Absolutely. They are not mutually exclusive.
I am afraid they are. If you think someone can love you and act hatefully toward you as the only evidence... then you are simply confused about the term.
Commit to resisting it, or resist it? You commit to resisting sin, but I'm sure you, on occasion, give in? And this is acceptable?
Acceptable? No. Forgiveable? Yes.
My implication is that you are accepting of sin, so long as you are committed to resisting it, or "repent." Yet, you seem whole heartedly against homosexuality.
I am against all sin and especially my own. So yes, I am against homosexual sin.
If someone broke your trust in a hurtful way, how would you see reconciliation going? Would they commit to earning your trust back and then give evidence by their actions? Or would it consist of continued violations of your trust with complete indifference to your pain?
Unless you adjust your position to state that others should influence others' decisions on sin, and act to stop their sins, then a position against homosexuality and marriage is unfounded.
I would like to answer but do not quite understand you.
And I say this because, I assume, it does not affect you, and thus is between God and the individual.
Cain asked "Am I my brother's keeper?"
If the Bible is correct and all men who do not repent are destined for judgment against the absolute standard of God's moral law which only one man has obeyed... AND I am commissioned as a believer to both care about the welfare of others and warn them... then how can I not say it is wrong?
If a kid is very happily riding their bike down the street and I watch as a bus approaches from a blind turn... is the loving thing to warn the child and ruin their pleasant bike ride or to mind my own business and let him get smashed?
Is it your place to state that those who do engage, do so without repenting?
No. But repentance certainly has its evidence or it is not repentance. If you were walking to the kitchen and repented... would you still wind up repeatedly in the kitchen?
Is it your place to state that others should follow your path, perfectly interrupting the one to one relationship between God and the individual?
Nope. Just to share the Gospel and what I know of the Bible so that they might have that relationship if they don't.
I am under the impression that you are against male-male marriage, which is the basis for that argument. You may not be, I may have been mistaken.
Yes. I am. But not for religious reasons. Homosexual relationships were revered in Paul's day. He called sin sin but did not major on trying to change laws. His goal was to convert sinners to Christ... a far more effective tact.
Which specifically are the moral laws? And no, I do not have a background concerning "civil law" in ancient Jewish culture.
Those which transcended culture, civil order, and religious ritual. Things like lying, cheating, stealing, pride, incest, homosexuality, beastiality, adultery, fornication, strife,... some of which were also punished by civil law. These things are not symbolic or simply for good order.
You are communicating a moral standard, based on the morality of the writer. At contention is the... morality of the writer; the follower.
No. The contention is the merit of the Bible and who you accept as its ultimate author and superintendant. If it is only a man written book like any other with truth mixed with error as concerning its content and message then I am wrong. I am wrong in a way consistent with the law written on man's conscience mentioned in Romans 2:14-15... wrong about a moral standard which has historically proven to yield happiness and profitable lives... but still wrong.
Inspired, moved. I've been all at an opera. I don't worship the morality of the play write.
The issue isn't the hand but the product. "Inspired" is a poor translation in 2 Tim 3. The better word is "breathed". All scripture is "God breathed".
