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.