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

[Joykins]

I'm not sure you're understanding what I said. Where in anything that I said did you get that occasional fornication is OK? Nothing that I said promotes the "sin now and say sorry for it later" message. What in "knowing it's wrong, rejecting it, and asking God for forgiveness" says to you "Fornicate occasionally but ask for forgiveness afterwards?". In the post you quoted I clearly made the distinction between sexual sin "which God says defiles the land" and stuff like "eating too many donuts".

I was taking your post as a starting point to make a distinction.

Saying that homosexual relations are sinful reduces them to an activity that you do. I was reading a series of books recently about a Mormon cop who was gay. He would go out of town every now and then and hook up with someone. He'd then repent, and remain in good standing with his church and community. But then he fell in love with someone and wanted to build a life with him. As a result, he came out of the closet and got excommunicated from the church he loved and the faith he still believed. I think it is better to have a loving, monogamous relationship with someone than be promiscuous.

None of that matters to this question. The original poster wants to know if you can be a practicing homosexual (her words,not mine) and still be saved at the same time and the answer,biblically, is no.

Can God save a practicing alcoholic? A practicing liar? A practicing gossip/slanderer? If your answer to all these is "no", then I can at least grant you consistency--although I don't agree with it.

According to Matthew 7:21-23 lots of people will call on his name and lots of people will also be told to depart because he does not know them as they practice lawlessness.

And according to Matthew 25, he will tell them to depart because they do not practice charity. There are a lot of standards.

Just because someone else may be living a sinful life doesn't mean that you are free to live in sin too. When we all stand before God on the judgement day somebody else's sin or their expectations as far as whether or not God will save them are completely irrelevant to your going to Heaven or not. So what if divorced and remarried couples are sinning. That is a debate for another post. It still doesn't change what God says about homosexuality which is the sin in question in this post.

What the Bible forbids in the purity laws and discusses in the epistles and the concept we label "homosexuality" are overlapping but not identical concepts.

My issues are soteriological (will God save anyone who has remaining unrepentant sin? and if not, what's salvation for?) and hamartological (if "sin" means "missing the mark" is there some kind of hierarchy of bad aim, especially when it comes to the family life arena?)

 

[Sageroots]

I was taking your post as a starting point to make a distinction.

Wasn't the distinction already made a couple posts back?

Saying that homosexual relations are sinful reduces them to an activity that you do. I was reading a series of books recently about a Mormon cop who was gay. He would go out of town every now and then and hook up with someone. He'd then repent, and remain in good standing with his church and community. But then he fell in love with someone and wanted to build a life with him. As a result, he came out of the closet and got excommunicated from the church he loved and the faith he still believed. I think it is better to have a loving, monogamous relationship with someone than be promiscuous.

I said homosexuality is a sin. Everything that encompasses. Not just relations. This guy clearly was not repentant as he kept doing it over and over again and finally just decided to live in sin. Feeling sorry for something and actually rejecting or turning from that behavior are two different things. A monogamous but homosexual relationship is no better than promiscuity. You are basing your answer on how you feel about it or which one you think is the lesser of the two evils. It would be a much safer bet to go with what God thinks about it and he says that homosexuality defiles the land. That said, neither heterosexual promiscuity or homosexual monogamy is better than the other. God seems to feel quite strongly about sexual sin.

Can God save a practicing alcoholic? A practicing liar? A practicing gossip/slanderer? If your answer to all these is "no", then I can at least grant you consistency--although I don't agree with it.

Well...it does say in the bible that Liars wont inherit the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps if I say it differently you will better understand what I am saying. You cannot be an unrepentant homosexual and still be saved at the same time. Actual repentance is key. Not just asking for forgiveness or feeling sorry about it,rejecting that sin.

And according to Matthew 25, he will tell them to depart because they do not practice charity. There are a lot of standards.

I'm not sure what that last sentence was saying but In Matthew 7 he told them to depart from him because they practiced lawlessness.They did not bear good fruit. In Matthew 25, some of their not bearing good fruit was connected to charity. You missed my point. It was that there are a lot of people who currently call on his name who might not make it into heaven.

What the Bible forbids in the purity laws and discusses in the epistles and the concept we label "homosexuality" are overlapping but not identical concepts.

How so? What in Leviticus 18 is unclear? What in Romans 1 is unclear or does not describe homosexuality? What parts overlap and what parts don't?

My issues are soteriological (will God save anyone who has remaining unrepentant sin? and if not, what's salvation for?) and hamartological (if "sin" means "missing the mark" is there some kind of hierarchy of bad aim, especially when it comes to the family life arena?)

You not repenting = you not accepting salvation. The second issue doesn't matter so much to the answering of the original question. Or maybe it does. What God says about this particular sin is that it's bad enough for him to have cleared out the inhabitants of the land Israel was going into. He tells them not to do those things so that the land will not spit them out.He also says that those who participate in this sin (and the ones mentioned around it )are to be cut off from the people and that it defiles them. It being in the family life arena does not change any of this. Our feelings do not change God's word.

 

[Joykins]

I said homosexuality is a sin. Everything that encompasses. Not just relations.

Maybe we will look at these passages again.

Lev. 18:19, 22, 24-30

“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period....Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable....Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

Clearly people who unrepentantly have sex with women on their period commit the exact same "defilement of the land" as those who commit any of the other sexual sins there...the same distinction is made.

This guy clearly was not repentant as he kept doing it over and over again and finally just decided to live in sin. Feeling sorry for something and actually rejecting or turning from that behavior are two different things. A monogamous but homosexual relationship is no better than promiscuity. You are basing your answer on how you feel about it or which one you think is the lesser of the two evils.

No, that is not an accurate portrayal of how I feel. It would be accurate to say that I disapprove of promiscuity and approve of monogamy.

It would be a much safer bet to go with what God thinks about it and he says that homosexuality defiles the land.

I was never one for safe bets.

That said, neither heterosexual promiscuity or homosexual monogamy is better than the other. God seems to feel quite strongly about sexual sin.

So very much, he put a whole, what? 7-10 verses about homosexuality in the entire Bible.

Well...it does say in the bible that Liars wont inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Revilers, either. Nor drunkards or those who habitually participate in a short list of sins, some of which appear trivial in these ethics discussions.

Perhaps if I say it differently you will better understand what I am saying. You cannot be an unrepentant homosexual and still be saved at the same time. Actual repentance is key. Not just asking for forgiveness or feeling sorry about it,rejecting that sin.

I guess if that is the standard, then who can be saved?

How so? What in Leviticus 18 is unclear? What in Romans 1 is unclear or does not describe homosexuality? What parts overlap and what parts don't?

No, Leviticus is very clear.

Lev. 18: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable"

From wikipedia:

"Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

You say "I said homosexuality is a sin. Everything that encompasses. Not just relations." But Lev. 18 particularly speaks about only one particular kind of relations between men.

Romans 1 is not a prohibition but a description of behavior that *God causes* as a result of idolatry. It is very clear:

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."

Whatever is described in Rom. 1 is specified to be caused by idolatry. If "homosexuality" is not caused by idolatry Rom 1 does not apply. IN other words, if you want to worship the created things of earth, you will become as bound in fleshly indulgence as is possible. It does not appear to be talking about orientation at all. And of course its manifestation is behavioral, not orientational or romantic attraction as described in the definition of "homosexuality" above. The "fools" of Romans 1 are as promiscuous as possible. They are not attached to someone in a monogamous relationship.

All other occurrences in the Bible of the word "homosexual" or its derivatives are translated from Greek words that apply solely to men. So one concludes that the specific prohibitions in the Bible apply to only half the people that the "homosexual" definition above applies to.

So, in conclusion:

the Bible prohibits sexual relations between men.
The Bible prohibits period sex, drunkenness, and slander in the same contexts it forbids relations between men.
The Bible does not forbid an orientation.
The Bible does not forbid romantic attractions or relationships between people of the same sex.
The Bible does not explicitly forbid sexual relations between women.

 

[Catherineanne]

So, in conclusion:

the Bible prohibits sexual relations between men.
The Bible prohibits period sex, drunkenness, and slander in the same contexts it forbids relations between men.
The Bible does not forbid an orientation.
The Bible does not forbid romantic attractions or relationships between people of the same sex.
The Bible does not explicitly forbid sexual relations between women.

I would just like to add that the Bible has no actual concept of gay; it assumes that everyone is straight; men and women. When it prohibits sexual relations between men, it is on the assumption that these are what we would call straight men; men who are deliberately acting contrary to their God given nature.

Our modern definition of homosexual/gay does NOT contain the assumption that gay people are acting contrary to their nature, but rather that they are acting in accordance with it. Therefore,if the word 'homosexual' is used, the Biblical condemnation cannot stand. It can only stand in the context of same sex behaviour between straight people, which by definition is not gay behaviour at all.

I am tempted to conclude that if two men enjoy what they are doing, they are not condemned. It is only if they find it rather distasteful, and are motivated by either money or prostitution, that the Biblical condemnation stands. That makes sense.

 

[Audacious]

Okay, let's say that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Under the assumption that it is, it holds the same status as any other sin -- that is, you can be forgiven for it. The Bible says that God forgives us for our trespasses against him, and though it says that we must repent from our sins, it never says that you have to do it in this life, per se. What if you don't realize that something is a sin, or you don't even realize you have a particular sinful quality? Obviously repentance in this life isn't gonna do it. Especially when it comes to issues like homosexuality -- something very contested among Christian communities. It'd be really easy to think the wrong thing either way.

 

[Sageroots]

Maybe we will look at these passages again.

Lev. 18:19, 22, 24-30

“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period....Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable....Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

Clearly people who unrepentantly have sex with women on their period commit the exact same "defilement of the land" as those who commit any of the other sexual sins there...the same distinction is made.

That's God, not me.

No, that is not an accurate portrayal of how I feel. It would be accurate to say that I disapprove of promiscuity and approve of monogamy.

Yes, it is accurate to say that you approve of monogamy to the point of deciding that it is better to be monogamous in the wrong context than to be promiscuous. You are choosing the lesser of the two evils. Then again there is also the possibility that you don't think homosexuality is a sin in which case that should have been what you said in the first place.

I was never one for safe bets.

Again you are missing my point. It is better to go with what God says because in the end we are all going to be judged by his standard, not our own imperfect one.

So very much, he put a whole, what? 7-10 verses about homosexuality in the entire Bible.

I said sexual sin, not just homosexuality.

Revilers, either. Nor drunkards or those who habitually participate in a short list of sins, some of which appear trivial in these ethics discussions.

You didn't mention any of those other things in your post. I responded to what was there. It does not change the fact that homosexuality sits among those sins.

I guess if that is the standard, then who can be saved?

I'm not sure what is hard to understand about the standard. Repent. Turn to God. Be saved. You don't have to be perfect but you do have to give up sin as a lifestyle.

Romans 1 is not a prohibition but a description of behavior that *God causes* as a result of idolatry. It is very clear:

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."

Whatever is described in Rom. 1 is specified to be caused by idolatry. If "homosexuality" is not caused by idolatry Rom 1 does not apply. IN other words, if you want to worship the created things of earth, you will become as bound in fleshly indulgence as is possible. It does not appear to be talking about orientation at all. And of course its manifestation is behavioral, not orientational or romantic attraction as described in the definition of "homosexuality" above. The "fools" of Romans 1 are as promiscuous as possible. They are not attached to someone in a monogamous relationship.

You stopped at verse 24. Keep reading.

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

These verse are saying that because of idolatry (worshiping the things of this earth) God gave them over to their own sinful desires. It doesn't say he gave them the degrading passions, it says that he gave them over to degrading passions. They were already there. Idolatry is rampant in the world today. Where in all of that did you get that they were simply promiscuous? Again with the "at least it's monogamous" thing.

All other occurrences in the Bible of the word "homosexual" or its derivatives are translated from Greek words that apply solely to men. So one concludes that the specific prohibitions in the Bible apply to only half the people that the "homosexual" definition above applies to.

Grammatical gender is often not indicative of the actual gender of the noun attached to it. A lot of the bible is "he" and "him" and masculine grammar. It isn't logical to use the argument that most of the words referencing homosexuality have a masculine gender when most of the bible has masculine gender grammar. Greek is not the only language with grammatical gender, a lot of words in Greek are masculine or feminine and the masculine ones are often used to speak of groups regardless of whether or not females were in them (unless they were comprised solely of women). You know some other masculine nouns? Thief. Liar.Adulterer. It is illogical to use the argument that because a word has a male gender assigned to it that that sentence can only be talking about men. By your logic because these words are "masculine" every time they are prohibited it is really only talking about men. It's just fine if women lie,cheat,and steal because they are not men.

So, in conclusion:

the Bible prohibits sexual relations between men.
The Bible prohibits period sex, drunkenness, and slander in the same contexts it forbids relations between men.
The Bible does not forbid an orientation.
The Bible does not forbid romantic attractions or relationships between people of the same sex.
The Bible does not explicitly forbid sexual relations between women.

Yes, it does prohibit period sex. That's the bible not me.

It is not in the least bit logical to think that because God says "It is an abomination for men to have sex with each other" but doesn't mention women that he is just fine with it as long as it's a woman. God didn't say anything about men and bestiality but I'm sure (I hope,anyway) that nobody is going to actually argue that it's fine to have sex with animals as long as you're male.

God cares about the state of our hearts. He doesn't simply want us to follow the letter of the law and that's it. For most of these posts I have been harping on repentance because it is a heart issue. Yeshua was preached repentance. Time and time again God speaks through the prophets about destroying Israel for failing to repent. Part or all of Yeshua's irritation with the Pharisees was because of their following to the letter or the law but their hearts were wrong. He says at one point to "bear fruit in accordance with repentance" so he does expect you to turn away from sin. In Matthew 11 he speaks of unrepentant cities basically saying that it will be more tolerable for Sodom, a city that was apparently so bad that God wiped it and everything in it out (save Lot and his family). Yeshua calls sinners to repentance. According to Acts 3, you have to repent and return so that your sins may be wiped away. In Acts 26 it mentions repenting and turning to God and demonstrating it by your deeds. Iniquity and Perversion start in the heart. Yeshua said in Matthew that a man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Clearly the heart matters. What you do always comes from somewhere.
I notice that though you clearly disagree with with me you've given no biblical evidence that God approves of homosexuality.

 

[Sageroots]

I would just like to add that the Bible has no actual concept of gay; it assumes that everyone is straight; men and women. When it prohibits sexual relations between men, it is on the assumption that these are what we would call straight men; men who are deliberately acting contrary to their God given nature.

Our modern definition of homosexual/gay does NOT contain the assumption that gay people are acting contrary to their nature, but rather that they are acting in accordance with it. Therefore,if the word 'homosexual' is used, the Biblical condemnation cannot stand. It can only stand in the context of same sex behaviour between straight people, which by definition is not gay behaviour at all.

I am tempted to conclude that if two men enjoy what they are doing, they are not condemned. It is only if they find it rather distasteful, and are motivated by either money or prostitution, that the Biblical condemnation stands. That makes sense.

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.

 

[Joykins]

Grammatical gender is often not indicative of the actual gender of the noun attached to it. A lot of the bible is "he" and "him" and masculine grammar. It isn't logical to use the argument that most of the words referencing homosexuality have a masculine gender when most of the bible has masculine gender grammar. Greek is not the only language with grammatical gender, a lot of words in Greek are masculine or feminine and the masculine ones are often used to speak of groups regardless of whether or not females were in them (unless they were comprised solely of women). You know some other masculine nouns? Thief. Liar.Adulterer. It is illogical to use the argument that because a word has a male gender assigned to it that that sentence can only be talking about men. By your logic because these words are "masculine" every time they are prohibited it is really only talking about men. It's just fine if women lie,cheat,and steal because they are not men.

I am familiar with the concept of grammatical gender, thanks.

The word I am talking about has the word for male (arsen) as part of it. There is a corresponding noun (thelu) for female.
It is very specific and does not rest upon grammatical gender.

It is not in the least bit logical to think that because God says "It is an abomination for men to have sex with each other" but doesn't mention women that he is just fine with it as long as it's a woman.

It's not logical to draw any conclusion from silence.

The Biblical ideal is obviously chastity within and outside of marriage, but there are plenty of people affirmed in the Bible as righteous (even through faith) who were unchaste (or, at least, nonmonogamous) with no signs of repentance (for anything short of adultery and then having the woman's husband killed to cover it up sort of thing, anyway).

God didn't say anything about men and bestiality but I'm sure (I hope,anyway) that nobody is going to actually argue that it's fine to have sex with animals as long as you're male.

I refer you to Lev. 20:15.

God cares about the state of our hearts. He doesn't simply want us to follow the letter of the law and that's it. For most of these posts I have been harping on repentance because it is a heart issue. Yeshua was preached repentance. Time and time again God speaks through the prophets about destroying Israel for failing to repent. Part or all of Yeshua's irritation with the Pharisees was because of their following to the letter or the law but their hearts were wrong. He says at one point to "bear fruit in accordance with repentance" so he does expect you to turn away from sin. In Matthew 11 he speaks of unrepentant cities basically saying that it will be more tolerable for Sodom, a city that was apparently so bad that God wiped it and everything in it out (save Lot and his family). Yeshua calls sinners to repentance. According to Acts 3, you have to repent and return so that your sins may be wiped away. In Acts 26 it mentions repenting and turning to God and demonstrating it by your deeds. Iniquity and Perversion start in the heart. Yeshua said in Matthew that a man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Clearly the heart matters. What you do always comes from somewhere.

I thoroughly agree with you that God cares about the state of our hearts. I agree so much that I think that God cares more about the state of our hearts than about the genitals of our spouses...but you probably inferred that already, and I base that on the overall message of redemptive love in the Bible rather than anything specific in it.

I notice that though you clearly disagree with with me you've given no biblical evidence that God approves of homosexuality.

I've given evidence that the Bible is silent on most of the concepts that people label "homosexuality." The only thing it speaks to is relations between men.

 

[Joykins]

You stopped at verse 24. Keep reading.

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

These verse are saying that because of idolatry (worshiping the things of this earth) God gave them over to their own sinful desires. It doesn't say he gave them the degrading passions, it says that he gave them over to degrading passions. They were already there. Idolatry is rampant in the world today. Where in all of that did you get that they were simply promiscuous? Again with the "at least it's monogamous" thing.

I dug up the verb translated as "to give over to"

παραδίδωμι,v \{par-ad-id'-o-mee}
1) to give into the hands (of another) 2) to give over into (one's) power or use 2a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage 2b) to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death 2c) to deliver up treacherously 2c1) by betrayal to cause one to be taken 2c2) to deliver one to be taught, moulded 3) to commit, to commend 4) to deliver verbally 4a) commands, rites 4b) to deliver by narrating, to report 5) to permit allow 5a) when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness permits 5b) gives itself up, presents itself​

He put these idolaters into the hands of these sexual passions, so the passions are running the show. But you note that the passage also says

"for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman "

This is not a tale of pre-existing passions. This is God seeing these people exchange the truth of God for idolatry and then punishing them by exchanging their natural (already-existing) desires for excessive and "unnatural" (to them) ones.

Richard Beck has some interesting thoughts on this passage here.

 

[Audacious]

That's God, not me.
I notice that though you clearly disagree with with me you've given no biblical evidence that God approves of homosexuality.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It's a necessary assumption that something is okay if there's no reason to think it's a sin, and there are some very good arguments that the Biblical texts supposedly discussing homosexuality are not discussing it at all -- for example, Romans 1:26-27 is more likely to be discussing sex slaves and temple prostitutes (given the cultural context and the word that it seems Paul made up even though there were plenty of common words for homosexuals/gay sex at the time). I've seen a similar temple prostitution argument made for the 'anti-gay' passage in Leviticus.

All you'd need to do to prove that the Bible wasn't talking about monogamous, consensual and homosexual adult relationships when he mentioned homosexual acts. I'm not going to make a claim that the bible is against or for homosexuality, since I'm not researched enough on this issue just yet, but it is a possibility worth considering at the very least. Especially considering how easily and unnecessarily alienated an entire demographic could be if we're wrong (the 12% of people that identify as lesbian/gay/bi). We shouldn't let that reality be a bias, but it must be a concern and it is a very good reason why we must approach this issue with an open mind and reasonable arguments, and why we must be willing to change our arguments if others make more sense and/or if ours are correctly defeated.

James

 

[Sageroots]

It's not logical to draw any conclusion from silence.

If we're to go with your argument,that the bible is only speaking of sexual intercourse and only between males, then you have drawn a conclusion from silence. You've decided that because specifically female homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in the bible that it must be ok. Just make sure it's monogamous. As long as it's monogamous you'll be ok.
Saying that something is only a sin for a man is ridiculous unless the concept can only apply to men.

I refer you to Lev. 20:15.

Ok.

I thoroughly agree with you that God cares about the state of our hearts. I agree so much that I think that God cares more about the state of our hearts than about the genitals of our spouses...but you probably inferred that already, and I base that on the overall message of redemptive love in the Bible rather than anything specific in it.

You still are not understanding what I said or maybe you just don't agree with what I said. Our hearts will determine our actions. He cares enough about the genitals of our spouses to at least explicitly mention homosexual sex in reference to men. There is something wrong in the heart for that to happen. God doesn't say sex in of itself is bad, always the spirit behind it. The homosexual sex isn't bad just because it's bad. It's bad because the spirit behind it is unclean. The homosexual sex is indicative of something unclean. Something that defiles.

Redemption does not excuse living in sin or give you an excuse to live however you like. Yeshua preached repentance and forgiveness which brings redemption. Yeshua, our redeemer, was huge on repentance. You seem to think that as long as you profess Yeshua to be your savior that regardless of what you do, he will excuse you for it, when clearly that is not the case as he says there will be people who thought they were saved and they weren't. If you love the Lord you will do what he says. Living in complete disobedience says that you have a heart problem. It says that you don't want to do what God wants you to or accept his ways you just want him to make sure you dont go to hell.

Evidently you care so much about specifics that you have decided that being homosexual is ok as long as it's a woman because the bible usually mentions men when speaking of it.

I've given evidence that the Bible is silent on most of the concepts that people label "homosexuality." The only thing it speaks to is relations between men.

But you've given none that say anything positive about them. You haven't even tried even though you seem capable of doing so.

I dug up the verb translated as "to give over to"

παραδίδωμι,v \{par-ad-id'-o-mee}
1) to give into the hands (of another) 2) to give over into (one's) power or use 2a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage 2b) to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death 2c) to deliver up treacherously 2c1) by betrayal to cause one to be taken 2c2) to deliver one to be taught, moulded 3) to commit, to commend 4) to deliver verbally 4a) commands, rites 4b) to deliver by narrating, to report 5) to permit allow 5a) when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness permits 5b) gives itself up, presents itself

He put these idolaters into the hands of these sexual passions, so the passions are running the show. But you note that the passage also says

"for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman "

This is not a tale of pre-existing passions. This is God seeing these people exchange the truth of God for idolatry and then punishing them by exchanging their natural (already-existing) desires for excessive and "unnatural" (to them) ones.

Gave. Delivered. Allowed. Permit. None of that implies that he put them into the hands of degrading passions.
This is God seeing people exchanging the truth of God for a lie and punishing them by letting them have what they asked for. They didn't want God, he took a step back. "For their women..." is explaining the part of the sentence before it. It is explaining degrading passions. He didn't give them to them.They didn't suddenly have degrading passions. They didn't acquire degrading passions he simply gave them over to what was already there.The degrading passions came with the idolatry.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

We aren't judging the person here, we are discussing whether or not there is sin involved.

All you'd need to do to prove that the Bible wasn't talking about monogamous, consensual and homosexual adult relationships when he mentioned homosexual acts. I'm not going to make a claim that the bible is against or for homosexuality, since I'm not researched enough on this issue just yet, but it is a possibility worth considering at the very least. Especially considering how easily and unnecessarily alienated an entire demographic could be if we're wrong (the 12% of people that identify as lesbian/gay/bi). We shouldn't let that reality be a bias, but it must be a concern and it is a very good reason why we must approach this issue with an open mind and reasonable arguments, and why we must be willing to change our arguments if others make more sense and/or if ours are correctly defeated.

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.

 

[jamesjhnstn]

I don't know if Christians here agree with him but the famous rabbi Maimonides said that if science seemingly contradicts the Bible, then we must change our understanding of the latter. It's obvious that the Bible is NOT a science book (as much as fundamentalists claim it is); it was written at a time when people thought the Earth was the center of the universe and any illness was caused by demons. This is one reason why many are accepting evolution and an old earth alongside an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

As for homosexuality, during those days nobody knew what sexual orientation or psychology were, and since ancient Jewish culture was against all sexual activity that didn't produce offspring (for obvious reasons at the time) it was forbidden, just like pork was forbidden because it spoiled easily in that environment and there was no refrigeration.

 

[Joykins]

Science shows us that sexual orientation has a genetic component and is usually fixed by a very early age--possibly even at birth. Which means it is unlikely to be caused by idolatry.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

God said it's a sin. As Christians, we understand the struggle of sin in our lives, but our job is not to live in it but to struggle with it--whatever "it" is for the individual Christian. Our desire is to love God and do His will, and we are bound to sin if we continue living in it but praise God that we can repent of our sins because of Christ who died for us.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I don't know if Christians here agree with him but the famous rabbi Maimonides said that if science seemingly contradicts the Bible, then we must change our understanding of the latter. It's obvious that the Bible is NOT a science book (as much as fundamentalists claim it is); it was written at a time when people thought the Earth was the center of the universe and any illness was caused by demons. This is one reason why many are accepting evolution and an old earth alongside an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

As for homosexuality, during those days nobody knew what sexual orientation or psychology were, and since ancient Jewish culture was against all sexual activity that didn't produce offspring (for obvious reasons at the time) it was forbidden, just like pork was forbidden because it spoiled easily in that environment and there was no refrigeration.

God's the author, He most definitely know all things.

 

[jamesjhnstn]

God's the author, He most definitely know all things.

Nope, it was written by a bunch of mostly anonymous authors in different time periods.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Nope, it was written by a bunch of mostly anonymous authors in different time periods.

The Apostle Paul said, through the Holy Spirit, wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

The same way I believed that Christ died on the cross for my sins, when I wasn't there to see it, is the same way I'm going to believe all the other writings which told me.

 

[child630]

I struggle with this sin myself.

Just so I don't play God or judge others, I will judge myself and use my own sin as an example, for I am very sinful.

I can not be a practicing homosexual and be a Christian. But lust is just as wrong, which I also stuggle with. So I am constantly praying for God's mercy.

 

[jamesjhnstn]

The Apostle Paul said, through the Holy Spirit, wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
​

The same way I believed that Christ died on the cross for my sins, when I wasn't there to see it, is the same way I'm going to believe all the other writings which told me.

So do you also believe that man was made out of mud, women from the rib of a man, that bats are birds, that the universe was created in less than a week, that the Earth is about 6000 years old,...?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you be a Christian and a practicing heterosexual and still be saved?

-CryptoLutheran