellow rather "quietly". To rationalize his own behavior he had to make scripture say something it doesn't say. Once a person works to believe the rationale assumed at the start and makes it a solid belief it's a bit easier to do so again.
In order to further strengthen that rationale one must get support outside oneself either by surrounding oneself with like-minded people or teaching the doctrine and reaping the resulting support... or both. In this case Jeffery John chose to teach using his position to add to his appearance of credibility. So, he gets support from those who want to believe there's nothing wrong with the practice and points to Jeffery John as proof that even those in higher places advocate the same. But in truth Jeffery John is as lost as they are.
"the unrepented sin". The sin not recognised as sin is bad enough but to teach the same as truth is even worse. I can understand the secular believing this but Jeffery John really should know better. He claims to see and dons the vestments that makes him appear that he does. And that makes him a very dangerous man.

i totally agree...... what he preaches are lies and it gives christians a bad name. and he will be held more responsible since he is entrusted with a flock. im sorry that i didn't include that to clarify. i was just wanting to point out how gays sometimes we treat them worse than other sinners because it's something that we dont like.

this minister is preaching evil because as you said.. his sin of omission which is just as bad as lying and basicly is lying.
 
biblecatholic said:
i was just wanting to point out how gays sometimes we treat them worse than other sinners because it's something that we dont like.

And that point is well recieved here as far as the practice itself is concerned between those who choose to do so.

But it just doesn't stop there. It's not so much the practice but the attempt to teach our kids that same behavior whether the parents like it or not. It's the issue of denying the majority of the people the right to marriage as it so stands. It's the issue of hiding the fact that the majority of HIV is from men having sex with men (70%) so as not to shed a negative light on the behavior being advocated. It's the issue of attempting to put a muzzle on the church simply because the church speaks out against the practice. It's the issue of silencing any and all opposition with the threat of criminal discrimination, hate-speech and hate-literature. It's the issue of claiming victimization when in fact it's the right to oppose that is the victim.
 
As to my above comment, I had no idea who the person is until I followed a link. Well, he's certainly not a traditionalist, ish he?
 
Steve said:
As to my above comment, I had no idea who the person is until I followed a link. Well, he's certainly not a traditionalist, ish he?
And no apology?!! :wink:
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top