Sorry for not checking back earlier (I wish there was notification when someone puts up a new comment!).

I posted that article because some of the positions taken on this blog seem to be based on the premise that Matthew Shepard was beaten and killed because he was a homosexual. The story at the link I posted presents strong evidence to the contrary (AND it comes from a source that–if anything–would probably be sympathetic to the homosexual cause).

I think this information is very important, and not just because many of the so-called “hate crime” laws, “civil rights” laws, and “bullying and harassment” policies are being pushed because of allegations that there is a widespread problem with homosexuals being attacked (with the Matthew Shepard incident being the primary example that is always given).

The Shepard case also has the effect of evoking the sympathy of many of us who do not want to see anyone beaten and/or killed, regardless of their “sexual orientation”. It can cause many people to remain silent on the issue (as was a stated strategy of the homosexual activists in the book I loaned you), for fear of being identified with the WBC group (or anyone who would advocate violence against homosexuals). It some cases, it might actually even cause some who think homosexuality is wrong to advocate for the above-mentioned laws and policies.

This is not to say that people shouldn’t be protected from violence. However, that is not the real goal of such legislation. The real goal is to silence all dissent concerning the homosexual lifestyle, and eventually to force acceptance. At stake is nothing less than our religious freedom and freedom of speech.

I think if we take a position because of emotions that are stirred up by something that is untrue (or at least unproven), it bears re-examination. We shouldn’t accept everything at face value, and shouldn’t believe it is true merely because someone–someone who has an agenda–tells us it is true.

I appreciate your efforts to interpret not only scripture but others’ comments. I must however clarify a very important point dealing with your interpretive style.

A closer reading of John 15:12-17 will indeed reveal the prerequisite quality of the love of Christ. We were loved by Him before we obeyed Him. It is intuitive indeed by gazing at history: did God so love the world or did we so love God? Therefore I can establish against the notion that our love for each other is exclusive of our love for the world (people unbelieving).

This is extremely crucial to a Christian philosophy. One who loves Jesus must also love the world (again not sin but people, just as Jn 3:16-17 uses the word cosmos to imply people not sin and Satan).

The same blanket approach must also apply to every other passage because the gospel is about his love for his enemies. (See my previous comments references.)

let’s now take the woman caught in adultery. The point of that passage is not as you claimed. It is rather to point out how when we love out own traditions more than we actually love people, we stand to be more condemned than the people we condemn. The key is gospel story: Jesus stood by and forgave not only the woman, but also the scribes and Pharisees. That pericope reveals not a gushy god but a God who stands to judge both groups of sinners but forgives in his future death payment.

Both the whore and the Bible guys deserved judgment: but one realized her sin and the others did not and also were too proud to admit it. In other words, the bad girl was saved and the bible dudes were not. That was written by John to demonstrate – like the rest of his first half of the book as an autoptic report on how the godhood of Jesus will always be ironically opposed to self-justified people. A warning to the fundamentalist and Jew alike.

“Ironically Jesus was beaten and killed for a cause. That is why I believe they are closer to “getting” Jesus than the picketers.”

Put in the above context, what you said earlier (”The homosexual is closer to God than the self righteous Christian preacher and blogger. They are closer because their efforts appear more loving than the others.”) makes more sense to me now. I will agree they may be closer to getting one of the messages of Jesus–that being how we should treat others–but that does not necessarily mean they are closer to having a relationship with Him. Further, though it may be difficult to believe that the people from WBC have a relationship with Christ, if they do, in fact, have that relationship, despite the fact they are acting in an unbiblical manner, they are still closer than an unsaved homosexual (or any other unsaved person) who does good works and treats people kindly.

In regard to being beaten for a “cause”, you might want to check out this link I posted for Kevin earlier, if you haven’t already.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1

It is difficult for me to believe that a group of people who consider themselves Christians could persist in doing the heinous things they do. I actually called them up a couple of years ago when I heard about the churches they planned to picket in our area. At least one of the churches is very conservative, and preaches the whole counsel of God, including the passages concerning homosexuality.

My personal view is that we were enemies of God before we are reconciled to God and that was provided at the cross and obtained upon trusting the Lord. (Romans 5:1 and Romans 5:10). We are enemies if we are “friends with the world” (James 4:4). However, my view is that James is saying these people are not “saved”. After we are saved which means we are reconciled we become friends (John 15:12-14). A friend in this passage does what the Lord commands. In the passage He commands that we love one another as He has loved us. That is only possible through the divine nature that is imparted at the new birth. So the evidence of being a true disciple is “loving one another”. This is also the main point of John in his first epistle. Does loving one another include the unsaved? I think it does, but that could probably be argued.

I believe that regardless of our view on the “enemies” issue, we need to remember that we who are saved are just guilty sinners saved by grace. I hear people say that they WERE guilty sinners saved by grace, but I personally AM a guilty sinner saved by grace. I think that is your point Brooks. I know that God sees me in Christ and calls me a Saint but I am not very Saintly at times.

The original issue had to do with the WBC and its demonstrations. I think they have forgotten that they ARE guilty sinners saved by grace. When we preach the Gospel we can’t be self-righteous about it because we are in this sin problem together. I ask myself, do I want to be known as a “sin killer” who eradicates the world of my pet sins, or do I want to be known as one who can offer sinners hope and a solution in Christ? Both the Lord and the Pharisees seemed to understand adultery was wrong in John 8 with the woman taken in adultery. But would I want to stand with the hypocritical Pharisees trying to throw stones, or do I want to show the grace of the Lord who recognized that the sin was wrong but said “neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more!” (John 8:11). Which approach is more likely to release a person from the bondage of sin?

I personally do not want to be a person who is constantly involved in “causes”. I want to be one who upholds the Lord’s righteous standards by pointing sinners to the grace of God, the same grace that I need and have received.

The concept of reconciliation assumes two parties meeting in the middle. Romans 5:6-11 dives deep into this. If we are reconciled to God by our own effort, then we have room to boast. And we may claim we are on God’s side. We become proud, separated from other people whom we believe are not striving hard enough. And grace becomes a little backpack to help us hold the load.

But if we are people who were – and still are – powerless to please God, then reconciliation evidently happened between two other parties, one of them not being us. This is the true case. God met his match (his own son) and agreed to forgive our sin because of Jesus. We were – and are still – enemies. We are recipients of grace and not the weight the law demands.

Why are Westboro people so proud and unattached? They believe they are holy. The operative phrase in your quote above is “in his sight.” When we are holy in our own sight we start treating other, non-recipients of the same free grace, as worse than us.

Why are other people throwing their hard earned money at the Shepard cause? Because they understand people who are beaten and killed for a cause, any cause, are worth taking a look at and considered instead of picketed.

Ironically Jesus was beaten and killed for a cause. That is why I believe they are closer to “getting” Jesus than the picketers.

Give me $10million today for no apparent reason, and I will do anything for you.

But in a year, come back and ask me in my new mansion to mow your lawn and I will complain behind your back about your silly request. This is how most people react to grace.

If I earn $10 million, however, I have a whole lot of pride about it. I will volunteer for organizations, give my life to them, and not think twice about it. I am confident in my accomplishments and am in control of my life.

This is why it is easier for all of us on this blog to believe that we really aren’t *given* eternal life. Our functional savior usually looks quite more like ourselves, and hence we hesitate to say we are still His enemies. Yet, our attitudes toward one another (the least of these) show that we truly love to flip off the Almighty.

Side note: I feel like all of us agree on most everything so far, and that all the arguing has just been semantics…

And yeah, RefTagger is the best. So easy to use. Everything is automatic, and it just works, which is the best you can ask for!

Perhaps I should grab the “lovetheSinhatetheSinner” screenname before Westboro coins it.

http://bit.ly/2zPNwx

One of my favorite verses is Hebrews 10:14 — “[B]ecause by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” Salvation is both a completed act and a continuing process. Perfect forever. Being made holy.