So-Called "Persecution Against Christians":

I've heard a very different history than the one you heard. I somehow managed to be unaware of the Jesus Freaks during their heyday, I guess because I was in Northern California and they mostly in Southern California. What I've heard is that most churches wouldn't accept the scruffy and often barefoot hippies unless they cleaned up to come to services, and that Chuck Smith was being the true Christian by not making an issue of such superficial things. I think that is probably true.Smith wasn't a mere member of the Foursquare church but its pastor, and I've understood that it was a very small church, he didn't leave it, he merely welcomed the hippies into it which made it grow. As pastor of a Foursquare church, which was founded by Aimee Semple MacPherson, he was part of the Charismatic Movement that taught speaking in tongues and supernatural gifts like prophecy and healing and miracles for today just as existed in the early church. That's how the Jesus Freaks got taken in that direction, which I believe to be a false direction (I certainly believe that God still works supernaturally as always, but on a case-to-case basis and not through personal gifts as in the early church).But for the most part they got good biblical instruction, and over time cleaned up their act, many going on to be pastors themselves. Calvary Chapel is the denomination that eventually grew out of the Jesus Freaks and they are known for their strong biblical preaching, so I don't think it can be argued that their spiritual food was at the level of sound bites, although there may have been some of that in the early days.There are lingering effects from those days that some lament and I agree with them, such as the general change from serious hymn music to guitar-driven repetitive ditties, the general habit of dressing down for church even if not as far down as the hippies, the continuing influence of the Charismatic Movement, and so on. But that movement was a genuine supernatural revival nevertheless. Apparently you were right in the thick of it though personally unconverted. You seem to be a tad obsessed with the Jesus Freaks. But despite the superficial problems I mentioned they eventually grew into genuine well-taught Christians and all you are really complaining about is the fact that there were so many of them around you so that you kept having to hear their street preaching, which was perfectly orthodox. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How I discovered the abomination description was from hearing a talk by ex-Lesbian converted Christian Rosaria Butterfield after which an audience member said "But isn't homosexuality called an abomination in the Bible?" Rosaria merely answered that yes it is certainly a sin, but I looked it up and found out that it is called an abomination and no other sin is in that part of the Bible that spells out the Law. Except the sins involving idolatrous religions, which I thought I made clear enough, not personal sins such as sexual sins. Your list is all related to religious sins, not sexual sins and the like. My point was that the religious idolatrous sins involve demons which are termed "abominations" throughout the Bible. But homosexuality is the only personal sin called an abomination.But as you can see I deleted that discussion because I really don't want to get into all the side trips. Too bad I left it up so long.I did think you said you were homosexual and some things you said implied your "wife" was a man. Sorry if I got that wrong. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh well, I should have known. I did say the Books of the Law, meaning the books of Moses. I didn't mention the passage in Proverbs because it's in a different category. Yes I knew it was there. I'm still talking about the Books of the Law where God spells out His comandments in detail. The Proverbs passage describes special cases the Lord also abominates. What I said still stands. Homosexuality is treated as a special personal sin in the context of the Law. No other sexual sin, and there are lots of them, is called by that term.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So your wife is a bisexual woman and not a bisexual man?

Only 18:22. Other sins are included in the plural "abominations" but homosexuality is still the only sexual sin singled out by the term abomination.abe: I'd also add that Romans 1 identifies homosexual acts as the consequence of idolatrous practices with false gods. Verses 23-26 particularly.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please reread my post. I know you want to deny that there is anything especially sinful about homosexuality, and I always thought that myself, but I believe overall the Bible does single it out for special condemnation.

I disagree. Only homosexuality is identified specifically by that term, no other sexual sin, and it is the only sin directly associated with demonic idolatries in Romans 1.

An increase in sin is very much a way God brings judgment.

There's only one in Genesis and it's not about God's law, which is my subject.Right, Ezekiel is also irrelevant, the subject is God's Law as spelled out in the Books of the Law. As I said quite clearly.I said northing about "it" -- whatever that is -- being applied uniquely to sexual sins. I said, quite clearly I think, that AMONG the sexual sins ONLY homosexuality is specifically called an abomination. Yes, you have pointed out applications of the word to other sexual contexts such as remarrying a divorced wife. So there are other applications. That doesn't seem to me to change the fact that for whatever reason only homosexual sin is designated by that term among the sexual sins. And I do have to add that Romans 1 is what sets it in concrete for me. There it is presented as the consequence of sins of idolatry in such a way as to bring out the possibility of a demonic element. Which can be present in any sin of course, but most likely more entrenched or serious sins by God's standards.When Rosaria Butterfield's audience member said it's called an abomination and she seemed to miss the woman's point, I looked it up and agreed that term does seem to make it more of a sin than other sexual sins. The other sins that get called by that name here and there, such as remarrying a wife who left you and the list in Proverbs, seem to me to be more complex or special cases.abe; And "abomination" is ALWAYS the term for demonic religious practices, idolatries, witchcraft etc. /abeWhat has always interested me is the possible demonic element in "strange" sins. (which to my mind makes me optimistic about the possibility of overcoming the sin, or curing the mental illness or whatever else demons do to us. I consider the felt need to dress like the opposite sex a "strange" sin, or any compulsive behavior the person "needs" to do. And of course the really really weird ones like Jeffrey Daumer's. No I am not making an equivalent, I am trying to define a category that contains many degrees of expression. And since you are going to scream indignantly at me as you usually do, let me add in case it keeps your screaming down a bit that I can say I have some "strange" inclinations in my own psychology, which I hope are pretty well mortified by now)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh wowsy wow wow wow are you confused.Slavery is NOT condoned in the Bible, it is tolerated because it is universal, AS I SAID, and laws about it are given to make life easier for the slaves. The laws you think are condoning are actually mitigating and softening and trying to introduce justice where people are otherwise likely to be cruel or unfair to the slaves.The problem with freeing a woman slave is that she will become prey to others so it is actually protecting her to keep her in her position. Selling her is another protection.You also have the usual stuppid confusion between a law meant as a just punishment and murder. And you have no sense at all of the mentality of ancient cultures.Oh well you are not at all inclined to see the truth, so forget it, believe whatever nasty lies you want.

EvC takes the cake when it comes to treating other opinions as evil trash, never extending a moment's benefit of the doubt, a moment's grace. You'd think, if you were a sane reasonable person (which is asking too much of you all on this thread) that the religion that built and civilized and in fact liberalized western civilization and drew it out of the Dark Ages of barbarism and superstition, would have earned a teeny bit of respect. Ya know, just enough to stop and wonder if your first evil trash thoughts just might possibly be in error, like seriously out of context, and that the people who have followed its teachings for two thousand years just might not share your kneejerk culture-bound take on it.Naa, too much to ask, too civilized for the crowd here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.