Do you think homosexuals go to Hell??

[AmericanChristian91]

I don't think I have to put myself in some label as a "bisexual" because I don't want to date, marry or have sex with another man.

I could see why you would not want to be labeled as a "bisexual" because you want no future with a man. That is understandable, but I must say that one should not confuse sexual orientation with sexual action.

For example....a celibate gay man....who is also a Christian, chooses because of religious reasons, to not date, to not have sex, and to not marry another man. But does this mean that he isn't gay? Well nope, because he still is not attracted to women, only men, even if he follows a godly path of being celibate.

Another example. A Man decided to become a Monk. He like most other men, is heterosexual, he likes women (and only women). However because of religious reasons, he is not going to date, have sex, and get married to a woman. He is not going to allow that part of himself to remove him from the path he believes God wants him on. Does the fact he is not going to be with a woman for the rest of his life mean he isn't straight, and should not be labeled as a "heterosexual"? I think we both know the answer to that.

Another example. A Man is bisexual, though he has fallen in love with a girl and marries her, and spends the rest of his life with her and never cheats. Does that mean he is then heterosexual like she is? Well nope, because he can still be attracted to other men, even though he has no plans on ever being with one.

I do think you are putting negative connotations on the term "bisexual" that don't need to be there.

You feel that if you consider yourself "bisexual" that means you must be open to having romance with men also. That would of course be a wrong opinion. If you had attractions to both sexes, you could still prefer women, and never date a man in your life, and even find a nice girl to marry.

But remember, whether you are bisexual or heterosexual, don't let your sexual orientation become the defining part of who you are.

 

[RileyG]

Yes and no. Homosexuality is not the unforgiveable sin. Where they spend eternity is dependent on their response to the gospel.

 

[Ashes of Eden]

As I've already explained countless times, no they are no abundantly clear. Homosexuals does not exist in the original 1 Corinthians and even Saint Augustine said Romans 1 is referring to heterosexuals. It's discussing pagan idolatry, not homosexuality.

Actually, in Corinthians Paul appears to have made up a word that people much smarter than you and me have determined means homosexuality. Also, St. Augustine might say Romans 1 is about heterosexuals, but other saints disagree, and you come across the problem of seeing St. Augustine as infallible as well as ignoring all normal reading of the text. Men and women ignoring the natural use of a heterosexual relationship, going against nature, burning with lust for one another and committing what is shameful. Ummm, yeah, sure, that means heterosexual on planet blahblah.

 

[Svt4Him]

As I've already explained countless times, no they are no abundantly clear. Homosexuals does not exist in the original 1 Corinthians and even Saint Augustine said Romans 1 is referring to heterosexuals. It's discussing pagan idolatry, not homosexuality.

And I've also explained, countless times, you're wrong. The word was not in the english version of the Bible until the early 1900's as there was no word, but it means exactly the same thing. And great appeal to authority, you do know that's a fallacy don't you?

 

[Svt4Him]

Then, by what you've stated, there's a huge portion of confessing Christians who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Your list includes adultery, which is probably one of the most common circumstances in the Church. According to what Scripture actually says, anyone who remarries after a divorce is committing adultery, unless either the former spouse has died, or the former spouse was an unbeliever and divorced the believer. Any other circumstance, and the person is an adulterer, by Scripture. And, I can guarantee you that there are hundreds of such people in these forums, with Christian in their profile. I've had several people attempt to dodge this and insist that this or that exempts them, or that the Scripture doesn't mean that. It can't get any clearer.

And, if you had bothered to quote the entire verse, you would have said, "or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God."

Thieves. Those who take what isn't theirs to possess. Like taking things home from work without permission, or not declaring ALL your income on your taxes, or neglecting to give back the extra change that the clerk at the store mistakenly gave you. How many here have done those things? According to Svt4Him, you're going to hell.

Greedy people. Those who desire what belongs to another. Like hating those who have more money than you and fabricating all kinds of schemes to take it from them. Or telling your co-worker that the boss doesn't deserve what he has and it should be yours. That's greedy. How many here are guilty? I guess you'll burn too, huh?

Drunkards. Those who over-imbibe on intoxicants. Any intoxicant. Is drinking a sin? No, it isn't. Drunkenness is. That's over-indulgence. Get your asbestos suit ready!

Abusive. Those who take advantage of those weaker than themselves, or abuse their authority over another. Speaking harshly to your child after coming home from a hard day and finding some minor breaking of some rule of the house. Snapping at your spouse when you are bothered by what they say. Guilty? Go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Cheat. To take from another via subtlety, or to deny what another deserves by subtlety. I bet I could count on one hand all those I've known over the 59 years of my life that haven't cheated somebody, and STILL be able to hold a coffee cup.

"... NONE OF THESE WILL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD."

What most of you aren't getting is that ALL of us are EQUALLY as guilty as anyone in any particular sin. You wanna explain to God why the pen you took from work wasn't nearly as evil as the practicing homosexual? Or why snapping at your wife yesterday really wasn't that big a deal? Really? Are you THAT stupid? Can't you read? So, who the HECK are you to be pointing a finger at anyone?

You're misguided on the marriage thing, and I've already posted a link for study. Don't expect you to change your mind, just study a bit.

And this isn't according to me, it's according to God. So go be a thief, go be an adulterer, and you'll be happy that yes, wide is the gate that leads to destruction, but God's will is you are holy.

As for being that stupid, again sexual sin is specifically identified, but I'm assuming you can read. Sin has already been judged, which was also addressed, so you're starting to make me wonder. Just repent.

 

[Svt4Him]

I'm NOT disagreeing with your position on whether homosexuality is sin or not. I'm simply repeating over and over again what Paul was getting at with the first chapter of Romans, which was finished with chapter 2. WE HAVE NO EXCUSE! We do NOT have any authority to condemn ANY sin, outside the bounds of the Church. None. Our only authority is to preach the Gospel.

Sin outside the church is already condemned, and if you see someone walking towards a cliff and ignore it without warning them, what kind of person does that make you? That is the gospel.

 

[grandvizier1006]

I could see why you would not want to be labeled as a "bisexual" because you want no future with a man. That is understandable, but I must say that one should not confuse sexual orientation with sexual action.

For example....a celibate gay man....who is also a Christian, chooses because of religious reasons, to not date, to not have sex, and to not marry another man. But does this mean that he isn't gay? Well nope, because he still is not attracted to women, only men, even if he follows a godly path of being celibate.

Another example. A Man decided to become a Monk. He like most other men, is heterosexual, he likes women (and only women). However because of religious reasons, he is not going to date, have sex, and get married to a woman. He is not going to allow that part of himself to remove him from the path he believes God wants him on. Does the fact he is not going to be with a woman for the rest of his life mean he isn't straight, and should not be labeled as a "heterosexual"? I think we both know the answer to that.

Another example. A Man is bisexual, though he has fallen in love with a girl and marries her, and spends the rest of his life with her and never cheats. Does that mean he is then heterosexual like she is? Well nope, because he can still be attracted to other men, even though he has no plans on ever being with one.

I do think you are putting negative connotations on the term "bisexual" that don't need to be there.

You feel that if you consider yourself "bisexual" that means you must be open to having romance with men also. That would of course be a wrong opinion. If you had attractions to both sexes, you could still prefer women, and never date a man in your life, and even find a nice girl to marry.

But remember, whether you are bisexual or heterosexual, don't let your sexual orientation become the defining part of who you are.

I get what you're saying, really I do. I just want to contest it because I am honestly not sure if I can get sexual aroused by men anymore, and because sexuality is about behavior, not thoughts or pornography. I don't want to give myself an earthly label just because I struggled with porn as an adolescent.

This is exactly the kind of labeling I expected from elaborating on this.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

This is exactly the kind of labeling I expected from elaborating on this.

I see your point then, you will get no more from me. I will drop the subject. Sorry for any trouble I caused you when I brought up that subject.

 

[tulipbee]

Nope, not true. By this definition, people who can't have children, for whatever reason, can't have sex. There is sex for intimacy, as found in Song 1:13, 2:3, 2:6 and 4:5, companionship Song 3:1 and pleasure song 1:2.

And sexual sins are different.

Hey, way to use the term homophobic. I also said adultery is wrong, am I adultraphobic? Lieaphobic? Stealingaphobic?

If and man wants a baby and the wife can't or doesn't want a baby then the man can divorce the woman and marry another. With gay marriage, that would go on forever cause neither can have kids and that rules the gays out and never can have nothing to do with the biblical marriage.

 

[Svt4Him]

If and man wants a baby and the wife can't or doesn't want a baby then the man can divorce the woman and marry another. With gay marriage, that would go on forever cause neither can have kids and that rules the gays out and never can have nothing to do with the biblical marriage.

Or adopt a baby, unless they were married specifically to have a baby...kind of like no one I've ever run into ever in my life not even once ever. Marriage isn't just about babies, as was my point.

 

[Marius27]

Actually, in Corinthians Paul appears to have made up a word that people much smarter than you and me have determined means homosexuality.

Nope, they didn't determine it means that, they chose for it to mean that as an attack on gays during the change in sexuality views in the mid 20th Century. The word without question cannot mean homosexuality because it cannot include homosexual women. That is absolute proof of translator bias/error. And as I already told you, words already existed in Greek that did mean homosexuality and Paul didn't use them, meaning either Paul was dumb and didn't understand that, or Paul had something else in mind. Furthermore, every use of that word in Classical literature after Paul invented it is used in a context unrelated to sexual vices and sins.

Also, St. Augustine might say Romans 1 is about heterosexuals, but other saints disagree, and you come across the problem of seeing St. Augustine as infallible as well as ignoring all normal reading of the text. Men and women ignoring the natural use of a heterosexual relationship, going against nature, burning with lust for one another and committing what is shameful. Ummm, yeah, sure, that means heterosexual on planet blahblah.

My point is, that verse has been contested for the last 2000 years and even the Saints disagreed on its meaning. It's obviously referring to pagan idolatry. The only people trying to turn it into anti-gay propaganda are modern day Conservative Christians.

 

[kidwboro]

Don't know.
What I DO know is whoever receives Jesus Christ will experience an INFINITE AMOUNT OF PLEASURE with no end in sight.
And whoever rejects Jesus Christ will experience an INFINITE AMOUNT OF TORMENT with no end in sight.
The clock is ticking.

 

[Marius27]

And I've also explained, countless times, you're wrong. The word was not in the english version of the Bible until the early 1900's as there was no word, but it means exactly the same thing. And great appeal to authority, you do know that's a fallacy don't you?

I don't care if you think I'm wrong, I know you're wrong, because you have no legitimate evidence supporting your position. The anti-gay Biblical view is fueled by hatred of gays, not scientific or scholarly evidence. The word doesn't mean the same thing. Homosexuality refers to both men and women. The verse in Corinthians does not refer to women, and Paul didn't use the Greek words in existence that already meant homosexuality. Other sources indicate it may be a Greek translation of the Hebrew Qadesh, which refers to temple prostitutes due to its common occurrence in Greco-Roman culture. Literature written after Paul invented that word, including the Sibylline Oracles and the Acts of John only use that word in reference to economic sins and vices. Never in any vice lists is that included among sexual sins. Further compounding the issue, Martin Luther and Protestants universally viewed and translated that word to refer to masturbators until that no longer became viewed as a big issue and was later removed from modern Bibles (the last book having translated it that way being the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia 1967.)

Due to the overwhelming evidence contradicting your belief, I have no reason to accept what you say as valid.

 

[Svt4Him]

I have pointed countless evidence, you just choose to ignore it. Sorry, hermetical gymnastics won't change the fact that it is sin.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

 

[StephanieSomer]

If a sinner dies in his sins, he is condemned. It doesn't matter what sin is committed. One sin against the law, condemns under all of the law. Thanks be to God, we have Christ our Lord. This is what's so amazing about the Grace of God. For by Christ, we are no longer under the Law. There is no condemnation in those that are in Christ Jesus.

A homosexual, like any sinner that has come to Christ rest in Him as we all rest in Him. I do believe Homosexuality is a sin, just as damning as any other sin. Yet, he has the ability to turn to Jesus anytime he falls, just as all Christians have. If he is in Christ, he is in His rest, no longer striving to be righteous as he has put on the righteousness of Christ.

Is man greater than God? Jesus tells us to forgive our brothers 70x7 times if he has offended us. Imagine, my brother steals from me. I am to forgive him. Imagine him stealing from me 70x7 times, I am to forgive him. How much greater is the mercy of Almighty God! When we fall, He has forgiven us innumerable times.

It is our duty to help a brother or a sister in Christ. One with this particular cross to bear should be supported and loved. Not condoning the sin, but loving the brother. For if we condemn them, we condemn ourselves. We are all sinners, we all fall short of the glory of God. May we all strengthen one another in Christ.
May God be magnified in all that we do.

In Christ
Daniel

If that is true, then the works of man are stronger than the works of God, since man's sin cancels God's provision of forgiveness. That is heresy.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Feel free to start a new topic as this is simply not fit for this. Just a fyi, Jesus was not being asked about divorce, He was being asked about put away, therefore there is a slight error in some translations. Therefore in this case you must study to show yourself approved, rightly dividing the word of truth.

http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-truth-1.htm

So nope, still doesn't make another sin right.

Any time we have conflicting verses, like as found in Deut and Matt, you must study it deeper.

I was referring to neither Deut or Matt.

 

[Xalith]

If that is true, then the works of man are stronger than the works of God, since man's sin cancels God's provision of forgiveness. That is heresy.

Wow, that is some semantic jump-roping going on there.

God can, and will forgive any sin (except the Unpardonable Sin), however the one to be forgiven must...

A). Seek forgiveness. (Why would He give you something you don't even want in the first place?)
B). Repent. (what's the point of seeking/receiving forgiveness if you intend to just do that stuff all over again anyways, with no intention of turning away from it?)
C). Accept Christ. (making Him Lord of your life. If you're going to call Him your Lord, then you would obviously obey Him, right?)

You can't claim to Accept Christ, or Love Christ, or even Love God if you refuse to do the things They command you to do, and one of those commandments is Repentance. Again and again and again in the NT, Jesus tells us to Repent and accept Him.

He tells us, "Don't worry about what you've done... just Repent and accept Me as your Saviour, and you will be saved."

But... you have to actually repent and accept Him.

Read Luke 6:46.

 

[StephanieSomer]

If and man wants a baby and the wife can't or doesn't want a baby then the man can divorce the woman and marry another. With gay marriage, that would go on forever cause neither can have kids and that rules the gays out and never can have nothing to do with the biblical marriage.

Really? Based on what? Not the Scripture, that's for sure.

 

[Svt4Him]

I was referring to neither Deut or Matt.

Weird as Deut and Matt both talk about divorce, although Matt was actually referring to putting away. Doesn't change the error though.

 

[Svt4Him]

Wow, that is some semantic jump-roping going on there.

God can, and will forgive any sin (except the Unpardonable Sin), however the one to be forgiven must...

A). Seek forgiveness. (Why would He give you something you don't even want in the first place?)
B). Repent. (what's the point of seeking/receiving forgiveness if you intend to just do that stuff all over again anyways, with no intention of turning away from it?)
C). Accept Christ. (making Him Lord of your life. If you're going to call Him your Lord, then you would obviously obey Him, right?)

You can't claim to Accept Christ, or Love Christ, or even Love God if you refuse to do the things They command you to do, and one of those commandments is Repentance. Again and again and again in the NT, Jesus tells us to Repent and accept Him.

He tells us, "Don't worry about what you've done... just Repent and accept Me as your Saviour, and you will be saved."

But... you have to actually repent and accept Him.

Read Luke 6:46.

And there's an on-going obligation.

1.Repent- Matt 3:1-3, 4:17; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 20:21, 17:30; 2 Chron 7:14
2. Believe- Mark 1:14-15, 16:16; Luke 8:12; John 1:12, 3:15-18, 36.
3. Confess- Matt 10:32; Luke 12:8, Rom 10:9-10; 1 Tim 6:13, Heb 4:14, 10:19-23; Rom 10:6-9
4. Obey- Matt 7:24; John 14:15, 23; Luke 6:46; Heb 5:9; Jam 1:22, 2:18-24; Rev 22:12
5. Endure- Matt 10:22, 13:21, 24:13, Mark 13:13, 2Tim 2:12; Rev 2:7, 2:11, 3:5