Homosexuality

[day]

It is amazing that Christians say we are no longer bound by law. Revelation states that it is those who keep the commandments of God and have the testamony of Jesus who are saved. God knows we are often not very good at listening to the Holy Spirit, He would not leave us without another source of moral direction.

 

[Axehead]

"keep the commandments of God". How often we have heard this verse used inappropriately (and without understanding).

This is another favorite proof-text of those advocating continued efficacy of the Law (I John 2:3,4 - "We know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.") The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Well, if we make these commandments synonymous with OT Law then we are all LIARS.

"Keeping His commandments" is not synonymous with keeping all the commandments of the Old Testament Law.

When Jesus spoke of keeping His commandments as an imperative it carried with it the understanding that He, Himself, is the keeper of His own commands and the dynamic of all His commands to us by His Spirit. When one is now walking in obedience to the Spirit within him, the character of Christ is outworked and manifested in the believer and is evidence that the believer "knows Him" in personal relationship, union, communion and intimacy. Christ will lead us by His Spirit to "put to death the deeds of the flesh" (Rom 8:13) and "walk in love" with Him and others, (Eph 5:2). It also signifies that the personal Truth of Jesus Christ (John 14:6) dwells in us, which is the ONLY WAY anyone can manifest the character of God. This IS being led by the Spirit as we "obey the commandments" of the "Living Torah" Who dwells in us.

John later writes, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Those who advocate continued law-keeping usually define sin as the failure to keep the Old Testament Law. What they have done without knowing it is what the Pharisees did and that is to equate the LAW with GOD. They had deified the LAW. But, the Bible is clear that God does not define sin as merely a violation of Law, but as that which violates and is contrary to His character. The Law revealed this partially in its essential purpose. The "mark that is missed" in sin is not a Law target, BUT THE CHARACTER OF GOD.

Again in I John 5:2,3, John urges Christians to "love God and observe His commandments. This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." The keeping of God's commandments is fulfilled in the inworking of the Holy Spirit and the outworking of that LIFE (Christ's life) in Christian behavior. Loving character is the fulfillment of the Law. The scripture is clear about this. (Rom. 13:8,10; Gal. 5:14). The character of the "God who is love" (I John 4:8,16) is manifested in the Christian. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom He has given us" (Rom. 5:5).


Rather than producing righteousness, the Law brought only guilt (James 2:10), condemnation (II Cor. 3:9), "curse" (Gal. 3:10) and "wrath" (Rom. 4:15). It fulfilled its purpose and it had its day of glory (II Cor. 3:7-11). "The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). "The Law and the prophets were proclaimed until John (the Baptist), since then the gospel of the kingdom is proclaimed" (Luke 16:16). "All the prophets and the Law prophesied until John (the Baptist)" (Matt. 11:13).

The law did not die of "old age", rather God instituted the Law with planned obsolescence. The law was terminated at a divinely terminated time and that time was the death and resurrection of Christ. "Christ is the end of the Law..." (Rom. 10:4). But that is not all that happened at His death and resurrection.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, "I came to fulfill the Law" (Matt. 5:17). In other words, "I came to fill the Law full; to bring to full fruition all that the Law pointed to pictorially and custodially." When did all that God intended for the restoration of His creation in mankind happen or take place? In the death, resurrection, ascension and Pentecostal outpouring of Jesus Christ. God's purposes for the Law were accomplished in Jesus Christ.

And with His death, resurrection, ascension and Pentecostal outpouring, ​

God's purpose for the restoration of His life to man and IN MAN was also accomplished.​

Christ is the END OF THE LAW.​

​

IT IS FINISHED!!​

​

Know Christ, know Life​

​

No Christ, no Life. ​

 

[dragonfly]

Hi KCKID,

I didn't mean to sound like a sermon, but sometimes it's the shortest route through all that needs to be said. I need to make my reply quite short.

Regarding homosexuals having a choice, the very word 'homosexual' is a mis-nomer which supports the idea that they are more different than they are, and then that makes it seem unfair to suggest they should have to do anything as radical as give up a sexual partner in order to live Godly. But they are no more being victimised by this suggestion than the vast majority of heterosexuals who have committed fornication freely - until they turned to Christ.

I do accept that many 'homosexuals' 'feel' that they have always been 'different'. Again I say, they are like anyone else who is descended from Adam, who became prey to unclean spirits. These are, indeed, very strong spirits, but not stronger than Christ to deliver them from them. The choice, therefore, is to turn to Christ. It's the same choice that is given to any person hearing the gospel. The power of the Lord to restore them to their right mind, is just the same as it was when Legion ran and worshipped him, before he was delivered from his evil spirits.

My guess is you won't like this mention of unclean spirits, but I tell you the truth. The spiritual stronghold is what makes the feelings so convincing as to deceive the 'homosexual' into thinking it is him/her who has these feelings, when really, they are being played like a harp by other entities.

Your phrase about us all being still 'in our sin', didn't come from the New Testament. It may be popular theology, but it is unbiblical.

So, to re-iterate, even if 'homosexuals' are convinced of their one-ness with their drive towards another of the same anatomy, the fact is that gender is acquired, (Check a dictionary.) and through the power of Christ they can acquire a new pure gender, which lines up with their body, perfectly.

Lastly, there is no place in scripture where the idea that a homosexual cannot change/be changed, either exists or prevails. Those who died under God's wrath also had had a choice, but they mocked the word of truth and reaped the apposite result.

 

[KCKID]

It is amazing that Christians say we are no longer bound by law. Revelation states that it is those who keep the commandments of God and have the testamony of Jesus who are saved. God knows we are often not very good at listening to the Holy Spirit, He would not leave us without another source of moral direction.

Do you really believe that we need a written Law to keep us on 'the straight and narrow'? While there ARE some legalities/technicalities involved for driving a vehicle on the road it's mainly reliance on our common sense with regard to driving our vehicle in a safe manner while showing consideration for other road users. A Driver's Manual cannot teach us to consider others. Similarly so with the Bible or, as some might call it, the Moral Manual. It can advise but it cannot make us consider the well-being of others. While Jesus can advise/instruct us to love our neighbor this should already be 'a given'. "I'd best start to love my neighbor because the Bible says to do so ...or else!" should not be the reason people uphold the Law of Love which is, after all, the culmination of ALL the Law. So, no 'written Law' should be necessary as long as we use our God-given minds with which to reason. Most, if not all, of us have at least some capacity to love others as well as having the desire to be loved by others.

Since you disagree that we are no longer bound by the Law, do YOU, therefore, keep the WHOLE Law? You need to keep ALL the Law (have you read Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.?) otherwise there is no point to what you say. While I don't mean any disrespect, I'm always slightly bemused when anyone brings up what you bring up in your post. Can YOU honestly say that you keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus? You do realize, do you not, that Jesus cancelled out those harsh and endless (Old Testament) commandments of God? Besides, what does the Law have to do with one's sexual orientation? The Law, per se, was nailed to the cross with Jesus. Otherwise Jesus' sacrifice has no meaning.

 

[Foreigner]

Well, I guess we could keep going around in circles here. I would just suggest that in future any claim that any of us can't back up just forget it.

-- And I would suggest you should not call on someone to provide something you yourself cannot (or worse, are unwilling to) provide.

Still waiting on you to provide scripture where Jesus speaks against abortion, beating your wife, or selling your children into slavery.

Because if you can't, then you CANNOT claim someone is wrong in saying Jesus opposes homosexual marraige just because they don't provide you the scripture you demand. It really is that simple...

Yes, in some cases, pretty much. I don't see a committed relationship between two people of the same gender to be immoral but you apparently do. You apparently don't see someone on their second or third marriage to be immoral - and nor do I - but the scriptures (Jesus, in fact) term this as adultery.

-- That "committed relationship" you "see" involves the sanctioning of an act that God feels is "immoral" every time they physically/sexually show love for one another.

Unlike sex between a married heterosexual couple compared to a non-married heterosexual couple, the sex act between homosexuals is "an abomination" to God, regardless of whether they are in a committed relationship or not.

I am sorry you are unable to grasp that very simple, but very important point.

The Sambian Tribe of the New Guinea Highlands perform a culture of sexual rituals between men and boys in order to make future warriors out of the boys. This results in what we would refer to as both gay sex and pedophilia but the Sambians don't regard this as anything immoral.

-- So what exactly is your point? If they don't consider it immoral then it isn't immoral?
That would mean non-Christians will be excused from any sin they commit that they themselves do not consider a sin or immoral, as long as their personal motives were "good." Nope.

I find it immoral that sports icons are paid vast sums of money while so many others in the world are suffering (some starving to death) because they can't afford the bare essentials. I find it immoral that our gluttenous society wastes so much food on a daily basis that could supply these very same people with nourishment and sustainance but we don't even give it a thought. We're too busy watching crap like Master Chef and other banal shows on TV to ever consider giving to these 'the least of my brethren' as instructed by Jesus.

-- You don't seem to realize that you are judging these people in the same way you are criticizing others for judging.
There's a word for that...

And yet, as soon as 'homosexuality' is mentioned the eyes of Christians roll over in their heads as they get off on their feeding frenzy bleating on about God, Jesus, immorality, sin, sin, sin . . .etc. etc. I find this alone to be immoral but I guess you don't.

-- So, just to be sure. If a Christian voices their opinion (based on God's Word), on homosexuality - regardless of how they voice it - they are doing this?
(Psssst...unsubstantiated over-generalizations have the opposite effect of what you were going for.)

I believe that Jesus would respond in a similar manner to that of the adultress woman and her accusers. I believe that Jesus would stoop down and begin to write their own cherished sins in the dirt. Then He would rise and ask for a show of hands from these self righteous Christians as to who of them had never sinned. They would be humbled and leave the scene with their tails between their legs.

-- This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ is your response to my question, "Do you really think that Jesus wants Christians putting the seal of approval on homosexual marraige?" Your little bout of 'deflection rhetoric' did not disguise the fact that you chose not to answer the question. Please do so.

Oh, and you seem to forget the part where Jesus told the adultress to "go and sin no more."
The only way the point you were trying to make could possibly be valid is if Jesus were telling homosexuals the exact same thing.

The love and commitment between two people cannot be a sin. Jesus = L-O-V-E. That's all we need to know as far as I'm concerned.

-- So, by your very words then, God does not see it as a sin when two heterosexual people live together and are sexually active but aren't married.

-- And if a 40 year old man and a 14 year old girl are in love and "committed" to each other and want to marry and start a family right away, God must give a thumbs-up to that too, right?

-- And if a mother and her son want to have the same loving and committed relationship, including marraige, God smiles down on that too then, right?

Because if any one of these are wrong in God's eyes, then your entire statement about "love and commitment between two people cannot be sin" is made immediately void.

And that would further prove that you are wrong when you say, "That's all we need to know as far as I'm concerned."




.

 

[Rach1370]

Amen Foreigner. I do wonder sometimes why people insist on basing "love" on human standards. True biblical love MUST be based on God, on his enduring faithful love. If our 'love' is in any way defying God's word, it cannot...in any way...be 'love' that God approves of. Why do some Christians and others get so angry at us for simply repeating this and remaining faithful to it...it's HIS word and ruling, not ours! It's not our standard we are talking about here....it's Gods. It's got nothing to do with us at all!

And the very simple fact is this: if we follow the word of God and believe his gospel, then people living in sin, are enslaved to sin. As Christians we don't want to puff ourselves up and proclaim ourselves more righteous or superior...that's simply not true....we want these people to be free. Free from behaviours that are stopping them from having a relationship with Jesus. A relationship that is the only redemption in this life.

Is 'love' and affection good for all people? Of course....but it cannot come at the cost of their souls. Any Christians who would sit back and encourage them in such devastating actions are well wishing them into hell.

 

[KCKID]

Well, this forum is not the most user friendly one that I've ever come across. I just responded to your above post, Foreigner, and was told that I posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text ...whatever that means . . .*sigh*

So, I have no idea how to submit my post to you . . .I guess I'll lose it all if I log off which I have to at some point. I HAVE saved it to Microsoft Word but that doesn't do much good in getting it posted on to the forum. Any suggestions anyone . . .?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi KC,

I have two suggestions, if you're still online. One would be to post half of your post and see it if will fly. Then I will thank you. Then post the rest of it.

Or, to keep it all in one place, if you highlight some of the quote boxes (one by one) copy the text and undo them, you could paste the text in the same space again, with speech marks. It will mean the same as a quote box.

Over to you.

 

[KCKID]

Hi KC,

I have two suggestions, if you're still online. One would be to post half of your post and see it if will fly. Then I will thank you. Then post the rest of it.

Or, to keep it all in one place, if you highlight some of the quote boxes (one by one) copy the text and undo them, you could paste the text in the same space again, with speech marks. It will mean the same as a quote box.

Over to you.

Thanks dragonfly, I appreciate the help. I'm off to bed now but will try to do as you suggest tomorrow.

G'night . . .

 

[Axehead]

John later writes, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Those who advocate continued law-keeping usually define sin as the failure to keep the Old Testament Law. What they have done without knowing it is what the Pharisees did and that is to equate the LAW with GOD. They had deified the LAW. But, the Bible is clear that God does not define sin as merely a violation of Law, but as that which violates and is contrary to His character. The Law revealed this partially in its essential purpose. The "mark that is missed" in sin is not a Law target, BUT THE CHARACTER OF GOD.

I think we have to be careful about turning the Bible into a "Religious Wikipedia".

Some things you will not find in the Bible spelled out in black and white the way an unbeliever "wants" to see it. Sin is not just the transgression of the Law but also anything that goes against the Character of God. Once, one has the Spirit of God they will be able to "SEE" the character of God in the Bible and know it in their spirit.

Natural man (devoid of the Spirit) actually uses the Bible to justify their sin. Even those things in the Bible that are "black and white", men will argue against.

Axehead

P.S. Christians should not get stressed out if they can't prove something from the Bible to the world.

P.P.S With that said, we have plenty from the Bible even for natural man to understand. That is why I agree with Dragonfly that homosexuality involves spirits (not of God).

What the Bible says:

Gen. 19:1-11 -"we may have relations with them" (inhospitality? sexual obsession for strangers?
homosexuality? - cf. Ezek. 16:49; II Peter 2:6; Jude 7

Lev. 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female"
Lev. 20:13 - "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a women, both of them
have committed a detestable act; they shall be put to death"

Deut. 22:5 - "a woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing" (transvestitism)

Judges 19:22 - "bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him"

I Kings 14:24 - "there were male cult prostitutes in the land"
I Kings 15:12 - "he put away the male cult prostitutes from the land"

Rom. 1:26,27 - "women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the
same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire
towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own
persons the due penalty of their error"

I Cor. 6:9 - "do you not know...effeminate, nor homosexuals...shall inherit the kingdom of God" (Greek malakos - passive, effeminate, soft homosexual partner; Greek arsenokoites - active, aggressive homosexual partner)

I Tim. 1:10 - "immoral men and homosexuals...whatever else is contrary to sound teaching"

The Biblical position on homosexuality is sin because it is contrary to God's intent for human sexuality.

1. God divided mankind into male and female, made to fit together - Gen. 1:27; 2:18
2. God's intent is heterosexual relationship between one man and one woman in context of marriage - Gen. 2:23,24.

Homosexuality is

1. unnatural - Rom 1:26
2. indecent - Rom. 1:27
3. detestable - Lev. 20:13
4. "degrading passion", insatiable lust - Rom. 1:26
5. abomination - Lev. 18:22; 20:13
6. immoral - porneia - Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 6:3
7. rebellion against God
8. idolatry - obsessive preoccupation - Rom. 1:25
9. abnormal, aberration, perversion

Homosexuality is sin because it is contrary to character of God.
1. God's character is purity - Ps. 18:26
2. Homosexuality is impurity - akatharsia - Rom. 1:24
3. Homosexuality is dishonoring to God - Rom. 1:21
4. Homosexuality rejects the absoluteness and sovereignty of God

Homosexuality is sin because it comes under divine judgment.
1. Sodom and Gomorrah - Gen. 19; II Pet. 2:6; Jude 7
2. due penalty of error - Rom. 1:27
3. shall not inherit kingdom of God - I Cor. 6:9

 

[Rex]

Bringing the letter of the law as a witness to some that deny that Homosexulaity is a sin is not the answer. The polls in this thread tell astory in itself.



Is homosexuality a sin?

1. Yes 117
2. No 9

9 people don't believe its a sin.
Lets look a little deeper at the debate between the law of the Spirit and the letter of the law. I first want to point out that there is no outward distinction between walking in the Spirit and observing the law. The two will for all apparent purposes look holy.

7 What shall we say then? Is
the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin
except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless
the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[a] 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

The Spirit convicts us of the same "law" the difference being some observe the law out of the letter never being convicted in the heart but observing the law simply because it is written "say hello to the Pharisees"
My point is the Spirit does not convict us more or less concerning the law but is in complete agreement with it for it is born of the Spirit Romans 7:14

In that I see people that appear to walk in the Spirit but in reality they simply observe the law and others that have receive the newness of life, where as now they walk in newness of the Spirit practice what is right by the conviction from with-in -> Romans 7:6
The greatest difference is those who walk in the Spirit no longer are bound by the penalty of death. In many cases its hard to tell the difference one having the appearance but yet being dead to Christ and one having the reality being alive in Christ through the Spirit.

What I have attempted to describe is those that walk in the flesh and those that walk in the Spirit. It's very much a mixed bag in what many call the "church" today. Now back to the 9, those that don't believe or feel the conviction of ether the letter or the Spirit of the law. I find it useless to debate such a stand, If nether the letter nor the Spirit himself convicts you of a transgression then all of the carefully laid arguments from scripture will never convince you other wise. I believe I am following exactly what Jesus did in doing so, He never entered into great debates with those that did not HEAR and understand, I find the case is the same for the 9 that don't believe Homosexuality is a sin. IMO there is more hope for the man that struggles and repeatably fails, than those that say I have not sinned, he is convicted and he knows it wrong, yet he stumbles he continues and asks forgivness, there is no forgivness where the heart has no conviction.
Luke 18:13-14
Proverbs 24
16 For a righteous man may fall seven times
And rise again,
But the wicked shall fall by calamity.

Micah 7:8 Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I have fallen, I will rise. Though I sit in darkness, the LORD will be my light.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Rex,

The Spirit convicts us of the same "law" the difference being some observe the law out of the letter never being convicted in the heart but observing the law simply because it is written "say hello to the Pharisees"
My point is the Spirit does not convict us more or less concerning the law but is in complete agreement with it for it is born of the SpiritRomans 7:14

In that I see people that appear to walk in the Spirit but in reality they simply observe the law and others that have receive the newness of life, where as now they walk in newness of the Spirit practice what is right by the conviction from with-in -> Romans 7:6
The greatest difference is those who walk in the Spirit no longer are bound by the penalty of death. In many cases its hard to tell the difference one having the appearance but yet being dead to Christ and one having the reality being alive in Christ through the Spirit.

What I have attempted to describe is those that walk in the flesh and those that walk in the Spirit.

You make an excellent point here, and in your conclusion in the second part of your post. The one thing I would say about the way a difference between those who are walking in the Spirit and those who are observing the law, is when they speak. If a person knows the Lord and is a living relationship with him, he will sound different from the law-observer who has never had a radical change of heart.

 

[Foreigner]

Rach, your words were spot on. Spot....on. Thanks.

Well, this forum is not the most user friendly one that I've ever come across. I just responded to your above post, Foreigner, and was told that I posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text ...whatever that means . . .*sigh*

So, I have no idea how to submit my post to you . . .I guess I'll lose it all if I log off which I have to at some point. I HAVE saved it to Microsoft Word but that doesn't do much good in getting it posted on to the forum. Any suggestions anyone . . .?

Skip the pictures.
If you think multiple pictures are necessary to make your point, you are simply admitting that your words don't carry sufficient weight.

I will make it simple for you. You said:
"The love and commitment between two people cannot be a sin. Jesus = L-O-V-E. That's all we need to know as far as I'm concerned."

My response:
If it "cannot be a sin" (as you claim), then:
-- God does not see it as a sin when two heterosexual people live together and are sexually active but aren't married.
-- God does not see it as a sin if a 40 year old man and a 14 year old girl are in love and "committed" to each other and want to marry and start a family right away.
-- God does not see it as a sin if a single mother and her son want to have the same loving and committed relationship, including marraige.

Because if God found ANY ONE OF THESE relationships to be a sin...
...your statement "The love and commitment between two people cannot be sin" would be rendered false, would it not?

If God Himself would feel that certain relationships between two "loving and committed individuals" could be a sin, then is He not being as "hateful and judgemental" as you are accusing those who agree with Him of being?


.

 

[KCKID]

Rach, your words were spot on. Spot....on. Thanks.



Skip the pictures.
If you think multiple pictures are necessary to make your point, you are simply admitting that your words don't carry sufficient weight.

I don't know what you mean. I didn't post any pictures, Just the quotes from your post and my responses, And, that was it. I couldn't post. Why on earth do you think that I'd need pictures?

I will make it simple for you. You said:
"The love and commitment between two people cannot be a sin. Jesus = L-O-V-E. That's all we need to know as far as I'm concerned."

My response:
If it "cannot be a sin" (as you claim), then:
-- God does not see it as a sin when two heterosexual people live together and are sexually active but aren't married.

That may very well be a sin in God's eyes (but why should you care? ... we ALL sin!) but it's been the societal norm for DECADES for heterosexual couples to shack up, i.e. a semi/permanent sexual arrangement without the commitment of marriage. Shacking up has become so common place, in fact, that most everyone these days turns a blind eye to such situations. So, what is the difference if homosexuals (a MUCH smaller number) also 'shack up'? I haven't yet seen Christians picketing the homes of these thousands upon thousands of 'guilty' heterosexuals. Hypocrisy? Cowardice, perhaps?

-- God does not see it as a sin if a 40 year old man and a 14 year old girl are in love and "committed" to each other and want to marry and start a family right away.

Why would He? Would that not have been a normal situation in the good old biblical days? Fourteen year old girls were capable of having children and so they did. I don't really get your point unless you offered a not very well thought out scenerio. Would you like to try again?

-- God does not see it as a sin if a single mother and her son want to have the same loving and committed relationship, including marraige.

What made you say 'a single mother'? Could it be because it's more than possible that Eve (apparently 'married' to Adam) had incestuous relationships with her sons? There HAD to have been incestuous relationships somewhere along the line. Aren't we supposed to think such things within Christian circles? ;)

Because if God found ANY ONE OF THESE relationships to be a sin...
...your statement "The love and commitment between two people cannot be sin" would be rendered false, would it not?

But it hasn't been rendered false has it? Would you care to try again?

If God Himself would feel that certain relationships between two "loving and committed individuals" could be a sin, then is He not being as "hateful and judgemental" as you are accusing those who agree with Him of being?

Well, this might sort of be where I came in but ...can you offer scriptures that say any of the examples you gave are a sin?

Later on I WILL attemp to get that post to you, even if you don't want it. Then again, I know that - deep down - you really DO love me . . . :)

.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi KC,

From the tone and content of your post to Foreigner, would it be correct to deduce that you think 'culture' (or 'society'), through their evolving practices - however decandent and increasingly far from scriptural revelation - indicate to God what He should accept as okay, (regardless of any preceding revelation or command He gave to mankind in general, or one of His prophets in particular)? As in, He obeys us, not, we obey Him?

 

[I am Second]

Anyone who can condone homosexuality and other sins as being ok are paving their wide road to hell. At this point in this conversation I think we are casting our pearls before swine. Time to shake the dust from our feet and move on.

 

[Foreigner]

That may very well be a sin in God's eyes (but why should you care? ... we ALL sin!)

-- Why should we care? Because God calls us to.

He has this crazy idea that we as Christians should work to help people avoid eternal damnation, and not remain silent giving the false impression His love for them means they won't be held accountable for their sin.

You like to throw around the word "love" a lot. Perhaps you should actually learn what it means.

I hate to break it to you, but leaving someone to continue sinning in a way that will guarantee them eternal damnation without attempting to warn them is NOT loving them.

but it's been the societal norm for DECADES for heterosexual couples to shack up, i.e. a semi/permanent sexual arrangement without the commitment of marriage.

-- Does that make that practice any less of a sin in God's eyes?
Is the end result for these people going to be less terrible that those who did this 30 years ago?
If you truly loved these people, their guaranteed eternal damnation would concern you enough to try to help them.

So, what is the difference if homosexuals (a MUCH smaller number) also 'shack up'? I haven't yet seen Christians picketing the homes of these thousands upon thousands of 'guilty' heterosexuals. Hypocrisy? Cowardice, perhaps?

-- Christians aren't out in force picketing the homes of homosexual couples. What a ridiculous - and dishonest - thing to imply.
Why do you choose to put forth this dishonesty? Hypocrisy? Cowardice, perhaps?

Why would He? Would that not have been a normal situation in the good old biblical days? Fourteen year old girls were capable of having children and so they did. I don't really get your point unless you offered a not very well thought out scenerio. Would you like to try again?

What made you say 'a single mother'? Could it be because it's more than possible that Eve (apparently 'married' to Adam) had incestuous relationships with her sons? There HAD to have been incestuous relationships somewhere along the line. Aren't we supposed to think such things within Christian circles? ;)

So, for those just tuning in, you think God has no problem with:

-- A heterosexual couple living in a sexual relationship without His requirement of marraige.
-- Homosexuals performing acts on one another that He has already called "an abomination."
-- A 40 year old man impregnating a 14 year old girl because it is 'true love.'
-- A mother marrying her biological son.

Yup, you've pretty well removed any reason to think you comprehend who God is or what He expects.

Please, please, please do not share these opinions with non-Christians.

People calling themselves Christians but sharing tripe like this are the reason millions die thinking they have nothing to worry about when they stand before God.

Well, this might sort of be where I came in but ...can you offer scriptures that say any of the examples you gave are a sin?

-- Absolutely.
Just as soon as you provide scripture showing that Jesus opposes abortion, beating your wife, or selling your children into slavery.

 

[KCKID]

Anyone who can condone homosexuality and other sins as being ok are paving their wide road to hell. At this point in this conversation I think we are casting our pearls before swine. Time to shake the dust from our feet and move on.

You've clearly missed the point of 1. what I've been saying, and 2. the reason for Jesus dying. No one that I know is saying that 'sin' (such a pointless word when used by fellow 'sinners' to aim at others!) is 'okay'. It's not 'okay' but it IS a human trait and one that WE ALL possess. So, I would suggest as nicely as I can that you come down from your high horse and say after me ..."I am a sinner but my sins have been imputed to Jesus Christ so that I can now appear unblemished before God." You can add a "Hallelujah!" to that if you wish. But, PLEASE ...stop judging other 'treasures of God' just because you believe you can . . .

Hi KC,

From the tone and content of your post to Foreigner, would it be correct to deduce that you think 'culture' (or 'society'), through their evolving practices - however decandent and increasingly far from scriptural revelation - indicate to God what He should accept as okay, (regardless of any preceding revelation or command He gave to mankind in general, or one of His prophets in particular)? As in, He obeys us, not, we obey Him?

It's not up to me to stand in (godly) judgment of any society or culture. I'm just a mere mortal and both a sinner and, yep, a hypocrite to boot. I can - and often do - disagree with any number of things about today's world but it's not MY task to take on the authority of a deity. Hypothetically, I might not like the idea of two homosexuals pairing off and getting married but I'll be d----d if I'm going to demonize them with the words from a book ...and 'a book' containing words written by men IS what the Bible is. I realize that I sound like a broken record but not I, not you, nor anyone one else can possibly speak on behalf of God. I do believe that we're told not to judge others lest WE be judged in the process. And yet, judging others seems to be the biggest past-time of SO many Christians.

By the way, I constantly hear the words, "obedience to God". Would someone explain once and for all in simple English ...what - precisely - does this mean? In fact, let us personalize this so that others can know and, perhaps, learn. Could you, dragonfly, explain HOW you spend your week 'being obedient to God' on the understanding that there are more than 600 commands of God in the Old Testament and that you need to keep them all?

 

[Foreigner]

No one that I know is saying that 'sin' (such a pointless word when used by fellow 'sinners' to aim at others!) is 'okay'.

True.
Because what you actually said was that there are certain things that can never be considered a sin.
"The love and commitment between two people cannot be a sin." <------- Your words.

Again, that means:

-- A heterosexual couple living in a sexual relationship outside of marraige cannot be a sin because "they are committed and love each other."
-- A homosexual couple performing acts on each other that God considers an abomination cannot be a sin because "they are committed and love each other."

So it is a simple "Yes or No" questions I pose to you.

If these people don't turn away from this behavior before they die, is God going to judge them as sinners and punish them or not.

No narration is needed on your part. Just a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.

It's not 'okay' but it IS a human trait and one that WE ALL possess. So, I would suggest as nicely as I can that you come down from your high horse and say after me ..."I am a sinner but my sins have been imputed to Jesus Christ so that I can now appear unblemished before God."

-- And it is because our sins have been forgiven, even though we didn't deserve it, that we are able to speak from experience and help others achieve the same through Christ. That's what we as Christians have been called to do.

Part of giving your testimony to help those who are lost realize you are not speaking from a position of superiority is to share the sin you yourself had in your life that you had to turn away from and seek forgiveness for.

Simply "loving" someone but not helping them to realize that the sin in their life is going to cost them for all eternity is literally loving them to death. Their death.

You can add a "Hallelujah!" to that if you wish. But, PLEASE ...stop judging other 'treasures of God' just because you believe you can . . .

-- Using your standard, then all Paul, Peter, Stephen, Timothy, and the others did was "judge" the unsaved they shared the Gospel with.

Or do you think these flawed, rescued Christians never informed them that they had sin in their lives and what God expected of them to do about it?



Christians are attempting to warn people that there is a cliff up ahead and if they don't slow down they will drive off it and perish.
Instead of helping, you feel it's better to criticize those Christians for questioning their driving habits.

.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Rach,

I appreciate what you are saying, and I agree these posts are getting huge.

I think I can sum up my position:

1. Traditionally, Christianity has rejected homosexuals; treating them as chronic sinners who were intentionally spiting God - all I am advocating is a different approach - instead of shunning them until they meet our idea of Christ's standards for joining the Church (Body of Christ), why not welcome them as sinners with open arms? Like you said, it is up to the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sin - and as Christians, they will be praying to God to convicted them of all sorts of sinful behavior. If homosexuality is one of the sins that offends God - the Holy Spirit will let them know.

2. Rejecting people in order to convince them of their sin is not effective. In fact, it causes mental, emotional, and spiritual damage. Instead of teaching homosexuals a lesson in repentance, we are driving them to despair and bitterness. We are actually adding to their terrible burden. Perspective taking is desperately need in this situation - could you imagine the shame and fear of discovering that you are attracted to the same sex? Only developing a genuine, loving relationship with people is going to influence them on a heart level, rather than simply debating facts and picketing them with information.

3. I have a deep conviction that people are broken (my definition of sinful), not depraved or wicked to the core; most people are operating to the best of their ability, but they are lost, isolated and desperately need God's justification and sanctification to become whole. Yes, we are under the influence of Original Sin, but we were created good and still crave God. Homosexuals are simply broken people, like the rest of us and they are craving love from others and God. The Church should be a safe place for them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

4. Finally, I have a sneaky suspicion that we are being challenged to love deeply and radically as part of our own sanctification. Loving radically involves accepting and serving people (simply on a human level) we do not agree with. As a counselor, I have to do this all day long and I believe it is what God calls us to do.

I guess that is all I have....

Blessings

I would like to focus on point 2.

Maybe given your psychological profile of the disdained sinner, you might be able to explain to me what this scripture means and how does that fit into your psychological conclusion, given the obvious consequences. 1Cor 5:1-13
:-)