Q. What about practicing homosexuals and the church?
I’m not quite sure the specific question being asked here, but let’s be perfectly clear. Homosexuality is a sin.

Paul says plainly  “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,” (1 Corinthians 6:9)

As well as here: “the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:9-10) Other clear prohibitions of homosexuality can be found here: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-28.

What else do we notice in these passages noted above? Homosexuality is a sin, just like all the other listed sins: murder, lying, perjury, sexual immorality, adultery, idolatry, etc. It is just as horrible in God’s eyes as any other kind of sin you can find in scripture. And like all other sins we can commit, we need forgiveness of it and transformation into a life without that sin.

As for the original question’s mention of a “practicing homosexual” in the church:  if you’re asking are they welcome in church, the answer is a resounding “YES”. The church is a place where sinners can meet together, hear the bible taught and preached, and where we can repent of our sin, ask for forgiveness, trust in Jesus as God, and be changed. It’s no different than the young man who has a struggle with pornography and comes to church. He is a practicing sinner, but that doesn’t mean we kick him out of church. That’s not the point.

What IS the point is that like all other sin, the pattern of a homosexual life (thoughts, desires, actions) needs to be broken. Through Christ’s power that sin can be forgiven and that person can be transformed and given a new heart with new desires.

Q. Many times it is said that God’s love is unconditional…but that is not an actual adjective used in the Bible to describe it. Is His love truly unconditional? And if not, how should it be described?
The New Testament writers possessed a variety of words for love in the Koine Greek language of their period.

For example they had the availability of using storge, a word which represents family love or the love between subjects and their king.  Philia is another word representing love, which was evident within a reciprocal relationship.  Eros was not only a deity in Greek culture, but a word for love, avoided by bible writers.  But word that they choose, agape/agapo/agapao, seemed to be a little less used.  Maybe a little less defined.  So the believers in the first century, began to give this word, through the Holy Spirit, a greater, more advanced, and elevated meeting.

E.g. Romans 5.5 tells us that this love is “poured out” not rationed by God or by His followers.  Romans 8:35 emphasizes, “who shall separate us from the love of Christ”, and then the passage goes on to name a considerable list of things that are unable to separate us from the love of God.

1 Corinthians 13:9 tells us that “agape never fails”.  Definitely setting it apart from other varieties of love. 1 Corinthians 13:13 tells us that it is “greater than faith and hope”. Ephesians 3:19 explains that it “passes knowledge”

But probably the reason why followers of Jesus Christ confine and define this type of love to the idea of being unconditional…is because of the contextual definition provided by the bible itself as it speaks of the concept.

Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for all” Ephesians 5:2 “…as Christ also has loved us, and given Himself for us, and offering and a sacrifice…” Ephesians 5:25 “…as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her…”

So it seems evident, that Christ’s love is demonstrated by sacrifice, a personal sacrifice resulting in His own death. This sacrifice was not given conditionally.  Jesus died for the “world”, kosmos…world of people.  He died first, and then extended an invitation.  His sacrifice, this act of love was given unconditionally, but not without qualification. Love must be facilitated through “repentance and faith”, but it is still given. Love is offered first, and that is the point, Jesus died first, without condition.

Q. Matthew 5:17 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”-Jesus.  Does that mean that we should be following old testament law?  There is a lot of crazy stuff on the OT like you are supposed to stone your wife if you find out she’s not a virgin on your wedding night Deuteronomy 22:20 and also there is random stuff like “Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” Leviticus 19:19.  But then of course there are certain old laws that the early church decides no longer matter like eating kosher and circumcision.  How do we know what we can discard and what we must uphold?
The law was (is) very complicated and extensive.  At the time of Jesus it represented over 300 biblical instructions (those recorded in the Torah) and over 300 unwritten and later to be recorded human, traditional, additions called the Talmud which were later placed also into a written record.

The Torah represents certain legal compartments which can be understood as…

• Civil (land measurements and distributions, corporal and capital consequences, civil law things)
• Ceremonial (or religious, Sabbaths Ex 20:8, feasts and festivals Lev 23 etc., purification things, tithes)
• Moral (e.g. most of the 10 commandments, Ex 20 “not murder, not commit adultery, not steal”)

Israel was commanded to observe the Civil, Ceremonial and Moral laws of God to represent their distinction…their uniqueness (Ex 31:13 for example).

Jesus was a Jew, and therefore of course he would keep the law, the only person ever to live on earth who did, perfectly. Additionally, at times Jesus would have to clarify or re-interpret the law (just because Israel knew the law and attempted to observe it, didn’t mean they fully understood it) Jesus says “You have heard” Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43 and then he goes on to clarify. “Have you not read”  Matt 19:4 …and then he reminds them of things they were suppose to know.

The church is not Israel…a reading of the New Testament will support the church’s observance/obedience to the Moral law of the Old Testament, and that, of course, to reveal sons of God, not to produce sons of God.

Galatians 2:16 “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ”

Q. If we are not saved by works is it necessary or even beneficial to try to be perfect? Better yet what is the point if we are not actually trying to be perfect but just drawing an extremely conservative line by the world’s standards or even the standards of other Christians?
To begin to answer this we must know what a Christian is. A Christian is one who abides in Jesus and trust him not only in death but in everyday life, through repentance and trusting faith. Conservative or Liberal, in the end its all about how people relate to sin, God, and the Bible. If we want to call ourselves liberal towards sin and the Bible we therefore strip the strict bounds of God, Authority, moral absoluteness and justice. To say someone is Conservative should just mean towards sin, the Bible and God and that these are the authority in the matters of sin, God and the Bible.
We Rationalize Sin
Many people rationalize sin because of its social normative context, and don’t even question their actions as being wrong. In fact the only thing that shows them it is wrong is the Bible. This can be seen in the words people say. For example, in society it is deemed OK to curse, in fact we hear teachers all the time say whatever without a pause. Society doesn’t restrict this freedom; only God does, because it reveals the heart behind the words.
True Faith Leads To Good Works
James 2:14 is all about people who “say” they have faith but but their lives prove they don’t. A true Christ follower abides in Christ (John 15:4-6) and produces the fruit by Him. True faith equals true works. So yes, biblically we are called to strive after perfection (Matthew 5:48), it is the desire of one who abides in Christ. Will we slip and mess up, yes (romans 7:15) but does that give us an excuse? Certainly not (Romans 6:1-2).  We see that we as Christians have every resource to learn,  develop and grow away from sin through that which is in the Scriptures (2 tim 3:16-17). We know we won’t be able to reach perfection here but this is no excuse to deny the command and strive after its divine calling for us (Philippians 3:12).
Priorities
Its all about priorities from here on out; living under human standards or being self disciplined. Allowing God to change us and adapting to his standards (Romans 12:1). This is the true nature of a christian, “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25). Thank God he gives us his Spirit to allow us to live this life, because we cannot do this on our own.

Q. You know how people say “Even if you were the only person to become a Christian God loves you so much that he would have still sent Jesus to die for you” I sometimes wonder if God really loved us so much wouldn’t you think that he would be willing to give up all of creation if even one person was going to go to hell? Imagine you wanted to have children but there was a 75% chance that they would not know about you or not choose you and if they were in that 75% they would have long miserable lives spent being tortured and alone.  Wouldn’t the selfless thing to do be to not have sex, not have kids, and not have anyone tortured?  Hell seems like that times infinity.  I don’t understand how God can love people so much and yet keep creating creatures who will end up being subjected to eternal torture.
Defining the Dilemma
The dilemma expressed in the statement above represents probably one of the most common objections brought against the Christian worldview: that “a loving God would not send people (people who He created) to Hell.”  However, embedded in this objection is a problem with the definition of the word “love” as it is here being applied to God.  Certainly, God is loving (Psalm 36:7, 1 John 4:16), but He is loving in every sense of the word, not simply in a sense which ensures our uninterrupted pleasure.

We seem ever-ready to accept the image of a God who is loving toward us in a romantic, Utopian way, yet unwilling to accept the notion of a God who loves us enough to meddle in our business, or correct us on our errant courses.  The only source of the idea that God is perfectly loving is contained in the Bible itself.  Ironically, this is the same source which informs us that God is perfectly just as well.
God’s Love and God’s Justice
And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?  “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him.  For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?  If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?  For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 
If we are ready to accept the idea of God as a God of love, we cannot patronize Him as a lover who wills only our continuous comfort.  To do so would be to shape and worship a therapeutic yet useless god, made in our image, and “loving” towards us on our own terms.  To ask God for His love without His guidance and discipline is to ask Him not to love us more, but less.
Probability vs. Providence
The questioner asks, “if God really loved us, wouldn’t He be willing to not have created anything in order that no one would go to Hell?”

First, if God had not created us, there would be none of us to love.  This is a nonsensical, backwards scenario, and nonsense is still nonsense even when you try to apply it to God.

Second, God does not work with probabilities.  He did not have to calculate the percentages of people who would accept Him, versus those who would reject Him.  He knew what would result from the creation, and that a great deal of people would reject Him.  Yet, because God’s glorification is all that matters from beginning to end, He deemed it proper to create a world in which some people would have the opportunity to love Him of their own volition.  Any sort of objection that this makes God an ego-centric tyrant misses the point: He is God; all honor, glory and praise is His alone.  He is incapable of selfishness because there is nothing else which deserves honor and glory more than Himself.

Third, the fall of mankind (of which Hell was a result) was the doing of man, not of God. Some would object that God could have done things another way, which might have avoided Hell altogether.  C. S. Lewis speaks to this idea directly: “Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you will find that you have excluded life itself.”*
The Greatest Mystery
The fact of the matter is that you cannot dissect the character of God, elevating that which you approve, and indicting that which you do not.  The correct reaction to encountering God is not to feel emotionally satisfied by His love; it is to fall on our faces in reverent fear of His holiness.  Nor can we question his extent of His justness simply because he grants some people their greatest wish: not to be bothered by Him.  When you understand this, you will realize the real mystery is not that a loving God could allow the possibility of Hell, but how that magnificent God could allow any of us to enter Heaven.

____________________
*Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain (HarperCollins: New York, 1940) p.25

Q. If you honestly devote yourself to getting plugged into a church, life groups, studies on your own time, prayer and group prayers; like really dig into a church and seek after God, and adjust your life to the Word and He doesn’t reveal himself….whats the issue then? I’ve heard many testimonies about seeking and seeking and seeking after him and just never feeling his presence.
It seems as though in this instance we are dealing with a lack of feeling God’s presence in one’s life. Theologically speaking, there is no gray area with a person who is a true disciple of Christ and who isn’t. We know that through what Mark 1:15 and Acts 20:21 tell us, we can accept the free gift of salvation that God offers by repenting and believing. We also know through Scripture that once a person has genuinely committed their life to Jesus, they cannot forfeit or lose that position (Ephesians 1:13-14; Romans 8:38).

The items listed within the question itself can all be accomplished without truly understanding Christ’s message of truth. These items can all be done out of a false sense of security and sadly, in many cultures, these sorts of things are done merely out of some type of a cultural, governmental, or family obligation. Even James 2:19 tells us that “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe–and tremble!” James is stating that even demons believe in God, but they obviously have rebelled and turned their back on Him so they miss the whole point.
It’s Not About What We “Do”
For those who feel like they are trying to “do things right,” it is not about that. Romans 3:10 says that “There is none righteous, no, not one,” so we know that we can’t do anything on our own to make ourselves be in good standing with God. And others might say, I just want to feel God in my life. Well, feelings many times are subjective and temporal. We can’t expect to find answers from God in the clouds or on billboards. Faith is what the Bible says it is: “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1).

We must come to the point in our lives where doing a ton of good things like going to church, helping old ladies across streets, building homes for people, and feeding the homeless aren’t going to give us the feeling of connection we need with God. Even if we are attempting with all of our might to feel God, if it is done with an improper foundation, it is useless. We must be realistic about the situation rather than emotional. Objectivity, rather than subjectivity in this case leads us to the heart of the matter: that we are sinners, undeserving of knowing, much less being able to feel God; and yet, God, showed us so much love that He sacrificed Himself for us. If our focus is on the Gospel (in greek – euangello – good message – 1 Cor. 15:1-4), then we won’t be worrying about having some type of an emotional connection with God. We will see our situation for what it really is. We will see God for who He really is. We will base our coming to God off of reason, not emotions. The emotional component will come later, as it does with any relationship.

Q. The Bible claims that man was made from the dirt, which leaves no room for evolution from apes. But what about the rest of the species? Is it possible that Noah had every kind of animal, meaning every kind of animal from which today’s species evolved?
Apologetically, most evangelicals believe in micro evolution (as opposed to macro evolution)…minor variations that have and are happening as the years go by.  The bible probably doesn’t speak to this issue, but does reference the migration of mankind (the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth…who their descendants were…and where they geographically gravitated to, and how they developed ethnically, Genesis 10).

As people transitioned ethnically, animals went through micro transitions as well.  But the basic types of animal life that were created by God from the beginning of human history, was established and recorded in Genesis Chapter 2.

Q. Why were the dinosaurs not in the bible?
Although the bible does not use the specific word “dinosaur”, scripture does reference two unusually huge creatures that fit the description:
Behomoth
Job 40:15-19 “behemoth” (Hebrew: בַּהֲמוֹת bĕhemowth): large, land quadrupeds.

Notice the discription…
Verse 16 “his strength is in his hips”
Verse 17 “He moves his tail like a cedar” (elephant, hippos, etc. have little tails)
Verse 18 “His bones are like beams of bronze”
Verse 19 “He is the first of the ways of God” (Core creation of God, not a mutation?)
Leviathan
Job 41:1, 2 “leviathan” (Hebrew: לִוְיָתָן, livyathan) slithering animal, serpent , dragon, any very large aquatic creature

Notice the description…
Verse 1 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook, or snare his tongue with a line which you lower”
Verse 2 “Can you put a reed through his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook?” (Would the answer be “no” because leviathan is too large?)
Psalm 104:26 “There the ships sail about, that leviathan, which you have made to play there” (Large bodies of water where ships sail…that is where leviathan habitation is)
Isaiah 27:1 “Leviathan that twisted serpent, and he will slaythe reptile that is in the sea”
God’s Greatness On Display
Remember, the bible is not simply an encyclopedia meant to document every detail of every creature and event in history. It is more importantly an historical account of God’s creation, human history, our fall into sin, and God’s rescue mission for his creation through the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. And with everything God created, there is a purpose. Regarding these large creatures mentioned above, the contexts seem to operate around the premise of these creatures reflecting the greatness and competency of God.

Q. There are many inconsistencies between the different gospels.  How do you account for them?  Doesn’t that prove that they are inherently wrong?
Clarifying Terms
First, we have to clarify what is meant by the word “inconsistencies.”  If by this we mean that one Gospel might include details which another omits, then really this question is a non-issue.  Whenever you have multiple reports of a single event, there will always be variances in details, yet the essential facts of the matter (if the witnesses are authentic) remain the same.

In fact, the subtle distinctions within the Gospels amount to simply more evidence for their factuality.  If the Gospels were exactly the same, the claim would be leveled that the writers conspired to produce four uniform books, without independently checking their facts.  Any historian is immediately skeptical when reviewing separate accounts of an event which are exactly the same.

Realistically, all of us understand this.  If two students submit book reviews which address exactly the same sections and passages within the same book (with no variances in perspective or content) the professor will immediately be suspicious that they did not research the material themselves, but instead collaborated.

Consider the conclusion of Harvard Law professor Simon Greenleaf on the variances within the Gospels: “There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they were all independent narrators of the same great transaction.”*
Contradictions?
The real intent of this question is most likely to bring up alleged “contradictions” within the Gospels.  While the answer to that allegation would be better found in the scores of books and online resources written to address it, it should be noted that supposed “contradictions” in the Gospels (or the entire Bible for that matter) have been raised and refuted for about the last 1,500 years.  By this point, there are no new objections left to raise.  The moderators of this forum invite further questions pertaining to specific passages which might be considered contradictions.

_______________________
*Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984).