Boy Erased

5,100 Views | 103 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by AGC
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery."

I do.

I think it's "picked out" because of the ongoing culture war. It wouldn't be "picked out" if so many hadnt called for changing the definition of marriage.

If adultery were all of a sudden a cause that was being elevated as good and holy and just as legitimate as Christian marriage, you'd start hearing a lot of Christians making an argument of why adultery is damaging to people and society.

Interestingly, perhaps the homosexuals should have an honest discussion about adultery. For many couples, adultery isn't a sin either...
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sorry dp
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Frok said:

Do you believe homosexuality is not a sin?
I will let Jesus decide that. The exact Greek word Paul created out of two other words was arsenokoites which means man bed. Fascinating how differently that word has been translated by different people.

And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery.
I have a theory that homophobia is largely a inherited trait born out of evolution and that the cultural aspect just reinforces it.
7nine
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seamaster said:

"And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery."

I do.

I think it's "picked out" because of the ongoing culture war. It wouldn't be "picked out" if so many hadnt called for changing the definition of marriage.

If adultery were all of a sudden a cause that was being elevated as good and holy and just as legitimate as Christian marriage, you'd start hearing a lot of Christians making an argument of why adultery is damaging to people and society.

Interestingly, perhaps the homosexuals should have an honest discussion about adultery. For many couples, adultery isn't a sin either...
You think sex before marriage is a "better" sin than adultery? That is well accepted as a social norm. Why haven't people that have sex before marriage been violently attacked as gays have been throughout modern history in the US?

7nine
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
King James also translated Hades as hell. The concepts were heavily borrowed from Grecian thought in the intertestament period with Jewish sects varying from no belief in the afterlife (the Sadducees) to adopting a more modern concept.

The idea is totally absent in the OT.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

Frok said:

Do you believe homosexuality is not a sin?
I will let Jesus decide that. The exact Greek word Paul created out of two other words was arsenokoites which means man bed. Fascinating how differently that word has been translated by different people.

And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery.


I didnt come up with this but I think it is correct.

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

100% of the verses referring to God's ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"You think sex before marriage is a "better" sin than adultery? That is well accepted as a social norm. Why haven't people that have sex before marriage been violently attacked as gays have been throughout modern history in the US?"

I didn't say that I though sex before marriage was "better." And, I agree that it shouldn't be accepted as the "norm." My church strongly discourages it. If a couple comes to be married and our churches and they're cohabiting and committing adultery they are told to practice chastity.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As a believer, I ended up believing as Dermdoc, that the bible isn't 100% clear that homosexuality is a sin 100% of the time.

However as I don't believe the Bible to be the "word of God" anymore, I think it's pretty clear it denounces homosexuality as wrong in all cases.

It is a shame though. Allowing that loophole would have made it a lot easier on all the dedicated men of God who swore to never marry. Probably would have prevented a lot of the child abuse in the catholic church too.
7nine
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sounds like a fun place.
7nine
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fair enough. My issue is with Christians who now think homosexuality is not a sin. I think they are misguided and caving in to pressure from the surrounding culture.

Yes Christians have mistreated homosexuals and it is something we should repent of. But that doesnt change what the bible teaches about it.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

As a believer, I ended up believing as Dermdoc, that the bible isn't 100% clear that homosexuality is a sin 100% of the time.

However as I don't believe the Bible to be the "word of God" anymore, I think it's pretty clear it denounces homosexuality as wrong in all cases.
This was pretty much my evolution on it too. I get why many of the more kind-hearted Christians struggle with it and try to find a loophole: they know, love, and respect their gay friends and family, and the words on the page are objectively terrible, so they decide it can't really mean what it says. I'm glad they can make that kind of cognitive dissonance work for them, because things were pretty bad for people like me when no one went to the effort to rationalize it like that.

Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Back to the actual topic of conversion "therapy," what are peoples' thoughts on parents doing this to their kids? I've said before if a grownup wants to sign up for this nonsense I'm fine with that. It's no different to me than if they start selling Amway or become a Scientologist. Whatever. But for kids/teens this kind of thing is really dangerous. On a personal level, I'm really glad I was grown and financially independent when I came out because my parents have admitted that this would've been in the cards for me if they'd found out when I was still at home. I can't imagine the amount of gasoline one of these programs or camps or whatever would have thrown on what was already a pretty big fire in my head.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It doesn't change it, true. However, compassion, once you realize that homosexuals didn't choose to be that way, and are not able to just be straight for God, forces you to question if God is cruel enough to create a world where so many people would basically never be able to pursue true romantic love with another adult that loves them simply because their plumbing is the same. So, as a Christian, it was easier to find ways to bend the words of the Bible in such a way that doesn't condemn all homosexuals. Similar to how dds does with believing people of other religions can get into heaven.
7nine
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I see parents sending their kids to conversion therapy no different than parents who push their kids or even let their kids get hormone blocker therapy because they believe they are trans. This is something that should be left to the kid to decide when they are an adult.

I get it that the teen years are the most significant because that is when sexual development occurs, but there are just too many variables and too many possible outcomes once they get to the other side of 20 to make rash decisions while they are still kids that will affect them the rest of their lives. In most cases, negatively.
7nine
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

Frok said:

Do you believe homosexuality is not a sin?
I will let Jesus decide that. The exact Greek word Paul created out of two other words was arsenokoites which means man bed. Fascinating how differently that word has been translated by different people.

And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery.


I asked you a question about this on the first page. Paul and Jesus were both Jews and knew and quoted the Torah extensively. What reason do you have to believe they would reject it's sexual ethic (which is plain and unambiguous)?
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Totally on board with all of that.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Beer Baron said:

Back to the actual topic of conversion "therapy," what are peoples' thoughts on parents doing this to their kids? I've said before if a grownup wants to sign up for this nonsense I'm fine with that. It's no different to me than if they start selling Amway or become a Scientologist. Whatever. But for kids/teens this kind of thing is really dangerous. On a personal level, I'm really glad I was grown and financially independent when I came out because my parents have admitted that this would've been in the cards for me if they'd found out when I was still at home. I can't imagine the amount of gasoline one of these programs or camps or whatever would have thrown on what was already a pretty big fire in my head.


Therapy in and of itself should always be in the cards, though conversion I would say not. Lots of people carry trauma through their lives as well and deal with it in various ways. Sometimes parents force confrontation over little things and their kids dig their heels in, creating a pathology that could manifest in various ways. Trauma is how some wind up going the TG route, only to realize after transitioning that there's a lot in their background they didn't process and eventually they desist. I've know people who said they were gay in HS only to straighten up in college and work through issues before firguring out they weren't. Sexuality is very complicated - it's not straightforward because it affects the brain.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

It doesn't change it, true. However, compassion, once you realize that homosexuals didn't choose to be that way, and are not able to just be straight for God, forces you to question if God is cruel enough to create a world where so many people would basically never be able to pursue true romantic love with another adult that loves them simply because their plumbing is the same. So, as a Christian, it was easier to find ways to bend the words of the Bible in such a way that doesn't condemn all homosexuals. Similar to how dds does with believing people of other religions can get into heaven.


That's dependent on your theology and how much you value eros. Is romantic love the most important thing in life? Certainly no Christian should think so. You may have to leave everything behind - let the dead bury the dead. Then again, even if sexuality isn't chosen, is it challenging to our theology that men are born with sinful desires that they must deny? The answer is no. The Ten Commandments addresses action (stealing) but also desire (coveting). Nowhere does Christ command people to get married.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

dermdoc said:

Frok said:

Do you believe homosexuality is not a sin?
I will let Jesus decide that. The exact Greek word Paul created out of two other words was arsenokoites which means man bed. Fascinating how differently that word has been translated by different people.

And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery.


I didnt come up with this but I think it is correct.

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

100% of the verses referring to God's ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.


I do not disagree. I just do not understand why Paul created a new Greek word instead of using one of the common Greek terms for homosexuality.

I will say I would not attend a church that performed gay marriages as the Bible is clear on that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

dermdoc said:

Frok said:

Do you believe homosexuality is not a sin?
I will let Jesus decide that. The exact Greek word Paul created out of two other words was arsenokoites which means man bed. Fascinating how differently that word has been translated by different people.

And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery.


I asked you a question about this on the first page. Paul and Jesus were both Jews and knew and quoted the Torah extensively. What reason do you have to believe they would reject it's sexual ethic (which is plain and unambiguous)?


Same way that Jesus did not follow the Torah and stone the adulteress.

Edited to add that we are not under the Law anymore. There is a New Covenant.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One cannot compare the desire to steal, drink, or even commit adultery to that of the desire for love in a committed relationship. Sure many religious men have forgone that option, but, if they were straight, they had that choice. Being gay, and unable to control that you were made that way, you are now forced to live a life with no choice, if you are a strict biblical Christian, in whether you will be in a committed loving relationship because by default you don't desire the sex God said you should. We, as humans are very sexual people, and those people that live out celibate lives were either pretty much a-sexual before they chose that life or they deceived themselves, and we can see, such as with the catholic church, the ramifications of trying to force celibacy on the human body.

For God to tell a homosexual, who very much desires a sexual relationship, to never ever partake in that gift that all straight people can happily take part of if they are married, is beyond cruel.

Now there is an argument that can be made to counter this with pedos. You can say, "well if sexuality is something by nature then they are that way not because of their own choice, so wouldn't it also be cruel of God to tell them they can't partake in the gift of sex?" I don't think the argument holds water though because with homosexuality, you have plenty of other adult potential partners who will happily partake with you in a committed loving sexual relationship. You cannot say that children are capable of a truly mature committed sexual relationship where they completely understand what they are doing. Plus I would imagine deviating from your desired sexual partner by age is far more easier than deviating by gender.
7nine
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good Point.

Hormone Blockers for kids? Ok. No problem at all.

Conversion Therapy? Evil.

AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

AGC said:

dermdoc said:

Frok said:

Do you believe homosexuality is not a sin?
I will let Jesus decide that. The exact Greek word Paul created out of two other words was arsenokoites which means man bed. Fascinating how differently that word has been translated by different people.

And I have never understood why homosexuality was "picked out" of the list of sins in 1 Corinthians and emphasized so much. Maybe it is just me, but I do not hear many Christian outrages over drunkenness or adultery.


I asked you a question about this on the first page. Paul and Jesus were both Jews and knew and quoted the Torah extensively. What reason do you have to believe they would reject it's sexual ethic (which is plain and unambiguous)?


Same way that Jesus did not follow the Torah and stone the adulteress.

Edited to add that we are not under the Law anymore. There is a New Covenant.


Your making an argument from absence regarding homosexuality. That's the basis of the Bee's 'Jesus didn't say anything about third degree home invasion' satire article.

The adulteress was no less guilty of sin even if he didn't stone her. She was caught in her sin and that is not in dispute, but He took issue with the hearts of her accusers and their motivation for bringing her to Him.

Do you consider the new covenant to invalidate all things considered sin in the Old Testament, with only those explicitly stated to be wrong?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

The adulteress was no less guilty of sin even if he didn't stone her. She was caught in her sin and that is not in dispute, but He took issue with the hearts of her accusers and their motivation for bringing her to Him.
I don't think that is a sufficient explanation. The Law says: "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die" and "If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Christ said he who is without sin, cast the first stone. And then the One who was without sin did not cast a stone at all.

He asked, "Where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?" and told her "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more from now on."

Condemn is katakrino, to give judgement down.

We are left with only two options: Either the accusations against her were false, and Christ Jesus shamed them into withdrawing it; or, they were true and by shaming them by their own sins she was no longer accused by two or three witnesses (thus not violating the Law).

He did not say, then I judge you as innocent, or that you are guilty but there are insufficient accusers. He said simply He did not condemn her for her sin, and admonished her to sin no more.

The hearts of the accusers are one matter, but His testimony to not judge her is another entirely, and is perhaps the more profound of the two.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not at all, Adultery is a sin and Christ said so as much. There are a lot of sins in the OT under the Law Which Christ never mentioned like eating shrimp, wearing certain clothes, etc, I just find it odd that He never mentioned anything about homosexuality if it was such a big deal. And that Paul, who I believe was the only person in the the NT to mention homosexuality, made up a word instead of using other Greek words for what he described.

Maybe I am wrong, but a lot of the Christians I know have a bigger problem with homosexuality than any other sin. And it sure gets a lot of publicity. I do not hear a lot of Christian leaders having a problem with Trump or Clinton's adultery except as a political issue. If either of those two guys were gay I think it would be a different story. Maybe it is just me.

And I wonder how I would deal with this if it was my kid. Of course, I would pray and have the church pray. Probably even use a Christian counselor. But what if nothing works? Do you tell your kid they are an abomination doomed to Eternal hell and throw them out?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:


Quote:

The adulteress was no less guilty of sin even if he didn't stone her. She was caught in her sin and that is not in dispute, but He took issue with the hearts of her accusers and their motivation for bringing her to Him.
I don't think that is a sufficient explanation. The Law says: "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die" and "If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Christ said he who is without sin, cast the first stone. And then the One who was without sin did not cast a stone at all.

He asked, "Where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?" and told her "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more from now on."

Condemn is katakrino, to give judgement down.

We are left with only two options: Either the accusations against her were false, and Christ Jesus shamed them into withdrawing it; or, they were true and by shaming them by their own sins she was no longer accused by two or three witnesses (thus not violating the Law).

He did not say, then I judge you as innocent, or that you are guilty but there are insufficient accusers. He said simply He did not condemn her for her sin, and admonished her to sin no more.

The hearts of the accusers are one matter, but His testimony to not judge her is another entirely, and is perhaps the more profound of the two.


Are we left with those two options? I'm assuming we're talking about John who adds plenty of context. The author states she was caught in adultery and then states they told Jesus the same. It does not say 'accused of' unless you're alleging a mistranslation. Nor does the author say 'accused of' but caught in. Further the author even says it was a trap to be used as a basis to accuse Him.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I do not hear a lot of Christian leaders having a problem with Trump or Clinton's adultery except as a political issue.
In all fairness, we did hear a ton from Christian leaders in the 1990's when it came to Clinton's adultery. People like Franklin Graham and James Dobson even questioned Clinton's ability to be president given the lies and unfaithfulness in his personal life. I recall the rally cry of the 1990's as "Character Counts!". Of course, something has apparently changed in that regard over the past 20 years. I can't quite put my finger on what that is though.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

Not at all, Adultery is a sin and Christ said so as much. There are a lot of sins in the OT under the Law Which Christ never mentioned like eating shrimp, wearing certain clothes, etc, I just find it odd that He never mentioned anything about homosexuality if it was such a big deal. And that Paul, who I believe was the only person in the the NT to mention homosexuality, made up a word instead of using other Greek words for what he described.

Maybe I am wrong, but a lot of the Christians I know have a bigger problem with homosexuality than any other sin. And it sure gets a lot of publicity. I do not hear a lot of Christian leaders having a problem with Trump or Clinton's adultery except as a political issue. If either of those two guys were gay I think it would be a different story. Maybe it is just me.

And I wonder how I would deal with this if it was my kid. Of course, I would pray and have the church pray. Probably even use a Christian counselor. But what if nothing works? Do you tell your kid they are an abomination doomed to Eternal hell and throw them out?


I think you're laboring under a lot of time and culture specific assumptions when asking why Jesus of 2000 years ago didn't talk about what you're debating with today. You're so borrowing secular logic (what about mixed fabrics and shellfish) that are discussed ad naseum here and on apologetics websites. If adultery is a sin, and sex is intended for marriage (a union between man and woman and analogy of Christ to the church) to what end can a gay relationship go even if they don't marry? Even lust for such things is a sin which is likely inevitable in a romantic relationship, not to mention the temptation of engaging in such while try to remain chaste for years or longer.

You're still arguing from absence with Paul. It's a guessing game based on word usage. We know the Jewish sexual ethic and it's modeled by Christ and the church in gendered language.

You may know people that make a bid deal out of it but there are various takes. Can a hetero relationship where they are engaged in premarital sex be redeemed? Certainly, through marriage which is what that is for. I don't think you'd hear many churches preaching that adultery is right or that divorce is acceptable. Your friends may have that attitude but they could equally buy church as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism rather than what it is. The battle over no-fault and sleeping around was already fought and lost decades ago. It's not less sinful or important but it's not being pushed in school sex-ed class today either, nor are people celebrating including it in movies and tv shows, etc.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you think there were no gay people in Jesus's times? And the implication I hang around a bunch of deists or non social conservative Christians is a reach. And neither me or my family are Deists. And frankly the projection and generalization instead of discussing and acknowledging that there are problems with the word Paul used is weak sauce imho. I just get tired that if you want to simply discuss this issue that unless you absolutely think it is a sin then you are all the things you accused me of.

And I am not saying homosexuality is not a sin. Just pointing out that it is not as cut and dried as a lot of people think.

Edited to add I would also like people to think about some of this stuff. And have you ever thought about that all the guys on Texags who look at hottie threads are guilty of adultery as defined by Christ? But that is not a "sin" that has become mainstream religion newsworthy.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And how are mixed fabrics and shellfish "secular" stuff? I am confused. That is Torah just like the sexual sins.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This sounds like the serpent, "Did God really say..."

It's a sin and yes I commit sexual sin as well. That's why the gospel is such great news. God redeems is from our slavery to sin.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It says they brought a woman having been caught in adultery, and then the scribes and the Pharisees attest to it. Chris Jesus is the one that uses the word accuse - He asks her "Woman where are they who accuse you?"

So again, either the accusations they brought were false, or they were true. Christ Jesus simply says He does not condemn her, and to go and sin no more.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

This sounds like the serpent, "Did God really say..."

It's a sin and yes I commit sexual sin as well. That's why the gospel is such great news. God redeems is from our slavery to sin.


That is actually a good point. Jesus can redeem anything which I believe that is what that parable is saying. Also saying that we are all sinners, the adulteress and the religious leaders, which is why we need Jesus to approach Holy God.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And the serpent? Really? Because I am trying to figure out why Paul created a word to describe sinful activity instead of using the typical Greek words? Which obviously could change the meaning ? Trying to find out the truth is not the "serpent" imho.

And edited to add do you think the translators who do the various Bibles are divinely inspired? I personally do not and think there definite biases especially on the traditional doctrine of Hell.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

So you think there were no gay people in Jesus's times? And the implication I hang around a bunch of deists or non social conservative Christians is a reach. And neither me or my family are Deists. And frankly the projection and generalization instead of discussing and acknowledging that there are problems with the word Paul used is weak sauce imho. I just get tired that if you want to simply discuss this issue that unless you absolutely think it is a sin then you are all the things you accused me of.

And I am not saying homosexuality is not a sin. Just pointing out that it is not as cut and dried as a lot of people think.

Edited to add I would also like people to think about some of this stuff. And have you ever thought about that all the guys on Texags who look at hottie threads are guilty of adultery as defined by Christ? But that is not a "sin" that has become mainstream religion newsworthy.


Not at all. I don't doubt there were given that they were under Roman rule. However the Torah is clear on sexual behavior and Jesus was a Jew. The idea that because Jesus didn't address something so it's inconclusive, despite God's explicit instructions with regards to sex and marriage, is truly a modern one. Paul making up a word instead of using another may have been very specific. If we're going to debate what-ifs and such, it could equally be that no Greek word has the appropriate connotation and denotation. But since we don't know it makes more sense to defer to what God has explicitly said about those things when translating it.

I didn't accuse you of being a deist. I borrowed a term from an Orthodox author Rod Dreher describing people in the church who go along with culture. It's moral, makes them feel good, and they believe in God. Traditional Christian teaching on this is consistent since inception. Tradition helps bridge the gap of time when we don't know an author personally. We can look to prior writings and teachings through the centuries. They're pretty clear.

When you want to talk about other sins and whether they're being addressed or not, look to the church and her teaching and the culture and it's (teaching). Is there a movement to **** down businesses that don't serve people posting hotties or gays? Is there a movement to ban players from the national team for not supporting divorce or rainbow numbers? Should I go on? If your friends aren't concerned about these things it is equally likely that they're not being bludgeoned with it by the government or perhaps they address it at home with their kids and in private.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.