Sin is Sin All Sins Are Equal.

[IamRedeemed]

First, in order for this statement to be applicable here, I think it would have to be established that there are Christians who are speaking out against homosexuality, out promoting other sins such as adultery or any other and are involved in adultery or any other and claiming at the same time that it isn't sin.
So far I have seen no Christians here who are doing such. But I agree with you that even if there
were, it "is no reason to support a sin repugnant in God's eyes."

Who is promoting those things!?

I agree that there are people who look at the speck of homosexual sawdust in their own eye, and ignore the adulterous plank in their own, but that is no reason to support a sin repugnant in God's eyes.

 

[IamRedeemed]

God is the author of marriage. It is satan's mission to seek to destroy Christian marriages. Many Christian marriages are unequally yoked as well, so there is a conflict of interest and a war within the household between flesh and spirit, just as there is within each Christian individual. One may be on fire for the Lord, while the other one slips into a lukewarm state and simply shows up at Church every week. As it is written in the Word of God, "A house divided against itself will fall".

But you shouldn't condemn Christians who have fallen prey to the enemy's plan to destroy their marriages, and try to use it as a weapon to promote homosexual sin, instead you should pray for them.

PS... Potluck encourages fellowship. Jesus always fellowshipped with a meal with people.
It is a great opportunity for people to get to know one another outside of services.
Unbelievers and believers alike.

Evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than other denominations.http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=295

Plus there are church pot lucks that encourages gluttony-and anyone who has been to church knows about the gossip...

 

[OllieFranz]

If a thief held up what he stole in my face and demanded I accept it and embrace it and allow for it - i would be equally vocal about that sin.

And yet gossips, backbiters, whisperers, boasters, the unmerciful, drunkard, extortioners, decievers, debaters, liars and perjerors (all of whom are equally condemned with gays by your simplistic reading of Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy) can hold up their sins in your face and you do nothing because they admit that they are sins. Even though they show no remorse, no repentance and no effort to change.

You admit by your op its sin - yet say I discriminate if I wont openly accept your sin. Should I allow a murderer to murder and embrace it so I wont be "discriminating" against them? Certainly not.

There is a common technique both in formal debate, and in life in general that allows two people to get past a sticking point. It is for one party to accept the claim of the other party for the sake of advancing the argument. It does not mean that the first party has changed her mind and suddenly believes the agreed to statement to be true. It certainly does not mean that she "admitted" the point. It just means that she wants to get past that point and see just where that viewpoint leads the argument.

I hope that this post is educating you in an intellectual technique inwhich you are inexperienced. I would not want to think that you are a "debater, deciever, liar, or perjeror" and are just as guilty as those you condemn.

[BIBLE]Romans 2:1-3[/BIBLE]

 

[IamRedeemed]

Contending for the faith and sharply rebuking false teachers is one of the requirements of a Disciple of Christ. So is setting your candlestick high on a hill so that the whole city gets light rather than wander around in darkness, as the blind following the blind as the Word of God says that both will land in a ditch. When light enters a room, darkness is confounded.

And yet gossips, backbiters, whisperers, boasters, the unmerciful, drunkard, extortioners, decievers, debaters, liars and perjerors (all of whom are equally condemned with gays by your simplistic reading of Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy) can hold up their sins in your face and you do nothing because they admit that they are sins. Even though they show no remorse, no repentance and no effort to change.



There is a common technique both in formal debate, and in life in general that allows two people to get past a sticking point. It is for one party to accept the claim of the other party for the sake of advancing the argument. It does not mean that the first party has changed her mind and suddenly believes the agreed to statement to be true. It certainly does not mean that she "admitted" the point. It just means that she wants to get past that point and see just where that viewpoint leads the argument.

I hope that this post is educating you in an intellectual technique inwhich you are inexperienced. I would not want to think that you are a "debater, deciever, liar, or perjeror" and are just as guilty as those you condemn.

[bible]Romans 2:1-3[/bible]

 

[OllieFranz]

Contending for the faith and sharply rebuking false teachers is one of the requirements of a Disciple of Christ. So is setting your candlestick high on a hill so that the whole city gets light rather than wander around in darkness, as the blind following the blind as the Word of God says that both will land in a ditch. When light enters a room, darkness is confounded.

Non sequiter.

The post I was responding to claimed that the OP "admitted" that homosexuality is a sin, when she clearly had done no such thing. Either the poster was unaware of the technique of accepting a statement "for argument's sake" or she was being dishonest. Assuming the former, I explained the technique.

At no time did I say anything to indicate that she is not allowed to proclaim the truth as she understands it. I just pointed out that in this instance, if as I assumed, she was honest, she was also in error.

Only she knows if she was being honest or not. But on the off-chance that she was not, I felt it prudent to enlighten her about the fact that persons guilty of that sin are just as guilty before God as persons guilty of arsenokoites.

 

[catlover]

Sinning is different than promotion.

Allowing wedding ceremonies for second marriages churches and having pastors perform the wedding ceremonies IS promoting sin.

 

[IamRedeemed]

That can't be said blanket wide and one cannot make the judgment of another based on the knowledge that their marriage is their second marriage, if you don't know the reason for the divorce of the first. There are allowable divorces, such as in the event of adultery (which I imagine the molesting of the kids by one's spouse, or any kids for that matter, might be able to fall into that category as well).

There isn't however any allowable clauses in the Word of God for homosexual activity.

Allowing wedding ceremonies for second marriages churches and having pastors perform the wedding ceremonies IS promoting sin.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than other denominations.http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=295

Plus there are church pot lucks that encourages gluttony-and anyone who has been to church knows about the gossip...

What's your point? What does this have to do with the sinfulness of homosexuality? (You know what I mean by that term.)

 

[KCKID]

That can't be said blanket wide and one cannot make the judgment of another based on the knowledge that their marriage is their second marriage, if you don't know the reason for the divorce of the first. There are allowable divorces, such as in the event of adultery (which I imagine the molesting of the kids by one's spouse, or any kids for that matter, might be able to fall into that category as well).

'Fraid not, IamRedeemed. While there ARE provisions for divorce there are NO provisions for remarriage UNLESS a former spouse is deceased. To marry another while a former spouse is alive is considered by the scriptures to be adultery. Even without the Bible to tell us this, just think about it.

Many people are either ignorant of this biblical fact or they turn a blind eye to it. And, the reason many would turn a blind eye to it is because SO many church-goers commit this 'offense' that the church would lose many members if it were enforced.

Note 1: Some pastors will not perform marriage ceremonies that involve the above-mentioned situations.

Note 2: I personally have no strong objections regarding divorce and remarriage. I am no one's keeper and it's none of my business anyway to try to 'tear assunder' the happiness and the love of two people with words from an ancient book. Remember, I'm referring to heterosexual relationships here.

There isn't however any allowable clauses in the Word of God for homosexual activity.

So untrue and yet repeatedly presented on this forum as if fact by IamRedeemed and others. The best they can come up with to support their case against homosexual relations is the apparent condemnation in the Bible of SODOMY. There is NO reference in the Bible at all to the condemnation of other forms of sexual gratification between either heterosexuals or homosexuals. It is a fallacy to state and to keep restating that ANYTHING OTHER THAN SODOMY IS CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE.

As for the act of sodomy ...I am not going to presume to know - or even care - whether or not my 'gay' friends who are sitting in the church pews are engaging in the act of sodomy when in private. Likewise, I am not going to presume to know - or even care - whether or not my 'heterosexual' friends who are sitting in the church pews are engaging in ANY form of sexual practices when in private. Such things I refuse to think about.

You should maybe take on the above 'it's none of my business' yourself, IamRedeemed and others. But if you MUST occupy the bedrooms of others with your Bible in hand, then replace the word 'homosexual' with the more appropriate word 'sodomy' and apply NO OTHER sexual activities with which to condemn others ...be they heterosexual or homosexual. Okay?

 

[IamRedeemed]

Perhaps if the issues were to stay in the bedrooms, that would be possible, but as we know,
such is not the case, instead it's "up in our grills" with it, so let's get back to the reality of
what the contention is and save the semantics.

Pastors should be careful not to enable a couple to believe their marriage is blessed if
it would be aiding the couple in committing adultery.

If a person is freed from their marriage due to no fault of their own, they are absolutely
free to marry again. It is a silly notion to on one hand believe that yes, the spouse to whom
the adultery was committed against, can get a divorce, but should still remain faithful to a
person who is no longer their spouse who committed the adultery that caused the divorce
in the first place and should do so until the adulterer is deceased. ROFL!!
You are absolutely in error in that regard.

Anyway, regardless of what you and I believe the Bible contends in that regard
it does not change the fact that there is still no conditions whatsoever in the Word of God
or clauses allowing for homosexuality at all, under any circumstance.

God is the ancient of days and exists outside time. The fact that His Word is alive and well
and has stood the test of time despite many attempts to destroy it in history, should give
you a better understanding of WHOSE book that is.

'Fraid not, IamRedeemed. While there ARE provisions for divorce there are NO provisions for remarriage UNLESS a former spouse is deceased. To marry another while a former spouse is alive is considered by the scriptures to be adultery. Even without the Bible to tell us this, just think about it.

Many people are either ignorant of this biblical fact or they turn a blind eye to it. And, the reason many would turn a blind eye to it is because SO many church-goers commit this 'offense' that the church would lose many members if it were enforced.

Note 1: Some pastors will not perform marriage ceremonies that involve the above-mentioned situations.

Note 2: I personally have no strong objections regarding divorce and remarriage. I am no one's keeper and it's none of my business anyway to try to 'tear assunder' the happiness and the love of two people with words from an ancient book. Remember, I'm referring to heterosexual relationships here.



So untrue and yet repeatedly presented on this forum as if fact by IamRedeemed and others. The best they can come up with to support their case against homosexual relations is the apparent condemnation in the Bible of SODOMY. There is NO reference in the Bible at all to the condemnation of other forms of sexual gratification between either heterosexuals or homosexuals. It is a fallacy to state and to keep restating that ANYTHING OTHER THAN SODOMY IS CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE.

As for the act of sodomy ...I am not going to presume to know - or even care - whether or not my 'gay' friends who are sitting in the church pews are engaging in the act of sodomy when in private. Likewise, I am not going to presume to know - or even care - whether or not my 'heterosexual' friends who are sitting in the church pews are engaging in ANY form of sexual practices when in private. Such things I refuse to think about.

You should maybe take on the above 'it's none of my business' yourself, IamRedeemed and others. But if you MUST occupy the bedrooms of others with your Bible in hand, then replace the word 'homosexual' with the more appropriate word 'sodomy' and apply NO OTHER sexual activities with which to condemn others ...be they heterosexual or homosexual. Okay?

 

[KCKID]

What's your point? What does this have to do with the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Please ...get your facts right, Ishida. What you might better say is: What does this have to do with the sinfulness of sodomy? For the 'millionth' time, the word 'homosexual' replaced the original word of 'sodomy'. This basically means that the entire issue of 'homosexuality' is being debated on this sub-forum with much ignorance from the outset. That's why I began the thread: What IS homosexuality . . .? Few people actually KNOW!

Unless someone can point out such a scripture to me it's my understanding that there are no other sexual 'taboos' that are mentioned in the Bible between consenting adults. This means that - if we're going to use the Bible to direct us to put one foot in front of the other in order to walk as some seem to do - two consenting adults, regardless of their gender and sexual persuasion, can 'touch' one another in a sexual or intimate manner without Bible condemnation.

Would someone care to refute this?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Please ...get your facts right, Ishida. What you might better say is: What does this have to do with the sinfulness of sodomy? For the 'millionth' time, the word 'homosexual' replaced the original word of 'sodomy'. This basically means that the entire issue of 'homosexuality' is being debated on this sub-forum with much ignorance from the outset. That's why I began the thread: What IS homosexuality . . .? Few people actually KNOW!

Unless someone can point out such a scripture to me it's my understanding that there are no other sexual 'taboos' that are mentioned in the Bible between consenting adults. This means that - if we're going to use the Bible to direct us to put one foot in front of the other in order to walk as some seem to do - two consenting adults, regardless of their gender and sexual persuasion, can 'touch' one another in a sexual or intimate manner without Bible condemnation.

Would someone care to refute this?

First part: Understood. But you knew what I meant. And the question still remains. There are many sexual taboos between consenting adults. Can you be more clear with your second part, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Your sodomy argument falls down with the words "fornication", and "sexual immorality"
which is ANY sexual relations with ANYONE (or anything) that is not one's husband or
wife joined in marriage which can only be between a man and a woman.

Please ...get your facts right, Ishida. What you might better say is: What does this have to do with the sinfulness of sodomy? For the 'millionth' time, the word 'homosexual' replaced the original word of 'sodomy'. This basically means that the entire issue of 'homosexuality' is being debated on this sub-forum with much ignorance from the outset. That's why I began the thread: What IS homosexuality . . .? Few people actually KNOW!

Unless someone can point out such a scripture to me it's my understanding that there are no other sexual 'taboos' that are mentioned in the Bible between consenting adults. This means that - if we're going to use the Bible to direct us to put one foot in front of the other in order to walk as some seem to do - two consenting adults, regardless of their gender and sexual persuasion, can 'touch' one another in a sexual or intimate manner without Bible condemnation.

Would someone care to refute this?

 

[KCKID]

Anyway, regardless of what you and I believe the Bible contends in that regard
it does not change the fact that there is still no conditions whatsoever in the Word of God
or clauses allowing for homosexuality at all, under any circumstance.

Dear IamRedeemed.

Just kidding!

If this thread/sub-forum were about divorce/remarriage there certainly ARE scriptures that could be presented to support what I - and others - have to say about it. In fact these scriptures probably SHOULD be presented anyway since this thread concerns the 'selectivity' of sins. This means that there are 'sins' which Christians focus on and vehemently condemn (almost exclusively homosexuality) while there are other 'sins' of 'equal value' that Christians turn a blind eye to. You are merely playing this topic down, IamRedeemed, and by calling such 'semantics' and applying 'ROFL' remarks you are merely attempting to discredit others who are making legitimate claims.


You state, evidently with some perceived authority, that there are (still) no clauses or conditions in the word of God that allow for homosexuality. Seems to me that you must have gotten that stuff from 'the gospel according to IamRedeemed' because it's completely untrue. This means, IamRedeemed, that you are 'fibbing' to us. Furthermore, while 'fibbing' doesn't necessarily faze me too much, it is an abomination to God.

Just a little bit of light-hearted banter (though perhaps significant), IamRedeemed, so please hold off on the 'Report' button.

Anyway, other than 'sodomy' there are no other sexual 'taboos' mentioned in the Bible at all to my knowledge. Maybe you can correct/enlighten me by presenting one or more scriptures that indicate otherwise. So then, what do you mean that there are no clauses or conditions in the word of God that allow for homosexuality? Other than 'sodomy' there are no sexual prohibitions anyway. Seems to me that you're taking the 'non-existence' of such 'clauses or conditions' in the Bible and making them appear to be 'real by their absence' in order to support your 'anti-gay' sentiments.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Decided to send by PM instead, as not to derail on the
topic of reports and report buttons....

 

[IamRedeemed]

lol...where is the eye roll smiley when you need it!

I answered your sodomy argument already. It fell down incase you didn't hear it,
over the words, "fornication" and "sexual immorality" which is ANY sexual activity
out of the bounds of matrimony which can only take place between a man and a woman.

As far as the other, ask the OP. I would be happy to hear your case.

Dear IamRedeemed.

Just kidding!

If this thread/sub-forum were about divorce/remarriage there certainly ARE scriptures that could be presented to support what I - and others - have to say about it. In fact these scriptures probably SHOULD be presented anyway since this thread concerns the 'selectivity' of sins. This means that there are 'sins' which Christians focus on and vehemently condemn (almost exclusively homosexuality) while there are other 'sins' of 'equal value' that Christians turn a blind eye to. You are merely playing this topic down, IamRedeemed, and by calling such 'semantics' and applying 'ROFL' remarks you are merely attempting to discredit others who are making legitimate claims.


You state, evidently with some perceived authority, that there are (still) no clauses or conditions in the word of God that allow for homosexuality. Seems to me that you must have gotten that stuff from 'the gospel according to IamRedeemed' because it's completely untrue. This means, IamRedeemed, that you are 'fibbing' to us. Furthermore, while 'fibbing' doesn't necessarily faze me too much, it is an abomination to God.

Just a little bit of light-hearted banter (though perhaps significant), IamRedeemed, so please hold off on the 'Report' button.

Anyway, other than 'sodomy' there are no other sexual 'taboos' mentioned in the Bible at all to my knowledge. Maybe you can correct/enlighten me by presenting one or more scriptures that indicate otherwise. So then, what do you mean that there are no clauses or conditions in the word of God that allow for homosexuality? Other than 'sodomy' there are no sexual prohibitions anyway. Seems to me that you're taking the 'non-existence' of such 'clauses or conditions' in the Bible and making them appear to be 'real by their absence' in order to support your 'anti-gay' sentiments.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Because its being demanded all over that we accept it and agree with it and treat it as something other than what it is and that is sin.

If we dont agree with it - we are told we hate them (not true) If we wont pretend its ok - we are called bigots (not true) If we wont embrace it - we are told we discriminate - If we say that its sin - we are told we are liars.

We are also being told to bless it in our churches and that its not a sin anymore when it is -while we watch our bibles be rewritten and our children told its ok and told we must accept it or even be sued many times.

We teach our children its wrong to steal - why shouldnt we also teach them homosexuality is just as wrong and just as much sin.

If you dont want anyone in your bedroom - keep what you do in your bedroom and dont demand others accept it. Dont shove it in my face and i wont complain about it.

So?

There are many sins that are already accepted and COMMON in the Christian church and we do nothing about those. Homosexuality is going to be accepted in the secular world. As Christians, we shouldn't be forcing the secular world to follow our morals. We're supposed to share the Good News with them and nothing more. We should be concentrating on making sure the church is kept pure and homosexuality is at the bottom of the list.

 

[KCKID]

Decided to send by PM instead, as not to derail on the
topic of reports and report buttons....

I got the PM and I appreciate your response.

Thanks.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Anyway, other than 'sodomy' there are no other sexual 'taboos' mentioned in the Bible at all to my knowledge.

Leviticus concerns a lot of the ritual law and there is a sexual content to it; two of the "gotcha" passages those who seek to harm LGBTs memorize are from there but also very strict prohibitions about heterosexual sex during a woman's menstrual period. I don't know if you are familiar with the white supremacist-survivalist Randy Weaver and his wife Vicki-she was killed in a shootout with federal agents. However, she was staying in a separate building from the rest of the family at the time due to their fundamentalist beliefs that due to her period she was obligated to segregate herself from the rest of the family. The ancients were extremely superstitious and the patriarchy was in awe of female bodily function which involved bleeding without being wounded or dying. Much of the taboos of that ancient society were due to their superstitions and their desire to distinguish themselves from the matriarchical cults of the surrounding areas. As one wag put it, "Jehovah and Eris got a messy divorce".

 

[IamRedeemed]

You're welcome.

I got the PM and I appreciate your response.

Thanks.