From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 80

In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:

>Perhaps you don't get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn't get it in the
>Middle Ages and the proclaimed God's will be done as they massacred thousands
>in witch hunts and inquisitions.

There were many injustices in the middle ages.  And this is truely sad.
I would hate to see a day when churches put people to death or torchured
them for practicing homosexuality, or any other crime.  The church is not
called to take over the governments of the world.  It may be that homosexuals
treated cruelly today, but that does not mean that we should teach 
Christians to practice homosexual immorality.  Do you think that we should
also teach Christians to practice divination and channelling because
the witches in the middle ages were persecuted.


>The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the
>final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a
>"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we'll love you. This is
>sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"
>love, one that calls people "just as they are."

And you accuse me of judging?  When did you look into my heart and see
if I have love.  I have been writing that we should not teach Christians
to practice homosexual immorality, and you pretend to have divine knowledge
to look into my heart.  I can't say that I love homosexuals as I should-
I can't say that I love my neighbor as I should either.  I don't know
very many homosexuals as it is.  

But Jesus loves homosexuals, just as He loves everyone else.  If His love
were conditional, I not know Him at all.  Yes.  We should show love to 
homosexuals, but it is not love to encourage brothers in the church to 
stumble and continue in their sin.  That is a very damaging and dangerous 
thing.

>The results of the passing amendment in
>Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
>Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
>but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
>is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.
>
>This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
>embracing.

That is slander.   I could just as easily say  that NAMBLA has been able
to implement legislation to make child molesting easier because of
the tearing down of societies morality due to people accepting homosexuality
as normal, and that this is what you are embracing.  I do believe
that homosexual sex is immoral, that does not mean I endorse using violence
against them.  There is a problem of hatred in the church.  But there
is also the problem of what has been called "unsanctified mercy."
Many in the conservative churches have seen the moral breakdown in 
this country and the storm on the horizon, and have gotten militant in 
the flesh.  This is truely sad.  Yet others in other churches have 
embraced immorality in society, and have pointed to the carnality in the
conservative churches to justify their actions.  

>Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
>to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?

Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in.  Jesus didn't
go out of His way to show only what might be considered positive aspects
to draw people in.  He told one man to sell all He had.  He told
another not to say good bye to His family.  His words were hard at times.
We should present people with the cost of the tower before we allow them
to begin construction.  many people have already been innoculated to the
gospel.

Link Hudson.




>
>Whatever
>
>Rich :-(


