Homosexuality=Hell?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Guess you missed this, again:

Romans 1:26-29 (NKJV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
Guess you missed this again

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.

As for the reference to “natural.” The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.

Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here, and contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

Further…

To read Romans 1 without Romans 2 is a great error, for Paul goes on to say that we are not to judge each other. He points out the self-righteousness of those who have judged the pagans just described in Romans 1. Then he reiterates the commandment of Jesus in his own words: "God will give to each person according to what he has done." Romans 2:6

So what's happened between Romans 1 and 2? Paul is obviously using an "attention grabbing" technique like any good writer or speaker. In this letter, he is concerned with trying to bridge the gaps between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians who were busy judging each other and putting each other down.

Paul starts by talking about those "awful pagans" a group which both Jew and Greek Christians felt superior to. He gives a laundry list of "sins" to which his Christian audience was undoubtedly approving of and enjoying how bad those people were compared to how good they were. Then, after having caught them in their judgmentalism, he says "by judging, you pass judgment on yourself." By using a pagan example of sins, he could then go on to say, I caught you judging others…Do not judge " For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:11
 
Upvote 0
Apr 11, 2010
63
3
✟15,203.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe there will be other minorities who will meet a similar fate…or is it just the gays?

yeah. Blacks, arabs, chinese, etc. We all know Jesus was a Natzi, thats why He killed all the Jews, lol.

Nah man - be serious. God's not into bullying or power trips. He plays by the rules and wants us to play by the rules too. Truth is that some people cheat in one way and others in another. He knows that, and He's still pacing the patio waiting for His sons and daughters to wake up and come home.

ps: I'm convinced that I havent been racist above - I'm poking fun at the "poor minorities" mindset
 
Upvote 0

Texan40

seeking wisdom
Feb 8, 2010
835
53
Houston, TX
✟8,687.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The fact of the matter is that there is no clear condemnation of what we understand by homosexuality anywhere in Scripture. The OT is dealing mostly with temple prostitution and the NT seems to be mostly concerned with pederasty or the procurement of slaves for same-sex sex.

There is a clear mandate of how God expects us to live. Living outside of that mandate is choosing to live in sin, which for us is death. Arguing the "letter of the law" though scripture is a dangerous game. Debating the semantics and "intent" of 1 Corinthians 9 is a useless exercise as the clear indication is that by using our bodies for sexually immoral gratifications we are aligning ourselves against the will of God. Homosexuality doesn't have to be scripturally "singled out."

As far as "hell" goes... whatever it may entail it is the natural consequence of God's righteous judgment and therefore out of our kin. No man can say for certain that he is saved and therefore cannot possibly account for others. "By Grace alone" does not leave room for human passions.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
There is a clear mandate of how God expects us to live. Living outside of that mandate is choosing to live in sin, which for us is death. Arguing the "letter of the law" though scripture is a dangerous game. Debating the semantics and "intent" of 1 Corinthians 9 is a useless exercise as the clear indication is that by using our bodies for sexually immoral gratifications we are aligning ourselves against the will of God. Homosexuality doesn't have to be scripturally "singled out."

As far as "hell" goes... whatever it may entail it is the natural consequence of God's righteous judgment and therefore out of our kin. No man can say for certain that he is saved and therefore cannot possibly account for others. "By Grace alone" does not leave room for human passions.

Correct, so far as it goes. However, here's the catch -- and it is NOT said out of a desire to "excuse away the sins of homosexuals". "Sexually immoral behavior" is presumed by this approach to include all homosexual thoughts, feelings, and acts. I have very little doubt that you or another Christian man would find it offensive if your Christian marriage were compared to screwing your stepmother, a series of one-night stands with pickups from the local singles bar, the seduction of little prepubescent girls, or gratifying oneself with barnyard animals. Yet this is exactly what men or women in a committed relationship that they look on as marriage or the equivalent get as analogies to how sinful they are in entering into a monogamous committed homosexual relationship. The Golden Rule should be telling us Christians something at that point.

Yes, the term is translated as "homosexuals" or "homosexual offenders" in most modern translations. But I submit to you that God had certain sins in mind in His condemnations in Leviticus, Romans, and First Corinthians - ones that virtually everyone here would agree are evil on their face. Specifically, fertility cults to false gods, customarily using sex as sympathetic magic to ensure fertility of the fields; jaded sophisticates trying on gay sex for new thrills when straight sex has left them bored and feeling ennui; and the pandering and patronizing of enslaved boy prostitutes. Setting aside for a moment the question of sex within a committed gay relationship and focusing on just those named sins, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that all participants in these debates, from Al Ayeti through Preacherswife2004 to Light Horseman and BeanieBoy, would agree that what I described are in fact heinous sins.

"But wait, there's more!" ;) God says, explicitly, that we are to avoid judging others whenever possible, and to judge "with a righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees" when we do judge, because by the measure we judge we too shall be judged. What manner of righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees? He's at pains to explain it: it is to return good for evil, to have compassion, to love as He would love. It is to recognize that one's own sins are as black in His sight as those we are tempted to condemn, and to throw ourselves on His mercy, recognizing that by His grace only are we saved. "He who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Peter makes this clear when he goes to visit Cornelius the Centurion, a Roman and therefore a Gentile. Now it was a part of Jewish dietary law that a Jew should not share a meal with a Gentile, because it would make him ceremonially unclean. But Peter falls asleep and has a dream-vision of a sheet descending from heaven, full of animals both clean and unclean, and a voice saying, "Come and eat." So when he goes to witness to Cornelius, he explains, "You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to eat with a Gentile. But I had this dream...." Now virtually everyone who makes reference to this claims that, along with Paul's theological analysis and Jesus's own teachings about what comes out of a man's mouth, not what goes into it, making him unclean, that the dietary laws have been abrogated.

But that's not what Peter says. What he says is, [In that dream] "God has shown me that I must not call any man common or unclean." Think about that. It's not the foodstuffs; it's the people. "God is no respector of persons." Drawing a line and saying, "These are Christians whose sins have been forgiven, who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb; and those over there are the goats, the unrepentant sinners, whose sins He despises and who will be cast out" - that's not the way it goes. He loves everyone ... and it's how we show our faith in behavior towards others that determines how He judges us. We have His word on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OllieFranz
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is a clear mandate of how God expects us to live. Living outside of that mandate is choosing to live in sin, which for us is death. Arguing the "letter of the law" though scripture is a dangerous game. Debating the semantics and "intent" of 1 Corinthians 9 is a useless exercise as the clear indication is that by using our bodies for sexually immoral gratifications we are aligning ourselves against the will of God. Homosexuality doesn't have to be scripturally "singled out."
When it comes to examining our own lives, motivations, actions, and sins, I am in full agreement with this statement. In fact, I'd go even further and state that anything that we are not "fully persuaded in [our] own mind" (Romans 14:5) is something that can be used to glorify God becomes sin for us whether or not it is objectively sin (See Romans 14:23)

But when it comes to judging others, we are repeatedly told "Don't!" We are warned of the consequences in Matthew 7:1-5, in Matthew 18:23-35, and in Romans 2:1-3. If we judge our fellow-sinner, then we have rejected the Grace and mercy of the free gift of Salvation. If we judge our fellow-sinner by the Law, then God will judge us by the Law. And we know that under the Law, all are guilty. Under the Law, there is no mercy.
 
Upvote 0

Texan40

seeking wisdom
Feb 8, 2010
835
53
Houston, TX
✟8,687.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think it's fair to single out homosexuality whatsoever. Married men engaged in inappropriate contentography and masturbation (which I would offer are a much bigger slice of the human pie) are continually committing adultery. Are they somehow "better" than men who choose to have sex with other men? Not in the least. I agree with you that it is not ours to judge other men but I do see scriptural license to speak out against sin itself. Sin is something that moves us away from God or God's will. Most of the time this is something selfish that we want to engage in to fulfill some passion. Since no man is "clean" in the eyes of God how can any one of us point at another and cry "Sinner!" with a clear conscience? The only person's salvation that I can effect is my own.
 
Upvote 0

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,461
820
Freezing, America
✟26,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I don't think it's fair to single out homosexuality whatsoever. Married men engaged in inappropriate contentography and masturbation (which I would offer are a much bigger slice of the human pie) are continually committing adultery. Are they somehow "better" than men who choose to have sex with other men? Not in the least.
Women do it too, you know... and what exactly is wrong with masturbation? Where is that in the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Texan40

seeking wisdom
Feb 8, 2010
835
53
Houston, TX
✟8,687.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Women do it too, you know... and what exactly is wrong with masturbation? Where is that in the Bible?

Masturbation has to do with trying to sate a lust. Once again I'm not going to make a "letter of the law" argument for scripture as it is not the point. The point is not to allow lust to drive your actions (be it lust for money, food, sex, or whatever). Does masturbation or homosexuality have to be specifically addressed when dealing with a general view of sexual impurity and immorality? You can argue with Him when you see Him, I'm not splitting hairs.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nope. Beyond that, I don't consider the sex I have to be "disfunctional" either.

If such cannot beget offspring, it has to be disfunctional. If a person can choose to have sex with another individual, that person can choose to have sex after marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Lust is something everyone faces ---- it doesn't have to be the driving motivation for choice.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,461
820
Freezing, America
✟26,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Masturbation has to do with trying to sate a lust. Once again I'm not going to make a "letter of the law" argument for scripture as it is not the point. The point is not to allow lust to drive your actions (be it lust for money, food, sex, or whatever). Does masturbation or homosexuality have to be specifically addressed when dealing with a general view of sexual impurity and immorality? You can argue with Him when you see Him, I'm not splitting hairs.
Lust has to do with desire to the point of intending to act on it if one had the chance, not mere desire. If it were mere desire, a husband and wife would be sinning whenever they have sex. And stating that I can argue with God when I see Him... It comes across as 'I'm right, and if you think I'm wrong take it up with Him' which I'm sure wasn't your intent.
 
Upvote 0

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,461
820
Freezing, America
✟26,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
If such cannot beget offspring, it has to be disfunctional. If a person can choose to have sex with another individual, that person can choose to have sex after marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Lust is something everyone faces ---- it doesn't have to be the driving motivation for choice.
Then any sex that does not produce children is wrong, even among sterilized married couples.
 
Upvote 0

Texan40

seeking wisdom
Feb 8, 2010
835
53
Houston, TX
✟8,687.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Lust has to do with desire to the point of intending to act on it if one had the chance, not mere desire. If it were mere desire, a husband and wife would be sinning whenever they have sex. And stating that I can argue with God when I see Him... It comes across as 'I'm right, and if you think I'm wrong take it up with Him' which I'm sure wasn't your intent.

I think having sex with your spouse simply to please your own lusts is sinful. Having sex as a means of intimacy and connection is divine. IMO sex can be worshipful to the Creator and beautiful in His sight. It can also be nothing more than a cheap human appetite.

As far as the last comment I certainly didn't want to come across as "I'm right, you're wrong." The only avenue through which I can even approach knowing God is through scripture and prayer. I read and study scripture and pray for God to allow His will to be made known. I cannot be "certain" to anyone but myself as far as my own personal search goes. In the world of opinions I have no special privileges. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,461
820
Freezing, America
✟26,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I think having sex with your spouse simply to please your own lusts is sinful. Having sex as a means of intimacy and connection is divine. IMO sex can be worshipful to the Creator and beautiful in His sight. It can also be nothing more than a cheap human appetite.
I'm saying that simply a desire for sex is not wrong, having that same desire to a much greater intensity so that you feel you need to have it, in reality, is lust. I do believe that just as someone can worship God by having sex with their spouse, so can a single person worship God by releasing the sexual tension that builds up and so avoid delving into the realm of lust by masturbating.

And just as the desire for sex is not wrong, so homosexual attractions are not wrong- only if you intend to act, have a great intense desire- then it is lust. And having gay sex is also wrong.

Just to keep it on topic... ;)

As far as the last comment I certainly didn't want to come across as "I'm right, you're wrong." The only avenue through which I can even approach knowing God is through scripture and prayer. I read and study scripture and pray for God to allow His will to be made known. I cannot be "certain" to anyone but myself as far as my own personal search goes. In the world of opinions I have no special privileges. ;)
I figured... just letting you know how the statement 'take it up with Him' can come across.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Merlin

Paradigm Buster
Sep 29, 2005
3,873
845
Avalon Island
✟17,437.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I haven't read all of these posts but I just wanted to clear up the assumption that being gay is a choice.
that's not the issue.
the issue is who you spread your legs for.
and that is a choice.
I remember back in elementary school my first crush was on a girl. Back when you're still innocent and don't know what lust, sex or even liking someone like that means. I am bi-sexual so it's a little harder for me to explain as well as someone who is attracted to only one sex. I just know that I did not chose to live life in a way where I would be judged, mocked, threatened, teased, condemned or made to feel less of a person. So many people out there live a lie because they are afraid of acting on their feelings. I know people who have tried living "the right way" and were so unhappy and ended up hearting the other person. It is something you are born with, I dont know what, but I look at it like this... I was born with everything else that makes me who I am(eye & hair color, tempermate and genetic health problems), why wouldn't that be one of them? I wasn't around people who taught me to act this way. I do however feel it is genetic. If you know someone who is gay, there is someone else in that family who is too. Probably more then one. I have God in my heart and I talk to him often. I am a good person and know I will see him someday.


I have God in my heart and I talk to him often...Mindy
yet you want to publicly humiliate Him by posting here of your defiance of His law?
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
I don't think it's fair to single out homosexuality whatsoever. Married men engaged in inappropriate contentography and masturbation (which I would offer are a much bigger slice of the human pie) are continually committing adultery. Are they somehow "better" than men who choose to have sex with other men? Not in the least. I agree with you that it is not ours to judge other men but I do see scriptural license to speak out against sin itself. Sin is something that moves us away from God or God's will. Most of the time this is something selfish that we want to engage in to fulfill some passion. Since no man is "clean" in the eyes of God how can any one of us point at another and cry "Sinner!" with a clear conscience? The only person's salvation that I can effect is my own.
No one has any choice about whom they fall in love with. The only choice gays and lesbians have is the choice to be honest about who they are and the choice to not engage in self hatred because of who they love
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
If such cannot beget offspring, it has to be disfunctional. If a person can choose to have sex with another individual, that person can choose to have sex after marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Lust is something everyone faces ---- it doesn't have to be the driving motivation for choice.
After the birth of our second son I had a vasectomy…meaning whenever my lovely wife and have sex it is ‘dysfunctional’ and there for awful and disgusting
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
44
✟24,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
If such cannot beget offspring, it has to be disfunctional. If a person can choose to have sex with another individual, that person can choose to have sex after marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Lust is something everyone faces ---- it doesn't have to be the driving motivation for choice.

I posted a reply to this before realizing that Godschild87 has first covered what I was basically going to say anyways.

Beyond that, LN, it is true that I could choose to have sex with a person of the opposite sex after I marry them... but why on earth would I do that!? I obviously choose not to do that due to the simple fact that I'm GAY for cryin' out loud!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.