This is probably going to backfire on the network. The media has been pushing hard for homosexuality to be completely accepted as "normal" and to frame all those who disagree as "bad" people and bigots some time. While they have made significant strides toward shifting public opinion to match their point of view they are not all together there yet. They are overreaching on this one as the biblical point of view on homosexuality that he expressed is not yet as widely rejected and despised as they wish it would be. There are still a lot of even completely secular people who find it disgusting and morally objectionable even though they may not have the nerve to say so publicly.
Your experience has been different then mine. Most of the ones I have run across have been between somewhat and quite knowledgeable of the bible. They knew what it said and either ignored it or intentionally misrepresent and misinterpret it to fit their choices.
Other than in the media I don't see a great deal of that anyway. Secondly, just about any homosexual at a pro-homosexual rally is proud of it and likely to be extremely unreceptive to the truth no matter how it is presented. They are there to make sure their wickedness is shoved in the face of everyone else. The vast majority at such a event are very solidly in the Romans 1:24-32 category. If you talk to them at all, no matter how politely, you will generally see that very quickly. There comes a point where people get so messed up and so evil that it really doesn't matter how you present the truth. A reprobate mind is unreachable by anyone or anything. Lot didn't have much success with the "nice guy" approach while living in sodom. Of course it is possible for a homosexual to repent and be saved, however it is a very infrequent occurrence because most do seem to have a reprobate mind.
I see what your saying here to be an ever increasing refrain among professing Christians and very honestly I don't like it one bit. I think it is either a intentional or unintentional effort to bring the Christian world view a little "closer" to the modern acceptance of homosexuality in the western world. Yes, it is indeed quite true that any sin will send someone who has not trusted in Christ to hell but some sins are indeed "worse" than others and are frequently indicative of a exceptionally deep level of depravity. God overthrew Sodom & Gomorrah to make an example of them when that sort of sin was extremely widespread. The nation of Israel almost wiped out one of their own tribes, the tribe of Benjamin, at one point for the same level of depravity when it existed on a broad scale in that tribe. Homosexuality is a extremely serious, extremely depraved and wicked sort of sin. It is one of the sins, along with murder, that in biblical history hastens the filling up of Gods cup of wrath and brings national judgment when it is widely practiced and accepted. It isn't exactly a ho, hum, you went 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and that is wrong but we are all sinners and nobody is perfect sort of thing. I relatively recently heard a preacher at a large "progressive" rock and roll(IMHO) type church in the greenville sc area preach on the subject of homosexuality. To his credit, at least he did say flat out that it was wrong. What definitely was not to his credit though was the timid, apologetic way in which he said it. He then proceeded to spend twice as much time preaching against "homophobia" and did that with much more enthusiasm and strong words. All he was doing was reflecting cultural pressure. I find it funny in a way that when you break down the term "homophobia" it literally means the fear of man, and that is exactly what bowing to cultural pressure is, the fear of men and what they will say. Of course when the term is used in our culture it is applied to those who actually are not afraid of man and are not embarrassed to say that "men with men working that which is unseemly" as scripture puts it, is a immoral, vile and utterly repulsive activity. I guess I am saying don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. More and more Christians are getting to where they are afraid to call a spade a spade in this area and try to sugar coat it. Some things can't and shouldn't be sugar coated. This is one of those areas where the modern western world is going to hate bible believing Christians for what they stand for. It is not avoidable, it just goes with the territory. We just need to accept that is the way it is, deal with it, and go from there.
Your loosing the youth with or without "hymnal only". The only question is what are you loosing them to? My suspicion is that many conservative churches are essentially like the Church at Sardis and loose the youth in part for that reason, however, what they loose them to tends to be either the world outright or Laodicean like churches. If A Sardis like church is loosing its youth to the world and Laodicean like churches the answer is not become more like the world and Laodicean like Churches, the answer is get right with God, get real, and be something worth having and being rather than being just a empty talking shell. Converting from the church of sardis to the the church of laodicea does no one any good, it just trades one set of problems for another. That is why so often there is a progression in youth that start out in a conservative church, move to a more liberal church, then end up quitting on God and churches all together. They see dead liberalism isn't really any better than dead conservatism and just get to where they don't see anything worth having at all.
In and into have overlapping meanings in english. I can say "I went into my house" or I can say "I went in my house". Both can mean the same thing. Into might be a little clearer way of saying it, but it is still saying the same thing. If that is the sort of difference your talking about that is no difference at all. I imagine greater differences than that arise simply in trying to find a word in a different language that is as close to being equivalent as possible.
My understanding is that there are minor differences between the various editions of the TR, but for the most part they are on the level of the differences between say a 1611 edition KJV and a 1769 edition KJV. In other words pretty much the same thing. When you get into other text lines though obviously the differences get much bigger very quickly.
Well like you say there can be considerable overlap but here are some of the differences of which I am aware, at least the ones that are most likely to cause friction between the groups. Of course these are just my perception and other peoples mileage may vary.
BJU type camp. Very rarely KJVO, older generation does frequently use the KJV even though not KJVO, younger generation rarely uses the KJV at all. They usually range from downright antagonistic to the KJVO position to subtly undercutting it by saying that it is a "good translation" but this was translated wrong, that was a copyist error, this could be translated better blah blah blah. A strong focus on academics which isn't in and of itself bad but something that long ago drifted into being to smart by half & bible correcting. Many in this group formerly had strong music and dress standards, some still do, but it is definitely on the way out overall as the younger generation is overwhelmingly dumping both. Many are being influenced by Calvinism and there appears to be a rapid drifting toward neo-evangelical & ecumenical sort of doctrine/philosophy and practice across the board particularly in the younger generation.
Hyles type camp. Typically KJVO. Very strong focus on pastor authority, strong on evangelism, however in zeal for evangelism a "numbers" focus frequently exists and often people end up being led in prayers when the gospel has not been fully and completely presented. As a result many people are led in prayers when they really are not yet ready to be saved leading to a "inoculation" against the gospel and false assurance of salvation. Also, while a pretty common fault in all camps, pastors in this group tend to be among the worst for "preaching" stories that make good preaching but are not really the truth.
Crown type camp. Probably what I personally am closest to though I did not attend college there and am not directly connected to those circles. Tends to be KJVO, some non- KJVO mixed in, preaches repentance. Pretty much has sound doctrine IMHO. Sort of the leftovers of the more conservative elements of Tennessee temple when it when liberal. Possibly one of the biggest common flaws IMHO is a desire to mingle and fellowship and "get along" perhaps overmuch with the other "camps" and downplay doctrinal differences. That type of thing inevitably ends up changing the doctrine eventually just as happened with Tennessee temple.
Ruckmanites. VERY VERY VERY KJVO. Believe the KJV was translated by direct divine inspiration. Typically regard the greek and hebrew scriptures as corrupted and view the KJV as the standard and basis for any translation work into other languages not the greek & hebrew. Also frequently display a highly obnoxious attitude. Many also have assorted ideas that are pretty strange that they picked up from ruckman himself though most of them don't hold to everything he teaches since he gets really, really weird in some areas.
There are a number of other "camps" that have various degrees of overlap with some of the ones I just mentioned but those are the ones that I have personal experience with. It should also be noted that while the "camps" don't see eye to eye on a number of issues most do maintain quite a bit of contact with each other even though they also fight with each other quite a bit.
People have been working on this sort of thing for a long time and I didn't mean gimmick in the sense it wouldn't fire, I meant gimmick in the sense it would have little accuracy and probably a very short useful life before it was totally unusable and or dangerous to the shooter. Not a whole lot different than making a zip gun for a low pressure round out of stuff you can buy at a home improvement store. People who have a need for a gun but can't get a better one legally for what ever reason have been building homemade guns for ages all over the world. Thing is, such guns are typically vastly inferior to commercially produced guns, are often unreliable, and are most frequently used in crime or poorly funded resistance movements. This gun seems to be pretty much the same thing at this point, except since it is plastic and "printable" it might be easier to mass produce than traditional zip type guns. At some point technology might improve enough to move "printable" guns beyond the zip gun status, but that technology is not here yet.
Oh please. lol Insofar as I know no one here has any reason to say anything negative about BJU that is untrue. We don't wish for things to be this way, it is just that that is how things are. Some of my best bible teachers growing up were BJU grads, grads of 40 + years or so ago now. Same as with tennessee temple. Lot of good bible teachers came out of there many years ago, but it is nothing like it was at one time. Now tennessee temple is a mess. I truly wish the BJU of today wasn't the way that it is. To illustrate that point I will say that the only girl I ever cared about is a BJU grad, her father was a pastor in the area for many years, and she & her family are heavily involved in those circles. I believe she works at the wilds these days. We got along well, she was/is a sweet girl, and I was willing to stretch few things for her, but while we got along well & she said I was a "great guy" ultimately she turned me down and told me it was because I was too conservative. Primarily meaning I was KJVO, my views on pants on women(which was an area we both were willing to move some on if we had to) and possibly my music standards which were a little stricter. Nobody was mad at anybody, and I felt it was a highly unfortunate but at the same time very understandable situation. Never dated/courted anyone else before or since and while I don't rule it out I still don't really have any desire to do so and I don't know that I ever will. The BJU crowd by and large just isn't very conservative at all anymore and has not been for some time. That is pretty much just a fact. About the only thing left that is still conservative is the music and that is rapidly changing.