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

[Trailltrader]

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!

^5's- you got it right there! You got my whole concept. God see's sin as either "deadly sin, non-deadly sin, and not sin". (The bible does mention some sin that doesn't result in death- OK, I'm a human I can hang with that. Its the "Deadly sin that can lead to hell" part I have serious heartburn with. And the "Not Sin"? I can't even sit down without sinning- for if I sit down and do nothing am I not commiting the gravest sin known as "sloth"?)

STOP! As Dr Freud says, theres some days when a cigar is just a cigar.

And Jesus pretty much told the Pharisee's and Sadducees the same thing when he repeatedly called them out on making up little laws so that no one could enter the kingdom of heaven.

When I was in Seminary before being kicked out, I was taught that under the Pharisee's teaching if you took a sewing needle and threw it up in the air and caught it with the same hand that's playing- and that's OK on the Sabbath. However, if you tossed the same needle from hand to hand that's work and would be a sin on the Sabbath!!

This same mentality exists in Israel today. A Kosher telephone doesn't have any switches in them like when you raise the hand piece with the speaker and microphone? It has two little LED's that make and break open that act as switches so you can call someone on the Sabbath- because flicking a switch is a sin! (When my Jewish friend told me this I cannot describe the look on my face or how I felt)

So, these facts and $5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at a restaurant

 

[HermanNeutics13]

Everyone struggles with sins. The key though is to know that it is a sin. If you were a homosexual and had no problem with it that is the problem.

 

[Joykins]

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?

I understand what you are saying. I disagree with it. Sex, in both human life and in nature, does not exist only as complementary roles in sexual reproduction. There are entire species of animals where every individual is female (sex) but do not even reproduce sexually (but through parthenogenesis); species where only certain kinds of males can fertilize a female; and species where no female is fertilized besides one per colony/hive. This is the lesson from nature. Biological sex enables sexual reproduction, but it does not demand it.

On to humans.

Human males exist as men even if they do not fertilize female humans. These people are still male and still men, regardless. They would still be men if they never even MEET a woman in their whole LIFETIME. The monks at Mount Athos are still MEN.

Human females exist as women even if they are not fertilized by human males. These people are still female and still women, regardless. They would still be women if they never even MEET a man in their whole LIFETIME.

To say that a woman doesn't "feel like a woman" without a man or that a man doesn't "feel like a man" without a woman is something that cannot be substantiated across the board. I feel like a woman regardless of whether men are around or not.

 

[Leap]

I understand what you are saying. I disagree with it. Sex, in both human life and in nature, does not exist only as complementary roles in sexual reproduction.

Clearly you do not understand what I am saying, as you keeping speaking of sex (the act) rather than THE SEXES (Male and Female) which is what I am speaking of.

'Male' and 'Female' are simply the two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is the ONLY reason they even exist and outside of that context they are utterly meaningless (as are sperm and periods).

Read what I said, AGAIN, all of it, slowly, and think about what I am saying - which is textbook biology.

 

[dayhiker]

leap ... I agree more with Joykins that you. I don't see sex acts as just about reproduction. I see the sex act as doing several things for a couple.

 

[Leap]

leap ... I agree more with Joykins that you. I don't see sex acts as just about reproduction. I see the sex act as doing several things for a couple.

Its not about the act (ie: eroticism)

Its about the sexes themselves.

The only reason that the SEXES exist is as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is literally what 'male' and 'female' are.

Hence, 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 literally NO purpose outside of heterosexuality, because it is only by their roles in (hetero)sexual reproduction that they have any meaning.

Eroticism may well have many functions, but I am speaking of the sexes and the sexual 'functionings' (ie: sperm and periods).

 

[Joykins]

Clearly you do not understand what I am saying, as you keeping speaking of sex (the act) rather than THE SEXES (Male and Female) which is what I am speaking of.

'Male' and 'Female' are simply the two complementary roles in sexual reproduction. That is the ONLY reason they even exist and outside of that context they are utterly meaningless (as are sperm and periods).

Read what I said, AGAIN, all of it, slowly, and think about what I am saying - which is textbook biology.

I am also speaking of biological sex. And I am saying as a sweeping statement, that you are wrong about biological sex existing ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEXUAL REPROUDUCTION.

Females exist outside of sexual reproduction viz.

There are many female ants, but a colony will have one female (the queen) who can reproduce and the rest are sterile females workers or males. The queen can reproduce both sexually (using sperm captured in the mating flight) or asexually (using an unfertilized egg). What makes her female is not that she has to mate with a male to produce offspring, but that she produces an egg.

There are other species that can switch between sexual and asexual reproduction and when the reproduction is asexual, the female does all the work. There are also species that only reproduce asexually and every individual is female.

Parthenogenesis is seen to occur naturally in aphids, Daphnia, rotifers, nematodes and some other invertebrates, as well as in many plants and certain lizards. Komodo dragons and the hammerhead- and blacktip sharks have recently been added to the list of vertebrates — along with several genera of fish, amphibians, and reptiles — that exhibit differing forms of asexual reproduction, including true parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis (an incomplete form of parthenogenesis). As with all types of asexual reproduction, there are both costs (low genetic diversity and therefore susceptibility to adverse mutations that might occur) and benefits (reproduction without the need for a male) associated with parthenogenesis.

(wikipedia)

Sex: it's weirder than you think.

Edit: it may be true that males that only exist for purposes of sexual reproduction. I haven't researched that. But it is definitely not true for females in every animal species.

 

[Leap]

Females exist outside of sexual reproduction viz.

Male: that which makes sperm
Female: that which makes egg

They have NO meaning outside of heterosexuality because their point and purpose is intrinsically and inescapably heterosexual and complimentary.

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph of my original post....

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]

I think I have pretty thoroughly shown that females exist outside of heterosexuality or even sexual reproduction at all. And we haven't even got to humans yet.

 

[Leap]

I think I have pretty thoroughly shown that females exist outside of heterosexuality or even sexual reproduction at all. And we haven't even got to humans yet.

THEY HAVE NO MEANING OUTSIDE OF HETEROSEXUALITY.

The female is that which makes the egg.

Outside of heterosexuality that role, purpose and product have NO meaning.

Hence, outside of heterosexuality the sexes are discarded in an eroticised Asexuality.

Which part of this is so complicted that you are having difficulty following it?

 

[Joykins]

You have not addressed the species that have asexual reproduction by females and which either have no males, or the role adopted by males in sexual reproduction is optional. The sexes are not "discarded in an eroticised asexuality" (whatever that means; you have not defined it)--they still exist.

This means that biological sex has meaning outside of sexual reproduction.

 

[intojoy]

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..

Please define what saved you? Works or grace? Then I can answer your question. "Christian" being Christ like doesn't mean saved. "Believer" meaning belief that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing does mean being saved. If you've put your faith in Christ alone as the propitiation for your sins then you are already living your eternal life. If that's the case and you want to have freedom from the lusts of the old man, you can. Many believers never come to a place in their earthly lives where they live a victorious sanctified earthly existence. They are still saved but miss out on the joy and peace that God wants them to experience via fruit bearing.

 

[Leap]

You have not addressed the species that have asexual reproduction by females and which either have no males, or the role adopted by males in sexual reproduction is optional. The sexes are not "discarded in an eroticised asexuality" (whatever that means; you have not defined it)--they still exist.

This means that biological sex has meaning outside of sexual reproduction.

If they provide both the egg and the sperm, or they do not need sperm, they are not female. They are either hermaphrodite or sexless.

 

[Joykins]

Now you're just re-defining terms so they fit your conclusion

 

[Leap]

Now you're just re-defining terms so they fit your conclusion

No. I'm using the definition from biology. You know, science, rather than just your assertion.

 

[Joykins]

No. I'm using the definition from biology. You know, science, rather than just your assertion.

Female - Female - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Female (&#9792 is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)
...
A female individual cannot reproduce sexually without access to the gametes of a male (an exception is parthenogenesis). Some organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually.

The egg is required for reproduction in species where individuals have biological sex, but the sperm is not always required for every species. The individuals who produce eggs are still female. Biological sex can exist without the species having sexual reproduction at all, and reproduction of non-asexual (i.e. female) individuals can take place without heterosexual sex in some species

This is scientific fact. Biology, even. I was taught parthenogenesis in 10th grade way back before the dawn of time. Parthenogenesis in humans does not seem to occur in nature but can be done in the lab; the results are not viable. There is, of course, the Virgin Birth, but that cannot have been biological parthenogenesis (egg alone) because the result was male.

 

[Trailltrader]

*Passes around popcorn and drinks* doesn't mater what side of the debate you're on this is a fascinating topic anyway! Figured I'd put in my 2 cents,,,,,!

 

[Leap]

Female - Female - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The egg is required for reproduction in species where individuals have biological sex, but the sperm is not always required for every species. The individuals who produce eggs are still female. Biological sex can exist without the species having sexual reproduction at all, and reproduction of non-asexual (i.e. female) individuals can take place without heterosexual sex in some species

This is scientific fact. Biology, even. I was taught parthenogenesis in 10th grade way back before the dawn of time. Parthenogenesis in humans does not seem to occur in nature but can be done in the lab; the results are not viable. There is, of course, the Virgin Birth, but that cannot have been biological parthenogenesis (egg alone) because the result was male.

It is sloppy science (and thus also misleading) to call a creature that reproduces asexually, "female", as a "female" is specifically the sex that produces one half of the reproductive process in sexual reproduction. Asexual reproducers are asexual, by definition, and thus not "female" (which is a "sex"), whilst an "egg" that does not need fertilising is not an egg (as by definition an egg needs fertilising).

You are using creatures (from pretty low down the evolutionary order) that straddle the sexual/asexual reproduction boundary to try and counter a fact about the existence of the sexes, and it is both disingenuous and inaccurate to do so.

 

[Joykins]

I think that it is both disingenuous and inaccurate to deny that egg-producing individuals are female whether sperm is needed for reproduction or not, especially as I have given citations for this assertion and you have not given any for your position.

It seems to me that your position starts with the premise of heterosexual reproduction and defines the sexes in relation to this. I do not deny that most mammals reproduce sexually, and most even heterosexually. I do assert that biological sex--and its social aspect (in humans), gender--can exist independently of sexual reproduction, let alone heterosexual reproduction (for indeed, there are many hermaphroditic species that reproduce sexually, and individuals in those species may either change sex over their lifetimes or have both male and female sex organs).

 

[Joykins]

Asexual reproducers are asexual, by definition, and thus not "female" (which is a "sex"), whilst an "egg" that does not need fertilising is not an egg (as by definition an egg needs fertilising).

You have basically said that ant queens are not "female." Their eggs do not NEED fertilization to produce offspring but they CAN BE fertilized.