Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[Maccie]

Only God can say who is, and who is not, a Christian. None of us has the right to start making up the rules as we go along - generally in favour of ourselves and against 'the others', whoever they may be.

Amen, Amen and Amen!

 

[Catherineanne]

There is no Scripture that says we must live to please God? Then what is the whole purpose of The Bible?

The whole purpose of the Bible? In one sentence? OK, here goes. To reveal God's mercy and compassion to the world, made perfect in Our Lord, who is the Incarnation of the Living God, and through this revelation to reconcile mankind to himself.

I think I need a lie down now.

If you look at what you said, and what I said, that for which there is no Scripture is the following assertion, which I clearly quoted in full: However, if you claim to be a beleiver and keep freely sinning, without ever trying to live to please God, you were never truely a Christian.

The concept of genuine versus fake Christian is a modern one, and is not found in Scripture. The best source for this concept is found in the description of Our Lord dividing the sheep and the goats, and some members of each group being surprised to be there, but this still does not equate to what you said.

There is so many scriptures about Judgement I will not e ven begin to list them here. You cant be a Dog and claim to be a cat. You can't eat meat and claim to be a vegitarian, you can't knowingly disobey the word and not practice Christianity, and claim to be a Christian.

I do not recall discussing judgement, nor eating meat, nor disobedience. Maybe you included them in the deep structure of what you said, but it was too deep for me to retrieve, I am afraid.

I am not saying my sins will be wieghed any less than someone elses. I am just saying you must TRY to be a Christian at the least.

I am not so sure. That is like saying I must try to be a daughter to my parents. I don't have to try at all; it is about relationship and this is who I am. I can be a good daughter or a less than good one, and at that level there is something of trial and error, but it does not affect the heart of who I am, either in relation to my parents, or to my God. That is already decided.

But you are welcome to your opinion, which is certainly an interesting one.

 

[Catherineanne]

you can't knowingly disobey the word and not practice Christianity, and claim to be a Christian.

I thought I would look again at this part of your post, which would seem to be the heart of it.

According to your description, my salvation (or anyone else's) is dependent on my behaviour. If my behaviour were to deteriorate beyond a certain point, I would lose my salvation. This makes my bad behaviour more powerful than Christ's death and resurrection, in being capable of reversing the crucifixion. To bring this thread back onto topic, same sex relationships do not have the power to nullify the Incarnation, death and resurrection of Our Lord.

On the contrary, my salvation, and that of any brother or sister, is dependent on relationship.

When I accepted Christ, I became his sister, and his daughter, and a co-heir with him of the Kingdom of God. This is accomplished, and no matter what I do, the salvation remains, because Christ cannot be crucified a second time.

Then the bit you mention comes along. Because Christ first loved me, then I try my best to love my brothers and sisters in return, and being human, I fall short. But in falling short, I cannot lose that which God has already freely given to me. That again would make my falling short more powerful than God's love. And because God is love, if any part of me were to be more powerful than a characteristic of God, then that would make me an equal rival to God. Which is patently absurd.

And yet, we are told, it is acceptable for me, falling short, being accepted back into God's arms every time, to say to a brother or sister that their sin is worse than mine, because mine is forgiven, but theirs is somehow worse, or more distasteful to God. I am meant to go out to them and convict them of their 'sin', just because mine are different, but no less conquered. How presumptuous is that?

Ergo, it is perfectly possible to not only 'knowingly disobey the word and not practice Christianity, and claim to be a Christian', but also to actually be one. Because it is God who decides, who sees the whole person, rather than us, who see only a very small part of anyone at all. Turn it into human relationship and you see the fallacy; is it possible for my daughter to knowingly disobey me, and not do what I ask her to, and still claim to be my daughter?

Of course it is. This is not about behaviour; it is about relationship.

 

[Grateful4God]

I thought I would look again at this part of your post, which would seem to be the heart of it.

According to your description, my salvation (or anyone else's) is dependent on my behaviour. If my behaviour were to deteriorate beyond a certain point, I would lose my salvation. This makes my bad behaviour more powerful than Christ's death and resurrection, in being capable of reversing the crucifixion. To bring this thread back onto topic, same sex relationships do not have the power to nullify the Incarnation, death and resurrection of Our Lord.

On the contrary, my salvation, and that of any brother or sister, is dependent on relationship.

When I accepted Christ, I became his sister, and his daughter, and a co-heir with him of the Kingdom of God. This is accomplished, and no matter what I do, the salvation remains, because Christ cannot be crucified a second time.

Then the bit you mention comes along. Because Christ first loved me, then I try my best to love my brothers and sisters in return, and being human, I fall short. But in falling short, I cannot lose that which God has already freely given to me. That again would make my falling short more powerful than God's love. And because God is love, if any part of me were to be more powerful than a characteristic of God, then that would make me an equal rival to God. Which is patently absurd.

And yet, we are told, it is acceptable for me, falling short, being accepted back into God's arms every time, to say to a brother or sister that their sin is worse than mine, because mine is forgiven, but theirs is somehow worse, or more distasteful to God. I am meant to go out to them and convict them of their 'sin', just because mine are different, but no less conquered. How presumptuous is that?

Ergo, it is perfectly possible to not only 'knowingly disobey the word and not practice Christianity, and claim to be a Christian', but also to actually be one. Because it is God who decides, who sees the whole person, rather than us, who see only a very small part of anyone at all. Turn it into human relationship and you see the fallacy; is it possible for my daughter to knowingly disobey me, and not do what I ask her to, and still claim to be my daughter?

Of course it is. This is not about behaviour; it is about relationship.

Your thinking is that which is wrong with many teachings these days. Many people are taught, "I repent and accepted Christ there for I am saved"

That is only half true. You will be Judged. I think many Christians will be shocked at Judgement and claim "BUT I WENT TO CHURCH AND PRAYED"

Jesus will forgive a non-beleiver and let him start new. Jesus will pick us up when we fall. He will also be unhappy if we take his mercy and grace for granted.

With your thinking, I can kill someone repent, be saved again, wash and repeat. As long as I keep telling myself GOD HAS TO FORGIVE ME, I AM CHRISTIAN. I am safe from the lake of fire.

Again, I will post this quote.

1 Cor 3:10-15 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

 

[Catherineanne]

Your thinking is that which is wrong with many teachings these days. Many people are taught, "I repent and accepted Christ there for I am saved"

That is only half true. You will be Judged.

You have read what you want to read, but not what I said.

In God's terms I am not 'going to be' judged. It has already happened. It happened the day Christ died for me.

Maybe from our perspective, inside time, that still has to happen, but from God's perspective it is, as Christ himself said, accomplished.

All that remained was for me, in time, to accept this gift, freely given, which I did. You may or may not be able to tell whether this acceptance makes me a Christian or not. But I can tell, and so can God.

And yes, anyone who repents, with a true and contrite heart, will be forgiven. Is this not what the Gospels say?

 

[Catherineanne]

Again, I will post this quote.

1 Cor 3:10-15 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

I will look at it, without the distortion of boldening, if you don't mind, because we are told not to add to the Scriptures.

OK, this is written by Paul, cautioning the Corinthians to be careful how they develop their church, and to ensure that it remains founded in Christ, as Paul established it.

Where does that contradict what I have said?

 

[Grateful4God]

I thought I would look again at this part of your post, which would seem to be the heart of it.

According to your description, my salvation (or anyone else's) is dependent on my behaviour. If my behaviour were to deteriorate beyond a certain point, I would lose my salvation. This makes my bad behaviour more powerful than Christ's death and resurrection, in being capable of reversing the crucifixion. To bring this thread back onto topic, same sex relationships do not have the power to nullify the Incarnation, death and resurrection of Our Lord.

On the contrary, my salvation, and that of any brother or sister, is dependent on relationship.

When I accepted Christ, I became his sister, and his daughter, and a co-heir with him of the Kingdom of God. This is accomplished, and no matter what I do, the salvation remains, because Christ cannot be crucified a second time.

Then the bit you mention comes along. Because Christ first loved me, then I try my best to love my brothers and sisters in return, and being human, I fall short. But in falling short, I cannot lose that which God has already freely given to me. That again would make my falling short more powerful than God's love. And because God is love, if any part of me were to be more powerful than a characteristic of God, then that would make me an equal rival to God. Which is patently absurd.

And yet, we are told, it is acceptable for me, falling short, being accepted back into God's arms every time, to say to a brother or sister that their sin is worse than mine, because mine is forgiven, but theirs is somehow worse, or more distasteful to God. I am meant to go out to them and convict them of their 'sin', just because mine are different, but no less conquered. How presumptuous is that?

Ergo, it is perfectly possible to not only 'knowingly disobey the word and not practice Christianity, and claim to be a Christian', but also to actually be one. Because it is God who decides, who sees the whole person, rather than us, who see only a very small part of anyone at all. Turn it into human relationship and you see the fallacy; is it possible for my daughter to knowingly disobey me, and not do what I ask her to, and still claim to be my daughter?

Of course it is. This is not about behaviour; it is about relationship.

I figured maybe I also should reread your post. Here is what I feel the major issue in this debate is.

We are all God Children, even Muslims and non-believers who do not call themselves Christians are his Children.

Christian means follower of Christ. So how can you not follow Christ and be Christian? I am speaking nothing of being Gods children.

Crowns are promised to His FAITHFUL servants!!

2 Corinthians 5:8-118 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8-119 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 2 Corinthians 5:8-1110 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:8-1111 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.


I kind of like the NLT of this Scripture however

We would rather be away from these bodies, for then we will be at home with ther lord. So our aim is to please him always, whether we are in this body or away from this body. For we must all stand before Christ to be Judged. We will each recieve whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in our bodies. It is because we know this solemn fear of the lord that we work so hard to persuade others.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I figured maybe I also should reread your post. Here is what I feel the major issue in this debate is.

We are all God Children, even Muslims and non-believers who do not call themselves Christians are his Children.

Christian means follower of Christ. So how can you not follow Christ and be Christian? I am speaking nothing of being Gods children.

Crowns are promised to His FAITHFUL servants!!

2 Corinthians 5:8-118 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8-119 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 2 Corinthians 5:8-1110 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:8-1111 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.


I kind of like the NLT of this Scripture however

We would rather be away from these bodies, for then we will be at home with ther lord. So our aim is to please him always, whether we are in this body or away from this body. For we must all stand before Christ to be Judged. We will each recieve whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in our bodies. It is because we know this solemn fear of the lord that we work so hard to persuade others.

Amen brother, I think that in our culture of relativism and pluralism we have lost sense of the true Gospel. There is a distinction betwene those are Christians and those who call themselves Christians. I will agree that its hard to decipher but I think we should be able to tell by an individuals fruits.

 

[intricatic]

I do not believe 'homosexuality' to be a sin, and you ask me to define every last detail of my faith?

Sorry, but life is too short.

I only asked three questions.

Do you believe that consentual BDSM is a sin? What about consentual adultery (where the husband and wife are in agreement over their desire to commit adultery, but still wish to live together, and still profess to love one another)?

My responses were to particular posts, which I quoted, and which were about love and hate.

Then I shall cede this point and apologize for my presumptuous questioning.

Only if they say that they have hatred, do I comment on that hatred. I do not assume it is there otherwise. I have only commented in response to the barking mad concept of loving the sinner but hating the sin, which I believe to be a contradiction in terms. Nobody can expect to contain both love and hatred in their heart at the same time.

Do you not hate sin, though? Do you not hate the detrimental quality it has on a person who's enslaved to it? Is this not a reaction to your love for the individual who's enslaved to it?

As for whether I follow the example or the teaching, I cannot see how the two can be divided. But I see no hatred in any of that teaching, and the reason I quote him as an example is to show the fallacy of trying to reconcile hatred as a part of one's faith.

Christ's teachings were very explicit on how to treat a brother or a sister which sins, and He was also very explicit on how we are to view sin in general. He's also very explicit in the fact that no person is worthy of judging another person for sin (condemning them for it), but that the sick need a hospital, not a judge. If they continue in their sickness and do not seek a hospital, what do you think the effect would be?

Again, this is a whole theology in itself. I do not think it reasonable to throw quite so many questions on a thread which has nothing to do with any of these. However, to answer as briefly as I can, God is holy. But God is love, and when we express God's love to those around us, we come as close as we ever can come to being Christ-like, and also Godly. It is always going to be imperfect, but the more of Christ's sacrificial love we show, the more of him is present and the less of us. We do not manage this consistently, 100% of the time, but when we do manage it, then it is a good and blessed time, both for us and the other person. At such times, hatred cannot exist in the same space, or breath the same air, because Christ is present.

I very much respect this point, however I would also add that Christ's teachings are just as important as how He treated people. He gave his increasingly long sermons for a reason. He also drew from the prophets repeatedly throughout the Gospels, which makes them equally important in understanding what Christ's message was. He drew from the Law of Moses, which makes the Law of Moses important for understanding it as well. If these elements are removed from pertinence in understanding the teachings Christ presented to us, then we're left to make faulty presumptions about what the way Christ related to people meant.

St Francis of Assisi said, preach the Gospel at all times. If absolutely necessary, use words.

And this is very true, it's an excellent point. I somehow doubt, though, that he meant it in such a way that simply showing love to one another is the full extent of what it means to be a Christian. Even atheists can do that.

I suspect many of those who preach do so for their own benefit, rather than that of their listeners, and would do better to emulate Christ, who did not have to preach, but only entered a house, shared a meal and brought God with him in the process.

Of what benefit would there be? To make oneself feel better by being attacked by nay-sayers?

In terms of historical principles, Christ is a primary source, and everything else, the law and the prophets a secondary source. A primary source always has more credibility, and the secondary sources need to be reviewed in the light of the primary source, not the other way round.

I agree completely. The problem is that Christ was the transmission of the Law and the Prophets (the promise of God to Abraham) manifest in the Flesh on Earth, to fulfil the promise of God. Thus all the portions of the Bible are equally relevant and important, but they haven't retained the same meaning they had before Christ. They're no longer absolutely propositional and legalistic, but they are delegated to a complete understanding of Christ, in an absolute way.

We are told in Revelation that one name for Christ is the Word of God. I do not use that title for the Scriptures, therefore, in case of inadvertant blasphemy, in ascribing any characteristic of God to a part of creation. The Bible points to God, but it does not contain all that there is to know of God, neither does it contain God himself, in the sense that all of him is there, and nothing that is not there exists. God cannot be contained in a book.

The Law of Moses was given by the mouth of God, the finger of God wrote the ten commandments. Christ is the manifestation of God's Word (metaphorically being the promise of life to Adam and Eve, then further, each covenant between the generations that resulted from Adam and Eve, which were essentially the same promise transmitted from one generation to the next) on Earth, they are one in the same, but not the same form. It's somewhat like a butterfly emerging from a cocoon.

My sin, yes. Your sin, no. That is none of my business. If you are interested in hearing about my sin, then you can draw your own conclusions about your own.

I'm not talking about personal judgement. I'm talking about the acceptance of sin in any one large, explicably social way. For instance, would it be wrong to denounce ritual human sacrifice, if it manifest itself in society, and society accepted it as normal? Would it be wrong to denounce it if it were done under the premise of love for the person being sacrificed? It might seem like a very strange hypothetical, but sin is the perversion of virtue in most cases.

The reason this whole thing is so important is not because I personally am affected in any way, other than having some gay friends, some of whom are Christian, and some of whom are not. It is because anyone who is anti gay who focusses on gay sin, runs the very real, and very dangerous risk, of thinking their own sin less heinous, and that their own salvation is assured. There is nothing in Scripture to justify anyone taking this stance. Our own sins have to have primacy for each one of us, and it is only when we can say we have no sin, that we have the right, in fear and trembling, to ask a brother or sister to consider theirs. But still not to hate their sin.

But is this something you can consistently hold?

I've not seen much example of people focusing more on the sins of others than their own, though I do admit I have seen a few examples of people condemning homosexuals, and condemning many other sins as well, on both sides of this argument. It's wrong regardless of how it's done. But is it wrong to be opposed to sin, in and of itself?

Most of these debates, in general, are started in an attempt to do one of two things (this is not universally true, but relatively); either to justify the sin, or to condemn the sin. Both modes of thought act in opposition to peace-keeping and love for one another. This makes people who come later and argue on either side look bad, do you not agree?

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Amen brother, I think that in our culture of relativism and pluralism we have lost sense of the true Gospel. There is a distinction betwene those are Christians and those who call themselves Christians. I will agree that its hard to decipher but I think we should be able to tell by an individuals fruits.

This is what you think the essence of the gospel is? That an individuals salvation can be judged by the fruits of their labors?

Are you serious?

 

[ReformedChapin]

This is what you think the essence of the gospel is? That an individuals salvation can be judged by the fruits of their labors?

Are you serious?

Is that what I said or is that the meaning you inserted into my post?

Fruits demonstrate peoples faith, not their salvation.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Is that what I said or is that the meaning you inserted into my post?

Fruits demonstrate peoples faith, not their salvation.

No way sir, I'm not letting you off that easy.

Originally Posted by NewGuy101
Amen brother, I think that in our culture of relativism and pluralism we have lost sense of the true Gospel. There is a distinction betwene those are Christians and those who call themselves Christians. I will agree that its hard to decipher but I think we should be able to tell by an individuals fruits.

This is a serious problem within American protestantism today. When you distinguish a Christian from someone who merely calls themself a Christian, you judge that person's salvation. Unless, of course, you dont think that you need to be a Christian to be saved. Care to defend that one? Mmm hmm, thought not.

In this specific case you are talking about homosexuals and saying that their "fruits" dont show them to be true Christians. I can understand the words that you say and I can understand the subtext of your words.

At least defend the things you say!

 

[SeekMode]

Why do you seek to remove the mote from thy brother's eye without first removing the beam from thy own eye? Remove first the beam, so that you may be able to see better to remove the mote from thy brother's eye.

Or, alternatively:

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Or, alternatively:

Judge not, lest ye be judged

What are you talking about? How is he judging? <edit>

 

[SeekMode]

It isn't quite so clear as you think. I know full well what the Bible says in English translations, which are interpretations as well. However, I think you should accept that there are many people who think the Bible is not clear at all, and that stable, loving relationships between two people of the same sex are not sinful.

You don't have to agree with this - that is your prerogative, but you do have to accept that others think differently.

However many scripture verses you quote, there are other interpretations. Which are just as valid as yours.

And please note I am talking about loving, stable and committed relationships, and this applies to BOTH homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Casual sex, promiscuity, abuse, and fornication are clearly wrong whether between people of the opposite sex or of the same sex.

And I would have thought this whole subject has been done to death. It has already driven one christian person off these Forums. Why do you have to bring it up again.

Or is it, as I said in another thread, US Christians are obsessed with sex?

So how would YOU interprete the verses which OObi has outlined? I am a newbie here, but I dont see how this topic or what Oobi has said is in anyway reflects his obsession with Sex. I think you're just talking out of anger because you want to believe that Bible speaks of homosexuality as a natural act. but you fail to illustrate how the verses can be interpreted differently than what OObi has said. I hope in your next post you can prove your point.

 

[OObi]

I hope in your next post you can prove your point.

I don't, that'd be scary...

 

[SeekMode]

believe it or not i just got a warning for flaming... i dont even know what that is and i dont think i acted out of line.

 

[Konkurrent]

I'll give you a hint: don't use the word "woman" instead of someone's name, particularly if you're not being friendly to them. It's sexist and condescending.

 

[Ave Maria]

Homosexuality is not a sin. Get over it.

 

[ReformedChapin]

No way sir, I'm not letting you off that easy.
[/i]

This is a serious problem within American protestantism today. When you distinguish a Christian from someone who merely calls themself a Christian, you judge that person's salvation. Unless, of course, you dont think that you need to be a Christian to be saved. Care to defend that one? Mmm hmm, thought not.

In this specific case you are talking about homosexuals and saying that their "fruits" dont show them to be true Christians. I can understand the words that you say and I can understand the subtext of your words.

At least defend the things you say!

letting me off that easy? lol. Again putting words into my mouth.

And this is far a debate from homosexuality it's about liberal theology in general.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

LOL
More homosexual *rights or wrong* topic.....over and over

Well, personally, I pray that traditional marriage would condition, thus, moral code would not break down..

To me, gay marriage is moral break down..it's something that has never been popular...
Jesus said he loves us all, unconditionally. However, he didn't go far as homosexuality..

I've never seen Jesus commenting a word about homosexuality but only marriage.
Does this mean homosexuality is not sin and we have to get over with it? To be honest, that is up to you and me.

Good luck discussing..I think my point has been pointed out Yes, I'm against homosexuality either it's sin or not. It's not suited for human....

Oh well, it's not like homosexuality is 30% of the world's population