Definitely agreed here. Everyone has some predisposition to sin that we struggle with. For me, it's alcohol, cynicism resulting in withdrawal from people, arrogance and more. But, predisposition, whether genetic or environmental (or both), does not justify sin.I think the point the writer makes is that whether the basis for same sex attraction is based on nature or nurture, it ultimately boils down to a choice to act on sinful desires, or not.
Cool, it sounds like she had amazing faith.I was blown away, as I recognized it as what it was - compassion for the people dealing with that area of sin in their lives, and acknowledgement of His holy standard. That's how a Christian responds to sin
Yeah, the article you linked had theistic evolution link in the sidebar. At least they're giving biologos a chance. They also had a link to evidence for design in the butterfly. So, they might still be ID-supporters. I think you're right, they seem espouse many different views, and that's ok with me. I don't think there is one single website or preacher that I agree with everything on, but they are my brothers and sisters in Christ and have many, many good points to make.As for CRI, the Christian Research Journal, that the above article comes out of, is very well written, and espouses a lot of different viewpoints.
My challenge to you, however you felt about this amendment and however you feel about LGBT/Christian issues in general, is to force yourself to see your opponents as human beings who honestly believe they’re doing the right thing. Figure out what it is that’s really motivating them, and if the answer you come up with is simply “bigotry” or “love of the flesh” or “stupidity” or “rebellion against God,” keep digging, because you haven’t gone deep enough yet. Then once you really understand them—really, really understand them—find the ways you can reach out and begin to educate them, patiently and lovingly. That is how you make change in people’s lives.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests