Without wanting to inflame your sense of aggravation, I would suggest to you (Matt) that your confusion comes from cherry-picking statements from two separate arguments. In the first argument, I was suggesting that it is generally unwise to make the blanket statement "God love [fill in the blank]" because He has a number of other reactions that are also at play. So with regards to your question can we not make a statement that God loves someone or something without an asterisk, I would suggest that in today's culture, it is unwise to do so.

In the second argument, I was going back to my previous statement regarding the "gay gene." If you ask me "Does God love a sinner who struggles with the sin of homosexuality," I would tend to say "yes, He does," but that love is not unconditional in the sense that His love has been expressed in the form of Christ, who demands some sort of answer of faith. If you ask me "Does God love a homosexual," I would tend (within an envangelical context, not within an evangelistic context) to say, "No" because within our culture the use of the word homosexual implies more than someone who partakes in a particular activity. It implies someone who is powerless to alter their behavior because they were born that way. And I don't buy it. So within an evangelical context (like we have here on the Hobo Signs), I will call you out on the use of language.

Take this entirely out of the context of what we are talking about. Think about my ministry field and the issue of abortion. Culture has labeled the two options "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life." But this is completley bogus. Both sides argue that there is a legitimate choice to be made. One asks you to make a choice in favor of another human being. The other side asks you to make a choice in favor of yourself. In either case, a choice is made. But by labeling one side as "pro-choice," culture implicitly suggests that the other side is against you having a choice. They want to dominate you and force you into a state of slavery to the Judeo-Christian ethic (If you think I'm being dramatic, read the bioethicist Peter Singer and the movement founder Margaret Sanger).

At stake here is the issue of labels and the issue of power. In my opinion, you use of the commonly accepted label carries with it an implied sense of powerlessness. That's all. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that. Maybe you did. I don't know ...

And Greg, as for you comments regarding my decision to talk about science, two comments for you. One, Satinover is not an evangelical. He's not even a Christian. So this isn't sloppy "Christain" science. Take a look at his resume and the article and tell me that he isn't speaking a scientist's language. Secondly, when the culture proclaims that there is a "gay gene" (and that is not my phrase, but a phrase used in many journals and magazines), it does me no good to say: "But the Bible says ..." This is an issue of apologetics. Culture isn't concerned with what the Bible says. So we talk in a languauge -- in this case, the language of science -- to say: "Hey, the evidence ain't there to support what you are saying. So before you promote this in schools as a hard fact, get your science straight." As for me, I believe that Scripture is authoritative and I do not base my understanding of the subject upon the foundations of science. I base it on Scripture. Then, from there, I go to science to have the conversation with people who are convinced that science has said something significant.