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

[Serendipity..]

Are there as many practicing christian homosexuals as there are practicing hypocrites thinking they will be saved?

 

[harvester77]

so no one can actually give a definite answer? It is a hard one I know, but if two people love each other and still believe and worship God then I why not providing it is a stable relationships i.e no cheating, orgies etc.

 

[Catherineanne]

With that logic we should all do whatever we want as long as we feel good while doing it. Also,that means that because the bible assumes that nobody feels romantically or sexually toward an animal that only those women for whom this is true were being mentioned in the surrounding text. If society decides that bestiality is ok then it must be ok. Because God makes people who feel romantically toward animals (thus they would not be sinning as they are acting within thier God given nature). What you're basically saying is that the Bible is a dated book that should change as the world decides that more and more is ok. That God changes because we do.

Not at all; I am saying we should stick very closely to what the Bible says and NOT add to it.

The Bible does not say we can do what we want when we want to. But the Bible says that all men are straight, because it says that those who indulge in ss activity are acting contrary to their nature. The Bible has no concept whatever of gay men doing what comes naturally to gay men; this notion simply does not exist.

Argue all you like; that is the Biblical perspective. The term 'homosexual' does NOT apply to straight men indulging in ss activity, and this is what the Bible condemns.

The Bible does NOT condemn same sex activity between people who are same sex orientated, because it has no idea whatever that such people exist. Therefore, to adopt a Biblical perspective we would have to either assume that all men are straight, and that gay people are indeed straight people acting contrary to nature OR accept that the Biblical understanding of sexuality is not the same as our own.

As I have said elsewhere, the Biblical understanding of what is 'natural' would also condemn any woman taking the active or initiatory role in sexual activity. Women are regarded as totally passive, both in sexuality and procreation. The Bible would condemn a woman inviting her husband to have an early night just as much as it condemns a man taking a passive role in sexual activity, either to a woman or a man.

In other words, sexual habits and beliefs change. Ours have changed from those of 2,000 years ago, almost out of all recognition.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the author, not me.

 

[Catherineanne]

The times homosexuality is mentioned in the bible it is always negative, so even if you don't believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is wrong, you at least have to bring evidence that outweighs what has already been brought. So far, all that's been brought is feelings. Not bible. It's already been brought up as a sin for at least one gender. Prove that it is not a sin for the other.

Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. The Bible has no concept of same sex attraction.

When same sex activity is mentioned it is ALWAYS between what we would call straight people; men acting contrary to their nature. This is NOT the meaning of the term gay or homosexual.

Homosexual as a concept was only formulated in the 19th century. Before this time all men were assumed to be the same; straight. Some behaved according to nature and slept with women, some acted contrary to nature and slept with men. Those who act against nature are condemned soundly. But NONE were considered gay.

Therefore, whatever it is that the Bible condemns, it is not homosexuality.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

In order to answer this question, we have to know what homosexuality is. Better yet, we have to know what sin means. Of course as we know, sin means missing the mark. The mark in this case, is how God created us in the beginning. Yet when Adam disobeyed God, everything became corrupt. Specifically, our bodies and nature. Our bodies no longer operate like it did before the fall, and our thinking became off the mark as well.


So in terms of homosexuality, God originally created to have a man cling to his wife, after leaving mom and dad. That was the mark in the beginning. After the fall, our feelings changed. When a person says they were born with feelings toward the same sex, I believe them. (Of course some might not have, but that's another discussion) We are all born with a below the mark nature. This is why Jesus came, to give us a new nature.


Now, Jesus gave us a new spirit. Yet, we still have these bodies right now, which is still corrupt. Many homosexual Christians have struggled with their feelings, trying to stop having them, but that was never something we were instructed to do anyway. That is, trying to stop the feelings of the body. You can't, these feelings are natural to this corrupt body. It's the same with any sin in trying to stop it with the effort of your body. No, instead, we are to live by the new nature of our spirit. No longer try. Everyone who is in Christ, is absolutely righteous right now. Renew your mind by the new nature that was given by Christ, and your actions will follow your thoughts.



So don't try to live righteous by effort. Work what Jesus gave us. It's by His power, that we live the righteous life. Mainly, think the new thoughts concerning righteousness in Jesus. Don't consider your body. Above all else, don't condemn yourself. We were all made sinners because of Adam's disobedience. No amount of good works changed that. By the same token, because of Jesus, we are all made righteous. Now if no amount of good works could change us from being sinners in Adam, why should one sinful act change us from being righteous in Jesus? Change your mind with these thoughts.

 

[jonpy]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would throw being a homosexual in with murder, lying and stealing. I dont understand the reasons for it being a sin (other than the Bible et), other than as a result of the same kind of bigotry we see against any other group of people, demonstrated through history and generally agreed by most thinking people of today to be horrible and not something to be supported. Some say it is not natural, but it is, we see it in nature. Its consenting, no one is hurt. I know gay people who truely love each other, is love not something good?

 

[Trailltrader]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would throw being a homosexual in with murder, lying and stealing. I dont understand the reasons for it being a sin (other than the Bible et), other than as a result of the same kind of bigotry we see against any other group of people, demonstrated through history and generally agreed by most thinking people of today to be horrible and not something to be supported. Some say it is not natural, but it is, we see it in nature. Its consenting, no one is hurt. I know gay people who truely love each other, is love not something good?

Like you, I have observed theres some gay couples who have far better marriages than straights. George Taki of "Star Trek" has been with his partner of 20ish years or so now. From G-ds perspective sin is sin. We as humans however have a difficult time separating levels of sin- such as the difference between spitting on the sidewalk that people would walk in it, vs murder. Paul does write about how "Faith, Hope and Love with Love being the strongest of all and how it covers a multitude of sin". I dunno- its beyond my pay scale to understand such things. But I do agree with you it is a mystery.

 

[jonpy]

Im not sure what you mean about the different levels of sin. Do you mean in the eyes of God? I cant imagine anyone would have difficulty in differentiating murder and spitting gum and the morals of each in human terms! Which is kind of my point really. I think most thinking people understand that it is immoral to discriminate against homosexuals, yet this is what God seems to be doing. I understand that you could say we are not to know or understand why God says its a sin but my argument would be you are not God, you are human, so use your own mind to discuss, debate and chew over these issues instead of removing the obligation of doing so by submitting the process to a book, particularly if by doing this people suffer and are discriminated against without reason. If God is the judge there is no need for us to discriminate against something that is so obviously natural, harmless and in some cases commendable and inspiring. I would also like to add that (from my perspective) there is no mystery as to why this attitude is included in the Bible, its obvious infact. There is a long history of discrimination against all sorts of people (hence the civil rights movement for example). If you were to take a small step in my direction and consider that perhaps a fallable human inserted that little bit of hatred in the Bible, then the 'mystery' is solved. Alternatively you could choose to believe that this is not possible, that everything in the Bible is pure and uncorrupted. I would reason that if that is the case then there are reasons why you dont (i presume) think people who work on the sabbath should be executed (and therefore reasons why this reasoning is not applied to homosexuals). Regarding the historical precedence of bigotry against groups, it is argued by the non-religious that it is this bigotry that caused its inclusion in the Bible, that we have seen over the centuries against all manner of minorities, that has been hard fought against by thinking peoples and it is this that is continuing through its inclusion in the Bible. To justify this position it is often remarked how eating shrimp is also a sin, but......
(I havent checked that last point so correct me if Im wrong). This is how it appears to those outside Christianity and I think it is important all Christians, no matter their opinion on this are aware of how it comes across. I like to think ive got it all wrong, im missing something, Im hoping someone can clear it up for me

 

[ViaCrucis]

I find it difficult to understand why someone would throw being a homosexual in with murder, lying and stealing. I dont understand the reasons for it being a sin (other than the Bible et), other than as a result of the same kind of bigotry we see against any other group of people, demonstrated through history and generally agreed by most thinking people of today to be horrible and not something to be supported. Some say it is not natural, but it is, we see it in nature. Its consenting, no one is hurt. I know gay people who truely love each other, is love not something good?

Unfortunately threads like this one are typically going to be one sided due to the rules of the website which forbid "promoting" homosexuality. But, for the record, there are those of us who are as perplexed as you are on the issue. But if I went further than that, I'd probably be in violation of forum guidelines.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Leap]

Is it morally wrong to be in a relationship with same sex if you are not having sex?

If you commit adultery in your heart, you commit adultery.

So one can presume if you commit fornication and sodomy in your heart you also commit them.

We can't control what we desire, for that we need God's forgiveness (for which we need remorse and repentance) but we can control whether we act on them - "go, and sin no more".

However, there is little remorse in a soul who still seeks the sinful.

You need to not be in such a relationship, even if chaste, as the temptation will drive you mad (or to sin). Be kind to yourself and do not build your life in a realm where temptation can be easily acted on - alcoholics know this all too well.

Those who try to are playing God, which is blasphemous.

You are mistaken.

Scripture calls on us to judge who are pigs and dogs in order that we cast no pearls before them.

Taking lines out of context is VERY dangerous.

 

[Leap]

Im not sure what you mean about the different levels of sin. Do you mean in the eyes of God? I cant imagine anyone would have difficulty in differentiating murder and spitting gum and the morals of each in human terms!

ALL sin leads us away from God. The difference is that some may lead meters away, some miles and some light years. But they ALL remain sin; and being a meter away from the edge of an inferno (that you are inside) is no better than being 20 light years away really, is it. Either way you are KFC.

By the way, I'm using that figuratively. I don't hold to a literal "burn forever" hell.

 

[Leap]

Some say it is not natural, but it is, we see it in nature.

We also see schizophenia, gang rape and animals eating their young. Are those things to be considered "normal" as well?

In the end, it comes down to a pretty simple set of facts that even atheists should recognise....

The sexes only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is what male and female are.

This means that each of the sexes, being intrinsically complementary in nature, have no meaning without the other. They only exist and have meaning for the role they play together; thus it takes a man to make a woman truly feel like a woman, and a woman to make a man truly feel like a man.

It also means that heterosexuality can be recognised as the “default setting”, as sexual reproduction is intrinsically and inescapably heterosexual in nature, and that anything other than heterosexuality misses the whole point, nature and context of the sexes.

Simply put, outside of heterosexuality, both the sexes themselves, and the sexual functionings (eg: sperm for men and periods for women), are rendered utterly meaningless. They have no purpose outside of heterosexuality, because it is only by their roles in (hetero)sexual reproduction that they have any meaning.

What this means, in practice, is that there are only two “sexualities”; Heterosexuality, which is the “default setting” in which the sexes and their functionings have real meaning, and a kind of eroticised Asexuality, in which the sexes themselves (and the reproductive functionings of sperm and periods) are utterly meaningless and inconsequential. The latter, in denying something as intrinsic to human identity as the sexes, is then a pathological and literally dehumanising deviant “sexuality”, utterly disconnected from the purpose embedded in the sexes and their functionings, that in no way should be accepted as 'normal' and should never be regarded as the basis for marriage.

 

[Joykins]

Simply put, outside of heterosexuality, both the sexes themselves, and the sexual functionings (eg: sperm for men and periods for women), are rendered utterly meaningless. They have no purpose outside of heterosexuality, because it is only by their roles in (hetero)sexual reproduction that they have any meaning.

Taking this back into the animal kingdom for a bit, homosexual relations between bonobos definitely serve a purpose.

Similarly sexual relations in humans also serve a purpose beside the reproductive. Although I would never encourage humans to adopt the sexual behavior of bonobos! They use sex to make friends and influence other bonobos.

 

[Leap]

Taking this back into the animal kingdom for a bit, homosexual relations between bonobos definitely serve a purpose.

Similarly sexual relations in humans also serve a purpose beside the reproductive. Although I would never encourage humans to adopt the sexual behavior of bonobos! They use sex to make friends and influence other bonobos.

Read the post again, as you have not taken in what I said about the SEXES. You are speaking of eroticism, not THE SEXES.

 

[Joykins]

Well, you basically said that the role the sexes play in reproduction is heterosexual reproduction, which is a truism.

 

[Leap]

Well, you basically said that the role the sexes play in reproduction is heterosexual reproduction, which is a truism.

Quote the specific thing (fully) that you are refering to, and leave the straw man in his cupboard.

 

[Joykins]

If you insist

The sexes only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is what male and female are.

reductionism

This means that each of the sexes, being intrinsically complementary in nature, have no meaning without the other. They only exist and have meaning for the role they play together; thus it takes a man to make a woman truly feel like a woman, and a woman to make a man truly feel like a man.

Denies not only the sexuality but the gender of single or celibate people.

It also means that heterosexuality can be recognised as the “default setting”, as sexual reproduction is intrinsically and inescapably heterosexual in nature, and that anything other than heterosexuality misses the whole point, nature and context of the sexes.

Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex. It is one purpose, an important one, but it is not necessary for everyone to engage in heterosexual relations to ensure the survival of the species. Sexual relations also exist for the formation and perpetuation of the sort of bonds that keep human families together for various other purposes including but not limited to the rearing of the young and social stability. They also function in various other ways to benefit individuals or families which Christians may disapprove of, but still exist in all societies.

Simply put, outside of heterosexuality, both the sexes themselves, and the sexual functionings (eg: sperm for men and periods for women), are rendered utterly meaningless. They have no purpose outside of heterosexuality, because it is only by their roles in (hetero)sexual reproduction that they have any meaning.

reductionism

What this means, in practice, is that there are only two “sexualities”; Heterosexuality, which is the “default setting” in which the sexes and their functionings have real meaning, and a kind of eroticised Asexuality, in which the sexes themselves (and the reproductive functionings of sperm and periods) are utterly meaningless and inconsequential. The latter, in denying something as intrinsic to human identity as the sexes, is then a pathological and literally dehumanising deviant “sexuality”, utterly disconnected from the purpose embedded in the sexes and their functionings, that in no way should be accepted as 'normal' and should never be regarded as the basis for marriage.

All points in here addressed in various places above. Reducing human sexuality to only reproduction flies in the face of all that is known about human sexuality.

.

 

[jonpy]

Ahhh, thanks I had no idea that was the case (re forum guidelines). Thats a shame though, i was hoping for open correspondence. Will browse for another topic to ask about

 

[Leap]

reductionism

No. Biology.

Denies not only the sexuality but the gender of single or celibate people.

Which part of "the sexes themselves only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is literally what 'male' and 'female' are" do you not understand?

Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex.

Wrong. Its not the only use of eroticism, but (and sorry to repeat myself but you seem to be struggling with this bit) the sexes themselves only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is literally what 'male' and 'female' are.

reductionism

No, again, biology. Do you really not grasp that?

All points in here addressed in various places above. Reducing human sexuality to only reproduction flies in the face of all that is known about human sexuality.

Again, which part of "the sexes themselves only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is literally what 'male' and 'female' are" do you really not grasp?

Sorry, you are not making arguments but are just issuing repeated denials that make no attempt to engage with the points I have made. Clearly your position is just to keep repeating your denials, and we cannot have a conversation that way. You need to actuall engage with what I have said.

Until that happens we will get nowhere.

 

[Hetta]

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..

He or she is as saved as any person in the world right now who claims to be saved but who has lied .. cheated .. held malice .. hated .. etc etc etc. So, he or she is the same as all the rest of us.