Can you be a Christian and a practising homosexual and still be saved?

[Alithis]

To the op.the answer is No.

 

[OllieFranz]

Well,I gave it a few extra days, and still no one wants to answer my questions. Too bad. If I had approached Romans 1 from that perspective, it would not matter that you believed that same-sex practices are sins in and of themselves. I would have established a case for tolerance based mostly on Romans 14 and confirmed by passages throughout the Gospels, Paul's letters, and even the letter by James.

The other approach points out your utter ignorance of what Paul is saying in Romans 1, especially your reliance on the phrase "para physis," ("against nature," "unnatural").

In First Century Koine Greek, that phrase had become a cliche, an idiomatic way of saying "unexpectedly," with no subtext. Paul uses the phrase in exactly that way when he likens God to a gardener grafting olive branches onto a root stock. Normally the gardener will graft the branches of a cultivated variety onto a wild stock, but God has "against nature" grafted wild (Gentile) branches onto the cultivated stock (His chosen people).

But in Chapter 1, Paul uses the phrase in a different way, an older way. Much older. In the Classical Greek of three centuries earlier, the philosophers used the phrase "para physis," and its opposite "kata physis" ("with nature," or "in accord with nature") to designate moral choices. Essentially, something that is not to be done goes against one's better nature. Paul uses the phrase here because he is referencing a passage from Plato written three hundred years earlier:

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature [kata physis], but contrary to nature [para physis] when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
Plato, Laws 1:636c
​

It is to be noted that Paul did not quote Plato directly. The "exact words" standard was not established yet, back then, but more importantly, Paul did not wantthe Roman Church to get bogged down in unimportant details, so he tinkered with the quote. First, he downplayed the fact that the women were engaging in lesbian sex. Where Plato explicitly says "female with female." Paul simply says that they "changed the natural use into that which is against nature. Second, he added in word clues concerning the actual sin involved (more on that later).

Although the phrase "para physis" was still in use, even if debased, the phrase "kata physis" had dropped out of favor. Paul substituted the word "physikos," ("natural") for the obsolete phrase.

It is odd that Plato would be calling same-sex practices sin, considering that several other dialogues take place in symposia in which elders are served by youngsters in a sexually charged atmosphere. Certainly Paul would not sugar-coat the women's actions if he thought that that was the sin. So what sin was Plato looking at, if not "homosexuality"? And why did he choose such a specific instance of that sin that it could cause this confusion millenia later?

Notice that Plato starts by saying that although he is "jesting" by giving this example, it does point out a real moral problem. So what is the joke, and what is the problem? For those we need to see the context of the quote.

In Laws, unlike the rest of his dialogues which take place in Athens, the speakers are in Crete. They are walking from the home of the native Cretan, whose guests the other two are, to the temple of Zeus. The main speaker, the unnamed Athenian (who is a Socrates stand-in, since Socrates never visited Crete) makes a joke that the Cretans chose Zeus as their patron so that they would have an excuse (in Zeus' behavior with Ganymede) for continuing the erastes/eromenos relationship with the young men they mentored beyond what was considered proper. That was the joke, that the Cretans were just a bunch of closet queens.

And the real problem? Well, the rest of that section of the dialogue focuses on the pleasures of wine, the issue of overindulgence, resulting in drunkenness, and hangovers, and even touches on addiction. That is the problem.

And in Romans, Paul emphasizes that overindulgence and addiction are the issue in two different ways. First, he claims that the sin can also be its own punishment. ("God gave them up unto vile affections ... receiving in themselves that recompense for their error). Anyone who has had the monkey on his back can attest to the fact that addiction is its own special hell.

And second, he takes advantage of the fact that Greek philosophy continued even after Plato's time. Later philosophers distilled the essence of the overindulgence/addition cycle into five parts or symptoms: epimythia (desire), pathos (emotion), ekkaio (burning), orexis (lust), and plane ("error" or "wandering" [from the proper path]). Paul made a point of including those five words, in their traditional order into the passage:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (epimythia) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections (pathos): for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned (ekkaio) in their lust (orexis) one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error (plane) which was meet.
​

To the Greeks, doing anything had to have a purpose. Doing something simply because it was enjoyable was a warning sign of moral danger. Because it leads to overindulgence and to addiction. Paul also believes this to some extent. So when he tells married couples to not neglect having sex (even when it it not necessary for conception) he says that it helps the spouse to avoid temptation with other people, and when he tells Timothy that it is OK to have a cup of wine now and then, he says it can help settle one's stomach.

And they have a point. Doing something without purpose, just because it is enjoyable is lazy. And a lazy lifestyle is an unexamined lifestyle. An unexamined lifestyle can lead to doing the easy thing, rather than the morally correct thing. The entire list of sins in Romans 1:29-32 can be said to be the result of not examining our choices.

In conclusion, the sin described in Romans 1:24-27 is not "homosexuality," it is overindulgence and addiction. It is exampled as sexual debauchery because Paul is quoting someone else's (Plato's) work. In that other work, the sexual aspect of the quoted passage is based on a joke. The serious part is the addiction. Paul mitigates the influence of the sexual joke in two ways. He "sugar-coats" the women's involvement with one another, and he brings into play the symptoms or parts of the real sin.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

In a word, no.
Summarizing the scriptures it's like this. God gave the scriptures for teaching his ways, his laws, for reproof of bad behavior, and for learning righteousness. There is nothing new under the sun in matters of God and his knowledge and understanding. He is omniscient.

If homosexuality were approved by God, there would be scriptures relating that so that people could learn about homosexuality and uphold it as part of God's will and plan.
Instead, we have just the opposite.
God condemns homosexuality as an abomination. Worthy of death in the old testament. Assured to gain death in the new testament when scripture says homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Asking the OP question is asking if someone can continue to be their old selves and sin regularly, call themselves Christian, which is refuted when someone doesn't change after receiving Christ, and still call themselves Christ like. When Christ was sinless and the role model for righteous conduct.
And Jesus wasn't gay. Nor did Jesus ever validate, approve, or legitimize homosexuality.

The old testament Leviticus scriptures that some claim refer to temple prostitutes are valid in condemning homosexuality then and now. Those examples of the pagans in the temples and their prostitution before pagan god's was used as an example of indecent behavior. And that, which the Hebrews would have known about, was what they were to rise above and not emulate in their obedience to the one true God Jehovah.

The temple prostitutes were an example of damnable fornicating behavior. Temple prostitutes were wholly immoral.

 

[OllieFranz]

In a word, no.

Quick on the trigger, there, Dusky. Are you sure that's your final answer?

Summarizing the scriptures it's like this. God gave the scriptures for teaching his ways, his laws, for reproof of bad behavior, and for learning righteousness. There is nothing new under the sun in matters of God and his knowledge and understanding. He is omniscient.

Not a bad summary. Leaves a lot out, but then if the Wisdom of God could be completely expressed in three sentences, we would not need the 66 books of the Bible. To be honest, however, I, myself, prefer Jesus' summary (See Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28)

If homosexuality were approved by God, there would be scriptures relating that so that people could learn about homosexuality and uphold it as part of God's will and plan.

Not Necessarily. There are a lot of things we can do that neither particularly glorify God nor dishonor him. The Bible does not list them all. It says nothing, for example, about posting on a computer discussion board. On the other hand, it is possible to use such a neutral action to aid in another activity which does glorify or dishonors God. The virtue or the vice is in that second action, not in the neutral one. And it is also possible to perform a neutral action in an improper way. Doing so may or may not be sin.

However, in the case of same-sex practices we have more to go on....

Instead, we have just the opposite.

Actually, we have five (possibly six) examples of positive same-sex relationships in the Bible. Potiphar and Joseph, Naomi and Ruth, Jonathan and David (and possibly Jonathan and his armor-bearer earlier in his career), Ashpenaz and Daniel, and the Centurion and his "boy." In the case of Jonathan and David, we actually have the marriage ceremony described, and a point-by-point recollection made to the only definition of marriage in the Bible. And even though the Ethiopian treasurer in Acts 8 is not shown with a partner, he is baptized without being told to give up his homosexuality.

God condemns homosexuality as an abomination. Worthy of death in the old testament. Assured to gain death in the new testament when scripture says homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

An "abomination" ("toevah") is something that is ritually forbidden, like eating pork, wearing blended fabrics, or sharing a meal with Gentiles. A sin, especially a sexual sin would be described as zimmah ("wicked"), as adultery is. "Man-lying" only garners the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13, where the context clearly shows that it is one of the forms of adultery that were considered loopholes in the commandment ("as long as it is kept in the family it doesn't count"), and which God is explicitly closing down.

In Leviticus 18:22, it is bundled with other forms of offerings to the false god Moloch. And it is wrong for that reason. Don't offer Moloch your seed as a burnt offering. Don't offer your seed inside an animal that will become a burnt offering. Don't offer your seed in a temple slave, etc.

As to the New Testament reference, I assume you mean 1 Corinthians 6:8-11. I'll have more to say about that in a later post, but I will here point out that there are other sinners listed, not just the "man-lyers," including the covetous and the revilers.

Asking the OP question is asking if someone can continue to be their old selves and sin regularly, call themselves Christian, which is refuted when someone doesn't change after receiving Christ, and still call themselves Christ like. When Christ was sinless and the role model for righteous conduct.

I have to agree and disagree. If you are using one of Paul's lists to examine yourself, the certainly you should be striving to improve your behavior, and if you have determined that for you to engage in same-sex practices is not honoring to God, then you should not be engaging in them, and for you it would be a sin, then I agree.

But if you are taking these lists and applying them to other people, and you are deciding for them that their lifestyle is sinful, then you are not honoring God or His Scriptures. There are only a handful of reasons to criticize -- to judge -- someone else's choices. Your (lack of a) relationship with the vast majority of people on this planet means that none of these exceptions apply to most of them. I can spell out the few cases where you are permitted to intervene, but right now my point is that it is a matter between them and God.

To give an example, suppose that you have just recently asked Christ into your life. You have a major sin problem between you and several of your birth family that you are working on. Until it is resolved, you feel uncomfortable attending Church services every week. Someone in the congregation notices that you only come on rare occasions and, knowing nothing about the other issue you are struggling with starts berating you for ignoring the command to meet regularly.

Similarly, the gay person you are claiming cannot be a Christian because he hasn't given up his same-sex practices may be struggling with a different issue first. You have no power to tell the Holy Spirit which sins to deal with or in what order.

This example assumes that he will, guided by the Holy Spirit, eventually agree with your conclusion that same-sex practices are sinful for him to engage in. But Romans 14 tells us that there are some matters of doctrine that good Christians can disagree upon, and show us the proper way to deal with that fact.

And Jesus wasn't gay.

I agree that there is no evidence that He was, but evidence about the Man, rather than the Legend is rather scarce outside the Gospels.

Nor did Jesus ever validate, approve, or legitimize homosexuality.

Except in Matthew 19:12

The old testament Leviticus scriptures that some claim refer to temple prostitutes are valid in condemning homosexuality then and now. Those examples of the pagans in the temples and their prostitution before pagan god's was used as an example of indecent behavior. And that, which the Hebrews would have known about, was what they were to rise above and not emulate in their obedience to the one true God Jehovah.

The temple prostitutes were an example of damnable fornicating behavior. Temple prostitutes were wholly immoral.

Agreed. But other than temple prostitution, and the torture and rape of suspected spies (also defeated armies, though none are mentioned in the Bible), all of which are sinful even without the sex, there are no homosexual sins listed in the Bible. There is nothing to connect the sex of the victim to the sin.

For example, in Judges 19, you have an exact parallel to Lot and the angels in Genesis 19, right up to the point where the angels blind the mob. The visitors are not angels, so they don't have that out. They sacrifice one of the visitors -- the woman. She is tortured raped and murdered. There is no less an outcry against the townspeople because she was a woman than there would have been if she were a man.

 

[Sarah Sarah]

And why do so many Christians disagree with this one? Why is it not straight forward? I struggle with this sin but I know deep down it is not a natural act. I have always known this since a child without anyone telling me otherwise? Is it morally wrong to be in a relationship with same sex if you are not having sex?

How do change your feelings? It is not easy done. It is like asking a heterosexual to change their attraction, try doing that..

I think we could get into all manner of discussion on this topic and how homosexuality is not at all like unto heterosexuality.

However, to keep on point with the question here in the OP. Sexually active homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. "If a man lies with another man as he does a woman..."

As Sodom is inevitably introduced into discussions such as this, we recall the men of the town came to Lot's house and demanded he let the strangers visiting him, the angels, to come forth so that those towns men may know them. Like unto scripture where it talks about heterosexual relationship, as Adam who knew his wife Eve.
This of course meant to have sex with them.
In the case of the men demanding access to the male angels, to know meant the men wanted to defile the angels sent by God. Though the men didn't know those strangers true identity.

And this evil, this sin, this immorality was one of the reasons God sent the angels to the town that they might find one righteous one and spare it God's wrath as a punishment for the sins within.

In short, we're all sinners. But Christians sins are washed clean when they are sincere of heart and accept Jesus as their savior. This isn't to say we can sin over and over again and we're good to go.
It means when we act human we're not condemned and lost for not knowing better.

Abstinence as a homosexual isn't sinful. It's rebuking the sin by not engaging in the sinful act.
Womanizing heterosexuals who find Christ and change that behavior are not engaging in that sinful act either.

Just because it feels good doesn't mean it you should.
It's easy. The adversary to righteousness inspires all manner of behavior.
"If it feels good do it!"
Hedonism! But just like with parents, there are rules set forth for the children so as to inspire and instruct right behavior.

Why would Father God be any different?
Homosexuals are a very small minority in this world population of billions upon billions of individuals. If homosexuality, which isn't a procreative behavior, were God's will that wouldn't be the case.

Be fruitful and multiply.
Isn't accomplished in homosexual couplings that don't use outside surrogates to bypass what nature blocks when the couple is left to their own devices.

 

[Sarah Sarah]

Quick on the trigger, there, Dusky. Are you sure that's your final answer?

Can you show her, us, where God's word commands homosexuals couple?

 

[SwordFall]

Homosexuality is a big ol' negative.

Ever heard of the cliche: There was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?

Well, it's true; God did not mean for any man to be homosexual. If He did, shouldn't the physical human body resemble such?

The fact of the matter is that homosexual sex is unnatural in and of itself. People actually go to the hospital for anal hemorrhages and such. An incredible percentage of AIDS patients are homosexual.

In reality, supporters of homosexuality try to tell you it's natural, but nature itself says otherwise. On evolution, the mind and body are not adversaries. If homosexuality was legitimate, it would legitimately be evident in the physical sense.

It is not_
God made us MAN and WOMAN.

 

[SkyWriting]

It might help you to read that scripture.
The greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

The Lord God Jesus declared, He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Show me the scripture wherein Jesus said to tolerate sin. To not rebuke the sinner.
It is not there. Jesus declared the unrepentant, the fornicators, the unrepentant, shall not see Heaven.

Jesus said do not judge by appearances but by righteous judgment.

Do not imagine to preach a doctrine of anything goes and call it of God. We are to rebuke our neighbor when they transgress. That is God's word. Man has no license to revoke it.

True. And the greatest of these commandments is love. It's a two way street. You must be without sin before you get permission to cast stones.

 

[SkyWriting]

Homosexuality is a big ol' negative.
.

There are tons of big negatives. Not showing love and compassion is #1.

Men are all female up to a certain point in fetal development. There are 100's of things that can go wrong in that process. Sure, we can fault the fetus for abnormal development. Do you suggest abortion for any abominations that you determine unfit by your standards?

Transgender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Alithis]

The answer to the OP. Is NO. one cannot be both subservient in unrepentance to sin and born again of the spirit of God whereby they are made a NEW CREATURE in Christ .a person who claims to be christian then takes upon themselves the title and old nature of the sinful flesh is simplhy denying Jesusis able to transform them into his own image by his power.they would rather walk in thier vain imaginations fufilling the sinful desire of the flesh and continue in disobedience to the Holy Spirit..Thus displaying openly thier unbelief and shame.This applies to all Sin and all sinners who refuse to put thier faith in Jesus to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves and then walk in disobedience to him in thier faithlessness.this is truth and it would not be an act of love to not speak the truth..Whaterver sin you are slave to -Jesus the LORD can and is willing to set you free.

 

[SkyWriting]

The answer to the OP. Is NO. one cannot be both subservient in unrepentance to sin and born again of the spirit of God whereby they are made a NEW CREATURE in Christ .a person who claims to be christian then takes upon themselves the title and old nature of the sinful flesh is simplhy denying Jesusis able to transform them into his own image by his power.they would rather walk in thier vain imaginations fufilling the sinful desire of the flesh and continue in disobedience to the Holy Spirit..Thus displaying openly thier unbelief and shame.This applies to all Sin and all sinners who refuse to put thier faith in Jesus to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves and then walk in disobedience to him in thier faithlessness.this is truth and it would not be an act of love to not speak the truth..Whaterver sin you are slave to -Jesus the LORD can and is willing to set you free.

"Setting one free" may well be the freedom to ignore those who do not love God first. The scriptures are clear that what one thinks is at a higher level than what one does. For example you may have a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker on your car. You nod off in heavy traffic and kill a child crossing the road.

Jesus does not condemn your actions and it's result. He forgives your deeds and understands that this world is not as the Father intended. Jesus forgives you your deeds.

 

[ImperialJohn]

In reply to the OP I think that no matter what the sin we have a chance and we have to make the effort to sin "no more" just as Jesus said in John 8:11 on the Mount of Olives:

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go andsin no more.”

Here Jesus didn't let her off. He threw out the case because the Pharisees had ignored the law. They did not have two credible witnesses. And they only had one individual on trial. It takes two to tango. The woman wasn't found "not guily" it is clear that she was completely guilty but the case was thrown out and Jesus made the hypocritical Pharisees who had brought the case up in the first place as a trap look foolish. The important point though was his last two words to go and sin "no more".

 

[OllieFranz]

I think we could get into all manner of discussion on this topic and how homosexuality is not at all like unto heterosexuality.

However, to keep on point with the question here in the OP. Sexually active homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. "If a man lies with another man as he does a woman..."

That is not the only way to translate that verse. An equally valid translation would be "It is (ritually) forbidden to lie with a man instead of with your wife." Considering that the preceding verses are all supposed "exceptions" to the commandment against adultery, which God is saying do count as adultery, this is a fair assessment.

As Sodom is inevitably introduced into discussions such as this, we recall the men of the town came to Lot's house and demanded he let the strangers visiting him, the angels, to come forth so that those towns men may know them. Like unto scripture where it talks about heterosexual relationship, as Adam who knew his wife Eve.
This of course meant to have sex with them.
In the case of the men demanding access to the male angels, to know meant the men wanted to defile the angels sent by God. Though the men didn't know those strangers true identity.

And this evil, this sin, this immorality was one of the reasons God sent the angels to the town that they might find one righteous one and spare it God's wrath as a punishment for the sins within.

Sodom? Really? So I guess that if it were a woman that they thought was a spy and wanted to rape, that would be OK? Oh wait! In Judges 19 we have the exact same situation as in Sodom, except that the visitors were not angels, and could not blind the mob. The mob got ahold of one of the visitors and tortured, raped, and killed her. And they did not get away with it because she was a woman.

In short, we're all sinners. But Christians sins are washed clean when they are sincere of heart and accept Jesus as their savior. This isn't to say we can sin over and over again and we're good to go.
It means when we act human we're not condemned and lost for not knowing better.

Unless you are gay?

Abstinence as a homosexual isn't sinful. It's rebuking the sin by not engaging in the sinful act. Womanizing heterosexuals who find Christ and change that behavior are not engaging in that sinful act either.

God made us with sex drives. It is a good thing. It propagates the species. But for many of us, our drive is greater than just what is necessary to conceive children. Paul tells us to submit to our spouses' sexual needs so that they don't need to look elsewhere (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)

Paul also tells us in those verses that it takes a special gift of grace from God to commit to a lifetime of abstinence. And for that reason he urges those without the gift to marry. Marriage is the "way of escape" (1 Corinthians 10:13) from sexual sins available to those who do not have the grace to choose abstinance. Your "advice" makes God a liar and a cruel tyrant.

Just because it feels good doesn't mean it you should.
It's easy. The adversary to righteousness inspires all manner of behavior.
"If it feels good do it!"
Hedonism! But just like with parents, there are rules set forth for the children so as to inspire and instruct right behavior.

In general, I agree with this statement. Hedonism, Unbridled Passion, Living for pleasure without examining the consequences, it all leads to addiction and death.

But rejecting someone just because they have different needs than you do, condemning them to impossible tasks and declaring them hellbound when they inevitably fail is not Christian love. And you have not shown any evidence of considered consequences of your "advice"?

Why would Father God be any different?
Homosexuals are a very small minority in this world population of billions upon billions of individuals. If homosexuality, which isn't a procreative behavior, were God's will that wouldn't be the case.

Poor reasoning. Jesus even says so.

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
John 9:1-3
​

Because sin has entered the world, the world is not perfect. People are born blind, and have other physical and mental deviations from the norm. That does not mean, however, that those whose deviations are greater, or more easily discerned are more sinful than others.

Be fruitful and multiply.
Isn't accomplished in homosexual couplings that don't use outside surrogates to bypass what nature blocks when the couple is left to their own devices.

There is more to love, marriage, and sex than just conceiving children. Again I refer you to 1 Corinthians 7:1-9.

 

[OllieFranz]

Can you show her, us, where God's word commands homosexuals couple?

Not every neutral thing is commanded in the Bible. Can you show me where it commands using a computer?

But to answer your question more seriously, there are five same-sex couples in the Bible that are not condemned for their love. Potiphar and Joseph, Naomi and Ruth, Jonathan and David, Ashpenaz and Daniel, and the centurion and his "boy." Some people also include Elijah and Elisha, but I don't think there is enough evidence to call it.

 

[OllieFranz]

The answer to the OP. Is NO. one cannot be both subservient in unrepentance to sin and born again of the spirit of God whereby they are made a NEW CREATURE in Christ

On what basis do you determine that they are "subserviant in unrepentance to sin"? Can you read the heart of man? Are you He who is the only Man authorized by God to judge men's hearts?

.a person who claims to be christian then takes upon themselves the title and old nature of the sinful flesh is simplhy denying Jesusis able to transform them into his own image by his power.

Are you claiming that from the moment you first prayed for Jesus to save you, you have never again sinned? Are you claiming that all the cobwebs of excuses fell away from every sin at that moment, and you recognized ever evil deed you had done in your life for what it was? That you no longer had any doubts, for example, about whether your interest in that girl in sixth grade was "potential life-partner" or a "sexy-looking" and if it was both, whether the "sexy-looking" parts were pure or not? If you can't even be absolutely sure of your own heart and your own motivations, If you can't control your own actions, but continue to stumble and fall into sin, then you have no business judging others.

 

[IXOYEandeggsbaconandbeans]

And why do so many Christians disagree with this one? Why is it not straight forward? I struggle with this sin but I know deep down it is not a natural act. I have always known this since a child without anyone telling me otherwise? Is it morally wrong to be in a relationship with same sex if you are not having sex?

How do change your feelings? It is not easy done. It is like asking a heterosexual to change their attraction, try doing that..

a heterosexual has natural feeling that are built in to the fabric of humanity, for the purpose of procreating.. a homosexual is merely entertaining their immoral desire .. i say immoral because this kind of relationship is rebellious to God's plan for creation..
the question of being a saved christian and remaining in a gay relationship.. no if you were saved you couldn't possibly remain in a gay relationship.. the conviction would be overwhelming to the point that you would stop the relationship..
although there are those that claim to be saved and continue to sin at will. this is a false christianity..
i mean no offence to anyone that is gay.. thats a choice you make.. the choice part comes when you act on your feelings and this makes you accountable.. even though a person is gay. they still have the choice to refrain from acting on those feelings.. but once they do.. they are rebelling.. and to willingly rebel well, thats not christian..

 

[Alithis]

"Setting one free" may well be the freedom to ignore those who do not love God first. The scriptures are clear that what one thinks is at a higher level than what one does. For example you may have a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker on your car. You nod off in heavy traffic and kill a child crossing the road.

Jesus does not condemn your actions and it's result. He forgives your deeds and understands that this world is not as the Father intended. Jesus forgives you your deeds.

Sin begins in the heart it accumulates into action.but ii allow im misunderstanding you.because if im not,then what youve said sounds like an excusr to continue in sin.

 

[Grandiose]

Not every neutral thing is commanded in the Bible. Can you show me where it commands using a computer?

But to answer your question more seriously, there are five same-sex couples in the Bible that are not condemned for their love. Potiphar and Joseph, Naomi and Ruth, Jonathan and David, Ashpenaz and Daniel, and the centurion and his "boy." Some people also include Elijah and Elisha, but I don't think there is enough evidence to call it.

So now Joseph, Daniel, David, Naomi and Ruth are active homosexuals in Scripture? Well, at least we know all scholarly sense has been abandoned and a personal reinterpretation has given the all ready predetermined outcome.

This is so entirely out in left field it isn't even worth discussing at this point.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review.

As a reminder, the site rules include:
● Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON


The thread will remain closed due to the above reasons.


MOD HAT OFF