Where in the NEW TESTAMENT does it say being gay is a sin?

[Alithis]

I just wanted to make a quick comment about the subject.

Others have stated homosexuality is a sin and where in scripture, with that I agree full heartedly. Others have mentioned we are to "hate" the sin, love, respect the sinner which is obvious.

The main issues I have getting across to homosexuals is it's not the "love" but the engaging in sex that's wrong. You can love the same sex and still G intimate without having to engage in a sexual activity. Because one is not attracted to the opposite sex does not give one a "free" pass. It means that when God created you, you were given an obstacle to either refrain from sex or to overcome thinking your not compatible with the opposite sex.

The other is getting them to understand I'm not judging you as a person, I'm judging exactly what is shoved down my throat. And all I'm judging is that it's wrong because God speaks against it. I don't need to see make out sessions, butt grabbing, and every other flamboyant identifier to their sin. What one does behind closed doors is between them and God, leave me out of it completely. But that is always the issue, it's brought openly into public, and because I want nothing to do with sin I'm wrong.....

And this goes for every sin flaunted in my sight. I struggle everyday with my own demons and struggles, I don't want any extras thrown in my direction. If ones overly drunk, stealing, lying, committing adultery, cursing God I have no issues in asking someone to refrain from the sinful activity till I'm done with whatever I'm doing, or leaving myself. Sadly though one can't stay hidden from sin, we just have overcome it, avoid it, and not participate in it. The "gay" movement is one of those things that we just can not avoid, and will always get put against.

no .. that is because it is not 'love " it is the worlds warped concept of love .
it is want ,desire, lust ,packaged with the false use of the word love .
love does not do anything that knowingly rebells againt God and GOD IS LOVE ..
we must not try to seperate the issue into many portions as that only works toward attempted self justifying of sin
but when we stand before God the argument wont hold .
they will say ..but i loved .. and he will say it is not love when it leads another person into falshood .blinds them to the truth and they find themselves condemned .. that is not love . that is desiring to fulfil ones OWN needs . self self self .thats what that is .

 

[seeingeyes]

no .. that is because it is not 'love " it is the worlds warped concept of love .
it is want ,desire, lust ,packaged with the false use of the word love .
love does not do anything that knowingly rebells againt God and GOD IS LOVE ..
we must not try to seperate the issue into many portions as that only works toward attempted self justifying of sin
but when we stand before God the argument wont hold .
they will say ..but i loved .. and he will say it is not love when it leads another person into falshood .blinds them to the truth and they find themselves condemned .. that is not love . that is desiring to fulfil ones OWN needs . self self self .thats what that is .

Really no different then your own desire for wife and children, then...

 

[Shadow316]

Gee, so sorry Brian. I guess I am. It allowed to defend my question. I am. It repeating myself any more than the haters are.
I am mature enough for discussion. Apparently you are not. Why would I have an agenda?? I try to understand other peoples point of view. The people spewing hate here are not contributing to my understanding.
Why are you being mean to me, Brian?

I'm reading on page 5 - bryan's post #41 was first on p5. then I read down to your post #44. this post. I didn't see anything in post 41 I'd consider mean. So somewhere between p1 and p5 he was mean to you? well, I'll go back and look at his posts. But I doubt he posted anything mean. your post says 'people spewing hate here' - and this thread is still here? others besides Bryan were hateful to you? off I go to look for those posts...

so often those on the left, progressives (by whatever label they use) consider anyone who doesn't agree with them as mean, hateful, bigoted etc.

 

[Alithis]

Really no different then your own desire for wife and children, then...

Incorrect.
God ordained marriage and being fruitful to multiply.
Doing so does not lead them into deception sin and death.

Sodomy ends the seed of life.It is the epitome of rebellion.

 

[seeingeyes]

Incorrect.
God ordained marriage and being fruitful to multiply.
Doing so does not lead them into deception sin and death.

Sodomy ends the seed of life.It is the epitome of rebellion.

Is that how you proposed to your wife?

 

[theophilus777]

I've seen non sequiturs before, but Ma'am I think you just took the cake.

Can this go back to being supportive? I mean it really is a current issue, that has a lot of people hurting, and has plenty of room for increased understanding all the way around.

 

[seeingeyes]

I've seen non sequiturs before, but Ma'am I think you just took the cake.

Can this go back to being supportive? I mean it really is a current issue, that has a lot of people hurting, and has plenty of room for increased understanding all the way around.

How so? If "love" is simply finding another half that we can pop out babies with according to the ordination of God, then so be it. But I wonder if his wife knew that going in.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Incorrect.
God ordained marriage and being fruitful to multiply.
Doing so does not lead them into deception sin and death.

Sodomy ends the seed of life.It is the epitome of rebellion.

Which...really has nothing to do with if the two men are in love in the same way as a straight couple. It says something about an action that is scripturally unclean and sinful - but nothing to do with the love of two people.

 

[theophilus777]

How so? If "love" is simply finding another half that we can pop out babies with according to the ordination of God, then so be it. But I wonder if his wife knew that going in.

I really don't think that's what he meant. Its not really either/or, neither did I see him claim that it was. And this really speaks to
Fenny's post as well: the Blessing of God we know as "marriage," is not exclusively the domain of the "love" between 2 people, however that may be defined. Part of that Blessing is procreation.

Homosexuality has no capacity for it, which is not comparable to isolated cases of heterosexual marriages where they either do not reproduce by decision, or infertility.

 

[seeingeyes]

I really don't think that's what he meant. Its not really either/or, neither did I see him claim that it was. And this really speaks to
Fenny's post as well: the Blessing of God we know as "marriage," is not exclusively the domain of the "love" between 2 people, however that may be defined. Part of that Blessing is procreation.

Homosexuality has no capacity for it, which is not comparable to isolated cases of heterosexual marriages where they either do not reproduce by decision, or infertility.

From my reading "the seed of life" is the whole determining factor. The poster can correct me if I'm wrong.

But it is very difficult to make an argument that homosexuals get married for selfish reasons and that heterosexuals get married for holy reasons, without turning marriage into "put tab m into slot f to receive package b nine months later".

Our God is certainly not so dispassionate as this.

 

[theophilus777]

But it is very difficult to make an argument that homosexuals get married for selfish reasons and that heterosexuals get married for holy reasons, without turning marriage into "put tab m into slot f to receive package b nine months later".

Our God is certainly not so dispassionate as this.

You're still making the same mistake of divorcing one item from the whole. Heterosexuals get married for selfish reasons, at least in this day and age. Yet there is also a Holy purpose to it, even among atheists. Homosexuals lack that aspect.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

You're still making the same mistake of divorcing one item from the whole. Heterosexuals get married for selfish reasons, at least in this day and age. Yet there is also a Holy purpose to it, even among atheists. Homosexuals lack that aspect.

I don't see how a couple being in love with each other is a "selfish reason" for marriage...but ok. I can agree to disagree there.

But anyway, the push is for legal marriage, not a religious stamp of approval, not sacrament. So I don't see the problem allowing same-sex couples to have the legal marriage.

When I see a push for church wide acceptance I will then have a problem. Or if i see a push to force churches to perform them (legal force, not a push within a church as that is their issue to settle), then I will have a problem.

 

[seeingeyes]

You're still making the same mistake of divorcing one item from the whole. Heterosexuals get married for selfish reasons, at least in this day and age. Yet there is also a Holy purpose to it, even among atheists. Homosexuals lack that aspect.

The poster's argument was that homosexual marriage is selfish, I countered that it was no more selfish then heterosexual marriage, at which point he came back with "the seed of life".

Cranking out babies does not negate selfishness. Heck, even getting married for the sole purpose of having babies can be selfish.

It's a bad argument, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

 

[KrAZeD]

no .. that is because it is not 'love " it is the worlds warped concept of love .
it is want ,desire, lust ,packaged with the false use of the word love .
love does not do anything that knowingly rebells againt God and GOD IS LOVE ..
we must not try to seperate the issue into many portions as that only works toward attempted self justifying of sin
but when we stand before God the argument wont hold .
they will say ..but i loved .. and he will say it is not love when it leads another person into falshood .blinds them to the truth and they find themselves condemned .. that is not love . that is desiring to fulfil ones OWN needs . self self self .thats what that is .

And you completely missed where I said " they engaging in sex" is what's wrong.
We can love the same sex without it leading to sex. You can get intimate with one without a single sexual aspect.

We all do it daily. Do we not have intimate relations with our kids, with our mother/father, friends? Was Jesus not intimate with his disciples.

Understand intimate means: private; personal.

But you are right with the worlds false sense of what love means and includes. Your right that It does not include the aspects you've listed.

Though I do disagree, if one loves someone they can stand before God and proclaim they loved another, wether or not they engaged in sin is the issue. If one can't love another without sinning then that's their stumbling block they should avoid, same with alcoholics, inappropriate content addicts, drug addicts etc. Desires do not equal love, and that's where people get confused at.

You can not tell me 2 people living under a single household is a sin either. People are roommates all the time without sinning through sex. Wether or not it will lead to temptation is not for I nor you to assume.

 

[KrAZeD]

I don't see how a couple being in love with each other is a "selfish reason" for marriage...but ok. I can agree to disagree there.

But anyway, the push is for legal marriage, not a religious stamp of approval, not sacrament. So I don't see the problem allowing same-sex couples to have the legal marriage.

When I see a push for church wide acceptance I will then have a problem. Or if i see a push to force churches to perform them (legal force, not a push within a church as that is their issue to settle), then I will have a problem.

The push to have churches perform the ceremonies and ministers has already happened in several places. Their accused of discrimination, as well as since it's a state function theirs no separation of church/state to prohibit the refusal.

Being for same sex-marriage is stating you are fine with people sinning against God. While we shouldn't assume, however getting married normally signals theirs sex involved or will G, that is the sin. We should not accept sin no more than God does. We shouldn't judge but we definitely shouldn't agree with it nor take any part in it except to inform others God speaks against it.

"I don't see how a couple being in love with each other is a "selfish reason" for marriage"----- as long as it's also the agreeing of a commitment to remain faithful and together your correct. Remember in some cultures currently your still given away in marriage without even knowing who your partner is.

 

[theophilus777]

I don't see how a couple being in love with each other is a "selfish reason" for marriage...but ok.

If you look at seeingeye's response to this, you will see that we all agree. I bet even the poster who originally said it will see that isn't a very good way of putting it. It's just a contrast; Holy reasons, vs reasons pertaining to self; i.e., self-ish. Language doesn't always work well like that, let's not nit-pick a word to death, ok?

But anyway, the push is for legal marriage, not a religious stamp of approval, not sacrament. So I don't see the problem allowing same-sex couples to have the legal marriage.

The "push" is for society to accept it, and to dignify the behavior every bit as much as we do the ancient institution of heterosexual marriage. That is simply NOT going to happen, neither is it in the jurisdiction of the Courts. Going for it and the risk it involves is a fool's errand.

Civil rights, including everything you can think of, is an issue that could've been settled by now. Years ago. And right now many God-fearing people who KNOW SSM is wrong are so eager to give gays their rights that they are willing to agree to SSM in polls even though it violates their conscience.

That's simply not a solution that is in anyone's best interests, neither does it make for a peaceful society.

When I see a push for church wide acceptance I will then have a problem. Or if i see a push to force churches to perform them (legal force, not a push within a church as that is their issue to settle), then I will have a problem.

I agree those are not issues that are on the table, and its silly for people to conflate them.

 

[tremble]

*puts rant hat on*

We shouldn't judge but we definitely shouldn't agree with it nor take any part in it except to inform others God speaks against it.

Actually, we definitely should be judging. "Judgement" has gotten a bad name over the years, but that's mostly because of people who have abused judgement for selfish reasons, either to put others down, or to hide themselves from it.

Judgement in itself is neither good nor bad. It is fair judgement that we need to exercise. Pretending that we do not judge will only lead to self righteousness and hypocrisy. I mentioned earlier about Jesus saying, "take the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye".

Homosexuality is a speck. It's still a problem, but when compared with the really important issues, it's a speck. Look how emotional and outraged people become over the issue. Where is that same zeal when it comes to confronting greed? Or hypocrisy or any number of other issues that Jesus mentioned over and over again?

Right here on this very thread we had someone mention earlier, "Do we have problems with gluttony, hate, and greed?" strongly implying that homosexuality is a far bigger problem than those issues. And several other posters agreed with those comments.

I believe this is one of the key reasons why Christians are so ineffective when confronting homosexuality. We've not taken the beam from our own eye, first.

Here is more scriptural evidence of that. What did Jesus say about homosexuality? The closest he got was to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities from the OT which were notorious for homosexuality;

LK 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

LK 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

LK 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

LK 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

LK 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

No mention of homosexuality anywhere in his comments about the city where Lot came from (Sodom). Instead, he describes a situation where people were too concerned with the cares of the world to care about what God wanted. That is the root of the problem. Homosexuality is just one branch among many on the tree.

Apathy is what leads to all these other problems. If we really want to make progress, then we should take the same attitude as Jesus. Stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the cause of the problems.

Notice the last sentence. He said, as it was in the days of Lot, so it would be again in the days just before he returns, though there is hardly any Christian who will admit to it.

For example, it's nearly impossible to talk about obeying Jesus without a chorus of people shouting that we can't "work our way to Heaven", as though obedience to Jesus is the worst thing a Christian can do. We find various ways to make the argument sound reasonable or spiritual, but the bottom line is that his teachings are ignored for one reason or another. We've got a church full of people who believe they are the exception to the standards Jesus set for his followers. Jesus mentioned this very same problem:

LK 14:17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

LK 14:18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

LK 14:19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

LK 14:20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

Some very popular modern day renditions of the scenario include, "I don't have the faith for that", "I don't feel led to that", "That was only for the apostles", "I already give to my church", and "Jesus did it all on the cross so we don't have to".

Instead of confronting the issues Jesus clearly told us to deal with we focus on the problems of others and we claim righteous indignation in our judgements of them, "because the Bible says so"! We really, really care about sin. We don't want to condone something which will make God angry and so on and so on. It all sounds so very spiritual, but it's always aimed at the other guys.

Ok, rant over ^.^

 

[Alithis]

And you completely missed where I said " they engaging in sex" is what's wrong.
We can love the same sex without it leading to sex. You can get intimate with one without a single sexual aspect.

We all do it daily. Do we not have intimate relations with our kids, with our mother/father, friends? Was Jesus not intimate with his disciples.

Understand intimate means: private; personal.

But you are right with the worlds false sense of what love means and includes. Your right that It does not include the aspects you've listed.

Though I do disagree, if one loves someone they can stand before God and proclaim they loved another, wether or not they engaged in sin is the issue. If one can't love another without sinning then that's their stumbling block they should avoid, same with alcoholics, inappropriate content addicts, drug addicts etc. Desires do not equal love, and that's where people get confused at.

You can not tell me 2 people living under a single household is a sin either. People are roommates all the time without sinning through sex.
Wether or not it will lead to temptation is not for I nor you to assume.

yes I get you but it only reinforces the point that there is no such thing as a gay .
there are people who choose to commit vile sexual immorality (such as sodomy or sexual activity with the same sex ) and there are people who don't .
there is no 3rd species of "gay". if there was they would have long since died out due to zero procreation from putting seed in the waste pipe .
of course you've forgotten the scriptures instruct us to avoid "even the appearance of evil"

and if they lay with one another but they do not commit sodomy they still do so in rebellion to God who says they must not lay with one another as a man lays with a woman ..

so we must not be tricked into allowing a watered down version of things .
that being said
if ANY person, having become aware of their sinful state ,is honest about that sinful state and calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus to save them from that sinful state .He will save them and work in them by the power of his spirit a transformation so that they will no longer be imprisoned to sin but set free from it and no longer be mastered by it .. always we have this true and sure Hope in the Lord Jesus

 

[Alithis]

some may find that harsh ,, and they should truth can be sharp ..like a sword .
but ladies ..is it ok with you if your husband shares a hotel room with his female coworker on a business trip ..no ? odd that isn't it .
is it ok if he shares the same bed ? why ever not ?
is it ok if they spoon in their underwear and caress .may share a kiss . but they don't have intercourse.. ? I mean that's fine isn't it ?? you wouldn't feel hurt, used, lied to ,betrayed ,would you ??

Of course the point I am making here is that the fine line falsely named gays try to use to justify "cohabitation" is simply being dishonest before God ..the truth is - and God knows the heart ..he is not swayed by the self justifications , is that the reason they continue in that state is that they are choosing self desire over the will of God . and any way you put it .. that is rebellion.- simple

 

[Alithis]

Which...really has nothing to do with if the two men are in love in the same way as a straight couple. It says something about an action that is scripturally unclean and sinful - but nothing to do with the love of two people.

you missed the post explaining that kind of love is not Godly love at all .. if one loved the guy one would flee from him so as not to aid his demise into deception and end him in hell fire to appease ones own will in rebellion to God
sons love fathers ,fathers love sons .. your trying to taint the waters in a most defiled manner .
but God know the Hearts of two men .. he knows the real reason they remain together ..he is not fooled .