If you were selling your home would you allow someone to buy it if you knew they were gay?

[grasping the after wind]

If I were to sell my house knowing that it would help others to sin wouldn't I be helping them sin? Wouldn't that be going against the word of God?

Hetero, homo or whatever it's still the same principle. Disregard the type of sin and let me know your thoughts on my perspective. Am I looking at this all wrong? Are we as Christians or any other faith supposed to help people go against our beliefs?

The house is not going to help anyone sin. The house is an inanimate object. It doesn't assist people in their sinning. We should know as Christians that no one is immune from sin,. In that case, you can surely assume that whoever buys your house will at some time and probably fairly often sin while they are the owner and in the confines of that building. They may gossip they may lie they may do any number of other things that are sinful. Therefore no matter who you sell your house to, unless Jesus should return and be interested in buying your house, they will be doing some sinning there. You can either sell your house to someone that will sin or you can take it completely off the market for the rest of your life and your estate will then sell it to a sinner. In the end, it is only your house as long as God allows you to have possession of it and it is only your responsibility as to what occurs there as long as God has given you that property to steward. When that stewardship ends and it becomes the responsibility of another , it is no longer any of your concern or any of your business what God allows to occur there.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't understand how this is even a question. The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Would you want someone to deny selling you a house because they disapproved of your partner? How is denying someone buying something loving them? It's a stretch by any imagination.

Denying someone buying something might be a very strong act of love. Allowing someone to buy something might be an act of selfishness such as an enabling act. Depends upon what we are speaking of that is being bought, why it is being bought and who most profits by its being bought. Deciding what is the most loving thing to do is much more complex and difficult to establish than the simple following of a detailed moral code would be. In this case, I do not see how the denial of the purchase of a house is a loving act. Now, if one were to know that the purchase of that house was beyond the means of the purchaser to maintain the house and that it would be too much of a burden for the purchaser, ending up in that purchaser not only losing the house but losing the money already invested into the house , credit status and perhaps other less tangible things like self esteem etc., then denial would be a loving act. This case does not seem to fit that description.

 

[Arc F1]

The house is not going to help anyone sin. The house is an inanimate object. It doesn't assist people in their sinning. We should know as Christians that no one is immune form sin,. In that case, you can surely assume that whoever buys your house will at some time and probably fairly often sin while they are the owner and in the confines of that building. They may gossip they man y lie they may do any number of other things that are sinful. Therefore no matter who you sell your house to, unless Jesus should return and be interested in buying your house, they will be doing some sinning there. You can either sell your house to someone that will sin or you can take it completely off the market for the rest of your life and your estate will then sell it to a sinner. In the end, it is only your house as long as God allows you to have possession of it and it is only your responsibility as to what occurs there as long as God has given you that property to steward. When that stewardship ends and it becomes the responsibility of another , it is no longer any of your concern or any of your business what God allows to occur there.

That is true. I didn't look at it as everyone sins therefore no matter who you sell to they will sin. Good point.

 

[Arc F1]

Sure, but it's hard to see how this that we're discussing would be an example of that.

It's not as though you are making something happen that wouldn't happen anyway (and in fact is already happening), which WOULD be the situation if you drove the getaway car in a robbery or loaned money to somebody to hire a prostitute or buy illegal drugs, etc.

My answer was no I wouldn't sell to a gay couple. Someone else said no matter who you would sell to would sin and I hadn't looked at it that way. Discussing things is good. I'm starting to see my view was flawed.

 

[Albion]

My answer was no I wouldn't sell to a gay couple. Someone else said no matter who you would sell to would sin and I hadn't looked at it that way.

I'm not sure that I see it quite that way. If we stipulate that everyone sins (which is true) and make that our guide, it seems to me that the approach you are referring to simply says that we have no responsibility when it comes to any of the other person's actions.

I do believe you were right to think that for us to FACILITATE someone else's sin, a sin of choice, is morally wrong.

The problem is that there is a lot of hair-splitting or "close calls" when it comes to specific examples. If the situation is only about selling a house, I'm inclined to think that the seller really doesn't make possible something that not selling would prevent, and the act of selling is definitely not an endorsement of the buyers' lifestyle.

 

[Arc F1]

Where in "the word of God" do you find that concept?

Not the house buying part. I was just looking at it from being responsible or aiding a sin would make you guilty of sin. Thanks to a few replays I'm seeing

I'm not sure that I see it quite that way. If we stipulate that everyone sins (which is true) and make that our guide, it seems to me that the approach you are referring to simply says that we have no responsibility when it comes to any of the other person's actions.

I do believe you were right to think that for us to FACILITATE someone else's sin, a sin of choice, is morally wrong.

The problem is that there is a lot of hair-splitting or "close calls" when it comes to specific examples. If the situation is only about selling a house, I'm inclined to think that the seller really doesn't make possible something that not selling would prevent, and the act of selling is definitely not an endorsement of the buyers' lifestyle.

Idk. I thought I was on solid ground but now looking at it as everyone sins tells me that I'm never getting rid of another house. Lol

Change it to this, if I pick up a guy hitch hiking and he says drop me off at the bank so I can rob it and I go ahead and take him I'm aiding in a crime and I'm also helping him to steal (sin). I would think I would be judged on that as a sin because I helped. Regardless of if they would do it with or without my help I shouldn't play a part. Same thing should apply to a house. If you know then you should have no part in it or aid the sinners. Trivial I know but on judgment day everything matters.

 

[RDKirk]

Not the house buying part. I was just looking at it from being responsible or aiding a sin would make you guilty of sin. Thanks to a few replays I'm seeing

You said that was in "the word of God." So tell me where you find that concept in the bible and we can discuss how it applies.

 

[Arc F1]

You said that was in "the word of God." So tell me where you find that concept in the bible and we can discuss how it applies.

James 4:17

 

[Albion]

Change it to this, if I pick up a guy hitch hiking and he says drop me off at the bank so I can rob it and I go ahead and take him I'm aiding in a crime and I'm also helping him to steal (sin). I would think I would be judged on that as a sin because I helped.

I agree.

Regardless of if they would do it with or without my help I shouldn't play a part. Same thing should apply to a house.

As I said, I feel that the principle is agreed to by all or most of us, but it's the specific examples that give us pause. And this example is one of those.

By selling, you might feel complicit, but you really are not making something work out sinfully. They get a house. They no doubt already have a bedroom somewhere else, right?

But if you take a hitchhiker to the bank that he tells you he intends to rob, I see that as a much different level of involvement.

He might not get there at all without the lift you gave him. He might change his mind if he had time to reconsider while trying to get a ride from someone else after you'd declined to take him to the bank. The bank might close before he arrives, if you were not the one to take him there, etc.

 

[Arc F1]

I agree.


As I said, I feel that the principle is agreed to by all or most of us, but it's the specific examples that give us pause. And this example is one of those.

By selling, you might feel complicit, but you really are not making something work out sinfully. They get a house. They no doubt already have a bedroom somewhere else, right?

But if you take a hitchhiker to the bank that he tells you he intends to rob, I see that as a much different level of involvement.

James 4:17 is why I worry. If you believe it's wrong and do it anyway its a sin. It shows how every decision in life should be a wise well thought out one. I never really put much thought into all the house I've parted with until this subject was brought up.

 

[Albion]

James 4:17 is why I worry. If you believe it's wrong and do it anyway its a sin.

But not if it actually is not wrong. That's what a theologian would answer you. If you think that cutting the grass is a sin because God created grass or something like that, it's not a sin if you mow.

 

[Arc F1]

But not if it actually is not wrong. That's what a theologian would answer you. If you think that cutting the grass is a sin because God created grass or something like that, it's not a sin if you mow.

Sure is a lot to think about.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I had a friend sell his house to a guy whom he later learned was gay after the sell: he evicted them as soon as they didn't pay for a month after learning about it. I was curious on other people's reasonings for this situation.

I think it was a terrible and in-compassionate thing to do. Not a very good way to represent Christ in my opinion.

 

[RDKirk]

James 4:17

To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

That concept is spoken in some other places, such as Luke 12:47 and John 9:41, and it's in the Mosaic Law as well.

But that doesn't apply to the situation discussed in this thread. Essentially, failing to do the good you know you should do is worse than failing to do the good you don't know you should do. In other words, Jesus gives consideration to genuine ignorance in rendering His judgment.

Notice that the wording is that someone knows the good thing to do and refuses to do the good thing...a refusal to take a known positive action.

This does not stress avoiding doing an unknown bad thing--that's actually a different concept...and an erroneous concept.

The one-talent servant worried so much about doing the wrong thing that he did nothing at all...which was the wrong thing. Refusing to sell a house to someone who might commit a sin in that house is worrying more about doing the wrong thing than about doing the right thing.

Concentrate on doing right things. When I was an avid bicyclist, I learned that the way to avoid an obstacle is not to concentrate on the the obstacle, but to concentrate on the path around the obstacle.

When you're being chased by a monster, fix your eyes on the getaway helicopter...don't look back at the monster. As my daughter says in frustration when she sees that scene in movies, "Why are they looking back at death? They should keep their eyes on life!"

Concentrate on doing right things.

It may well be a Christian's gracious nature in handling ordinary secular business that softens the heart of a non-believer and opens him up to the grace of Christ. And that concept is asserted repeatedly in scripture as well.

 

[grasping the after wind]

But not if it actually is not wrong. That's what a theologian would answer you. If you think that cutting the grass is a sin because God created grass or something like that, it's not a sin if you mow.

I disagree. Sin is acting in opposition to God. If one is opposing God on purpose , no matter what the actual act is, one is sinning. Satan had no moral code to consult when he opposed God yet he sinned by opposing God. One doesn't need to consult a rule book to know one is rebelling against God's authority. So if one truly believes that God is against lawn mowing and one mows the lawn anyway that is an act of rebellion against God i.e. a sin. We are commanded as Christians to love God with all our heart and mind and soul. If we purposely act against God, no matter what it is we do, we are breaking that most important of all the commandments.

 

[Arc F1]

To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

That concept is spoken in some other places, such as Luke 12:47 and John 9:41, and it's in the Mosaic Law as well.

But that doesn't apply to the situation discussed in this thread. Essentially, failing to do the good you know you should do is worse than failing to do the good you don't know you should do. In other words, Jesus gives consideration to genuine ignorance in rendering His judgment.

Notice that the wording is that someone knows the good thing to do and refuses to do the good thing...a refusal to take a known positive action.

This does not stress avoiding doing an unknown bad thing--that's actually a different concept...and an erroneous concept.

The one-talent servant worried so much about doing the wrong thing that he did nothing at all...which was the wrong thing. Refusing to sell a house to someone who might commit a sin in that house is worrying more about doing the wrong thing than about doing the right thing.

Concentrate on doing right things. When I was an avid bicyclist, I learned that the way to avoid an obstacle is not to concentrate on the the obstacle, but to concentrate on the path around the obstacle.

When you're being chased by a monster, fix your eyes on the getaway helicopter...don't look back at the monster. As my daughter says in frustration when she sees that scene in movies, "Why are they looking back at death? They should keep their eyes on life!"

Concentrate on doing right things.

It may well be a Christian's gracious nature in handling ordinary secular business that softens the heart of a non-believer and opens him up to the grace of Christ. And that concept is asserted repeatedly in scripture as well.

We also learn from Jeremiah 23 with the teachings about the prophets.

"They commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness."

There is a difference between those that wish to learn and change and those that have no interest in believing the word. We are not to strengthen the hand of evil. Today the church is teaching a different message than what the bible teaches. How can you love someone and still help them to sin? How can you love someone and not warn them of what's coming? A lot of good men are staying silent instead of teaching what is written.

 

[RDKirk]

I disagree. Sin is acting in opposition to God. If one is opposing God on purpose , no matter what the actual act is, one is sinning. Satan had no moral code to consult when he opposed God yet he sinned by opposing God. One doesn't need to consult a rule book to know one is rebelling against God's authority. So if one truly believes that God is against lawn mowing and one mows the lawn anyway that is an act of rebellion against God i.e. a sin. We are commanded as Christians to love God with all our heart and mind and soul. If we purposely act against God, no matter what it is we do, we are breaking that most important of all the commandments.

The lawyers and Pharisees totally believed what they were doing was correct, even to calling for Christ's crucifixion. They believed it to the depths of their hearts. Saul totally believed that stoning Stephen was right. He believed it to the depths of his heart.

Believing as they truly did, would it have been a sin for them to forebear from those actions?

 

[RDKirk]

We also learn from Jeremiah 23 with the teachings about the prophets.

"They commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness."

There is a difference between those that wish to learn and change and those that have no interest in believing the word. We are not to strengthen the hand of evil. Today the church is teaching a different message than what the bible teaches. How can you love someone and still help them to sin? How can you love someone and not warn them of what's coming? A lot of good men are staying silent instead of teaching what is written.

Aren't you helping them to sin by obeying Romans 13? When does that slippery slope of thinking end?

No, the fact is that unless and until he come to faith, he's in sin whether he's in that house or not. You have not kept him from sin.

But if you didn't take the gospel to him, you did help him to stay in that state of sin and you also directly disobeyed the direct and explicit commandment of Christ. Not having sold him the house does not cover for your disobedience to Christ.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The lawyers and Pharisees totally believed what they were doing was correct, even to calling for Christ's crucifixion. They believed it to the depths of their hearts. Saul totally believed that stoning Stephen was right. He believed it to the depths of his heart.

Believing as they truly did, would it have been a sin for them to forebear from those actions?

Yes. If they truly believed that it would be in opposition to God to not kill someone then they would have sinned to not try to have them killed. I'm sure you know that there are OT examples of this. I find it very difficult to believe that they were acting out of their sincere love of God and not out of their own personal belief that those opposing themselves and their position in the religious hierarchy ought to be eliminated but I won't just dismiss that possibility. As it is, Jesus came here to do what he did and opposing that would have surely been in opposition to God's plan. Someone had to be the tool of God in making that happen.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes. If they truly believed that it would be in opposition to God to not kill someone then they would have sinned to not try to have them killed. I'm sure you know that there are OT examples of this. I find it very difficult to believe that they were acting out of their sincere love of God and not out of their own personal belief that those opposing themselves and their position in the religious hierarchy ought to be eliminated but I won't just dismiss that possibility. As it is, Jesus came here to do what he did and opposing that would have surely been in opposition to God's plan. Someone had to be the tool of God in making that happen.

You're essentially saying, then, that a "true believer" is righteous in every action that stems from his "true belief"....as though nobody might actually be deceived by Satan.