What constitutes sexual immorality?

[LightHorseman]

If something is a sin, we need to know what God determines as sin, not for us to "use our judgment" and determine that ourselves, because it is not necessarily the case that everyone will have the same exact judgment of what is sin or not. That is why, it is important to know what God determines as sin.

Nope, you have it backwards.

God considers you to have sinned when you breach the "love thy neighbour" commandment... NOT when you infract any of a bunch of arbitrary bronze age tribal laws.

Christ's commands aren't based on OT law, but rather, OT law is an early attempt at codifying the love God and love thy neighbour imperatives.

Remember how Moses smashed the first set of tablets because the people weren't ready, and went back to get the 10 Commandments? It is my believe that "Love God, Love thy neighbour" was what was on the first set. He and God decided that the people weren't ready or able to have that level of self governance, so you get the 10 commandments, all of which are an attempt to codify the love God, Love thy neighbour commandments.

I cannot be more emphatic... Love God, Love thy Neighbour is the basis of OT law, NOT the other way around.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Nope, you have it backwards.

God considers you to have sinned when you breach the "love thy neighbour" commandment... NOT when you infract any of a bunch of arbitrary bronze age tribal laws.

Christ's commands aren't based on OT law, but rather, OT law is an early attempt at codifying the love God and love thy neighbor imperatives.

Remember how Moses smashed the first set of tablets because the people weren't ready, and went back to get the 10 Commandments? It is my believe that "Love God, Love thy neighbour" was what was on the first set. He and God decided that the people weren't ready or able to have that level of self governance, so you get the 10 commandments, all of which are an attempt to codify the love God, Love thy neighbour commandments.

The smashing of the Old law was this:
Exodus 32:16-20

16 The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. 17When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, "There is a noise of war in the camp." 18But he said, "It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear." 19And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses’ anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. 20He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.​

Moses didn't smash the tablet because the people weren't ready, he shamed it accidentally because he was angry at the people for molding a golden calf and celebrating it. Then Moses goes back up to God and intercedes on the Israelites behalf so that God does not destroy them. In chapter 34 we see Moses cutting a new tablet and God wrote on it...and God gives it to the same people. We are not told that there were different 10 commandments on the second tablet. In the 10 commandments, the first 4 verses, deal with the love that Israelites should have for God and the the last 6 verses deal with the way they should love and treat each other. And Christ in the New Testament is telling us that we should love God and love each other, for Loving God is the greatest command.


God considers you to have sin when you break His commandments not simply just the "love thy neighbor" command. We are told that love thy neighbor is the fulfillment of the law.

Answer this question: Did this person sin because he did not love his neighbor or because he broke a law that God told him not to?

Numbers 15:32-36

While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; and the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and toned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses."​

We are not told that he didn't love his neighbor, nor can I assume he didn't love his neighbor based on the law he broke. All I can assume is that he broke a commandment of God and his punishment was death.

New Testament does have commands for us. The commandments that Christ taught some of them does go back to the old law, and some of them are new, but the Old law was a tutor for the new (Galatians 3:23-25). And there were some things that Christ didn't have to explain because the Jews understood it, like sexual immorality. They would have understood what that meant. And that's why I said we should go back and read what God considers sexually immoral in the Old law to see what they are.

I cannot be more emphatic... Love God, Love thy Neighbour is the basis of OT law, NOT the other way around.

I am not quite sure why this came about, because I did say that "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind" is the greatest command. For if you love God and love your neighbor following His laws, will be much easier.

And to be honest with you, I don't understand how to even interpret "NOT the other way around." I was unaware that I said that you must follow the Old law in order to love God and love your neighbor. I said that we should know what God considers sin because it is He who determines what sin is.

 

[Stinker]

The smashing of the Old law was this:
Exodus 32:16-20

16 The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. 17When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, "There is a noise of war in the camp." 18But he said, "It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear." 19And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses’ anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. 20He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.
​

Moses didn't smash the tablet because the people weren't ready, he shamed it accidentally because he was angry at the people for molding a golden calf and celebrating it. Then Moses goes back up to God and intercedes on the Israelites behalf so that God does not destroy them. In chapter 34 we see Moses cutting a new tablet and God wrote on it...and God gives it to the same people. We are not told that there were different 10 commandments on the second tablet. In the 10 commandments, the first 4 verses, deal with the love that Israelites should have for God and the the last 6 verses deal with the way they should love and treat each other. And Christ in the New Testament is telling us that we should love God and love each other, for Loving God is the greatest command.


God considers you to have sin when you break His commandments not simply just the "love thy neighbor" command. We are told that love thy neighbor is the fulfillment of the law.

Answer this question: Did this person sin because he did not love his neighbor or because he broke a law that God told him not to?

Numbers 15:32-36

While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; and the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and toned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses."
​

We are not told that he didn't love his neighbor, nor can I assume he didn't love his neighbor based on the law he broke. All I can assume is that he broke a commandment of God and his punishment was death.

New Testament does have commands for us. The commandments that Christ taught some of them does go back to the old law, and some of them are new, but the Old law was a tutor for the new (Galatians 3:23-25). And there were some things that Christ didn't have to explain because the Jews understood it, like sexual immorality. They would have understood what that meant. And that's why I said we should go back and read what God considers sexually immoral in the Old law to see what they are.


I am not quite sure why this came about, because I did say that "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind" is the greatest command. For if you love God and love your neighbor following His laws, will be much easier.

And to be honest with you, I don't understand how to even interpret "NOT the other way around." I was unaware that I said that you must follow the Old law in order to love God and love your neighbor. I said that we should know what God considers sin because it is He who determines what sin is.

"And there are some things that Christ didn't have to explain because the Jews understood it, like 'sexual immorality'. They would have understood what that meant."(???) And that's why I said we should go back and read what God considers 'sexually immoral' in the Old Law."(???)

The phrase sexual immorality' is not found in the Bible. The word fornication (sexual intercourse with a pagan temple prostitute) and adultery (a married person having sexual intercourse with someone not their spouse, or sexual intercourse with an animal) are the only grounds for Christian divorce.

This man-made term being used as a substitute for the 2 Biblical terms, leads only to total confusion. The reason being that it is such a subjective term. It can be used to accuse a spouse of sexual immorality because one thinks their spouse masturbates too much.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

"And there are some things that Christ didn't have to explain because the Jews understood it, like 'sexual immorality'. They would have understood what that meant."(???) And that's why I said we should go back and read what God considers 'sexually immoral' in the Old Law."(???)

The phrase sexual immorality' is not found in the Bible. The word fornication (sexual intercourse with a pagan temple prostitute) and adultery (a married person having sexual intercourse with someone not their spouse, or sexual intercourse with an animal) are the only grounds for Christian divorce.

This man-made term being used as a substitute for the 2 Biblical terms, leads only to total confusion. The reason being that it is such a subjective term. It can be used to accuse a spouse of sexual immorality because one thinks their spouse masturbates too much.

The word "Love" is not in the Greek language. The words in the Greek language for our definition of "love" would be Agape, Eros, Storge, Philia/Philio, but the word love, like, admire, adore, etc... is used because it fit the definition. Hints, sexual immorality would be used because it fits the same definition in the English language that the Greek used for their word. And still, you would have to go back into the Old law, to find what sexual immorality would be in God's definition, for it is not really spoken of much in the New Testament.

The Geneve bible (1500 AD edition) uses the word "harlotdome", it does not translate it into fornication/adultery where the word "sexual immorality" is used in our newer translations.

 

[LightHorseman]

Answer this question: Did this person sin because he did not love his neighbor or because he broke a law that God told him not to?

Actually, he broke what the ancient Israelites collectively thought of as the "love thy God with all thy heart" commandment.

I would also suggest that their punishment of him was definitely a breach of the "love thy neighbour" commandemnt. Which is PRECISELY the sort of blind legalism I'm railing against here.

I am not quite sure why this came about, because I did say that "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind" is the greatest command. For if you love God and love your neighbor following His laws, will be much easier.

I thought I already answered this... but I'llk try again.

We don't fulfill our obligation to Love God through blind adherence to outdated, out of context tribal laws. We fulfill our obligation to Him by loving our neighbour.

And to be honest with you, I don't understand how to even interpret "NOT the other way around." I was unaware that I said that you must follow the Old law in order to love God and love your neighbor. I said that we should know what God considers sin because it is He who determines what sin is.

I may very well have misunderstood you, and if so, I apologise. However, my perception of what you, and people like you are saying, is that God outlines sin in the OT. I contend that that isn't how it works. When discussing our human interactions, sin is anything that is contrary to the "love thy neighbour" law. Thats it. Always has been, always will be. What happened way back when OT law was codified, the people writing the laws down did their best to come up with an appropriate list of everything they could think of that breached the love thy neighbour law, and what they saw as appropriate punishments. Which was fine, in its simplistic way, in the context of the time and place. However, to pretend that their social mores and norms are remotely applicable to ours today is simply blindness.

Now sure, there is SOME cross over, murder was wrong then, and its wrong now, for sure. But murder ISN'T wrong because "the Bible says", murder is wrong because it breaches Love thy neighbour... i.e. if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't want some guy murdering you!

Can you even see where I'm coming from? I'm not even asking you to agree, just try to understand my POV.

 

[rahmiyn]

I believe when Jesus challenged "eye for an eye" in the Old Testament, and when he said all the law and prophets hang on the two love commandments, he is telling us that any interpretation of the law or prophets that does not fit into these two love commandments is wrong.

So, I believe the original tablets had exactly the same commandments, but perhaps the breaking signified how the very same laws can be interpreted two different ways: a legalistic way that leads to death, or the two love commandments that leads to life.

Legalism seeks to impose the law on others. Jesus was trying to teach us that we can only impose the law on ourselves, and leave everyone else to God. Only God can turn the heart toward his two love commands. But when man seeks to do this in another, it automatically becomes legalism.

 

[akeng]

Would refusing sex in a marriage relationship be considered sexuall immoral and thus justify a divorce?

 

[Ave Maria]

What constitutes sexual immorality? Anything that goes against the virtue of chastity:

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, inappropriate contentography, and homosexual practices.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
RE: Jesus challenged "eye for an eye" in the Old Testament

The Bible's Jesus would never stand up against his own Father's commandments.

†. Ex 20:12 . . Honor thy father

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:29 . .The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.

†. John 10:30 . . I and my Father are one.

†. John 12:49 . . For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Had the Bible's Jesus stood up against his Father's commandments, he would have relegated himself to the place of lowest esteem in the kingdom.

†. Mtt 5:18-19 . . I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Had the Bible's Jesus stood up against his Father's commandments, he would have incurred a curse upon himself.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Law and observe them.

RE: he said all the law and prophets hang on the two love commandments

The Bible's Jesus wasn't the inventor of those two commandments. They were written into the Law about 1,400 years before he was born.

†. Deut 10:12-13 . . What doth Yhvh thy God require of thee, but to fear Yhvh thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve Yhvh thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of Yhvh, and His statutes

†. Lev 19:18 . . thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

A portion of the Law and the Prophets that hang upon the two "love" commandments is this:

†. Lev 24:17-22 . . And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country

So then, when people fail to practice "eye for eye" principles as-stipulated in the Law and the Prophets, then they are neither loving God nor loving their neighbor but are actually displaying a shameful distaste for God's moral absolutes in regards to civil conduct and criminal justice.

No way did Jesus resist the principle of an eye for eye in justice. God forbid! He was talking about using the law as a tool for personal revenge.

†. Lev 19:18 . . Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am Yhvh.

Christians poorly schooled in the Old Testament are often shocked to discover that the Bible's Jesus taught nothing new in the Sermon On The Mount. That's right. The Sermon is 100% Old Testament law through and though; and Jesus warned that one's failure to exemplify it will eventuate in their utter ruin.

†. Mtt 7:26-27 . . Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
RE: Catechism of the Catholic Church

The CCC is a proprietary document, and as such, cannot be accepted by serious students of the Bible.

†. Mtt 15:6 . . You have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

†. Mtt 15:8-9 . . This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[rahmiyn]

.
RE: Jesus challenged "eye for an eye" in the Old Testament

The Bible's Jesus would never stand up against his own Father's commandments.

Are you saying we must then disregard what Jesus said in Matthew?

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:38-48)

 

[Webers_Home]

.
RE: The Bible's Jesus would never stand up against his own Father's commandments. - - Are you saying we must then disregard what Jesus said in Matthew?

When solving problems using the mathematical discipline of Geometry, one must work from reliable premises called axioms.

Webster's defines an axiom as: an established rule, or principle, or a self-evident truth.

For example: a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, the whole is greater than the part, and things that equal the same thing also equal one another.

In the study of Christ's teachings in the New Testament, it's always wise to base one's interpretations of his sayings on the axiom that Jesus and his Father were always in perfect agreement on everything.

†. John 8:26 . . I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:29 . .The one who sent me is with me; He has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases Him.

†. John 10:30 . . I and my Father are one.

†. John 12:49 . . For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

In other words, if your interpretation of the Sermon On The Mount appears to oppose God's moral absolutes in regards to civil conduct and criminal justice as they are stipulated in God's commandments, then it's time to put your thinking cap back on and revise your interpretation so that it's in harmony with scriptural axioms.

Another axiom that should always be taken into consideration in one's interpretations of his sayings is that Jesus was a Jewish man born under the jurisdiction of Moses' covenanted law, and by virtue of his genetics and his ritual circumcision, was obligated to comply with every last jot and tittle of the Law's stipulations: its rituals, its laws, its statutes and its judgments. Therefore, had Jesus undermined God's commandments in any way, any way at all, he would have incurred a curse upon himself just like any other Jewish man.

†. Rom 1:3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

†. Gal 4:4 . . God sent His son. . born under the Law

†.Gal 5:3 . . For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is obligated to do the whole law.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Law and observe them.

It sometimes comes as a shock to inexperienced and/or poorly-trained believers that the Bible's Jesus wasn't a Christian. No, not even close. The religion that the Bible's Jesus believed and practiced was Old Testament Judaism; and his opponents were perpetually trying to catch him undermining and breaking God's commandments but couldn't. Ironically, Christians in my own day and age, professing to be Jesus' followers and supporters, agree with his opponents that he undermined and broke God's commandments!

Some even go so far as to allege that the Bible's Christ revised God's commandments; which, if true, is another serious sin with grave consequences.

†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of Yhvh your God that I enjoin upon you.

†. Deut 5:29-30. . Be careful, then, to do as Yhvh your God has commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the path that Yhvh your God has enjoined upon you, so that you may thrive and that it may go well with you

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Law and observe them.

†. Gal 3:10 . . Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

It is my personal conviction, and one that I've held for some time now, that modern Christians comprise an essentially apostate church, just like the church of Laodicea in Rev 3:14-22. That church was a full-fledged Christian church operating in Jesus' name; but it was so far removed from the Bible's Jesus that he wasn't even a member; let alone its shepherd.

No, the Amen, the faithful and true witness, depicted himself on the outside of that church banging on the door trying to get somebody's attention to let him in. Not even the Pastor of that church was right with God. Everybody in it was spiritually destitute.

†. 1Tim 4:1-2 . . The Spirit is very explicit, that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

We are in those very times about which The Spirit spoke; so it should come as no surprise to anybody that internet Christian forums would be infected with demonic interpretations posted by people believing themselves to be Christ's followers.

Are their demonic posts deliberate? I don't think so; no, I suspect they have simply fallen prey to ghosts in the darkness.

†. 2Cor 11:3 . . But I fear, lest by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[rahmiyn]

I understand what you are saying here, but it doesn't answer my question. How can you explain Jesus' refutation? I agree with you than he is revealing the true nature of God, but it was in a way that the experts on OT Law had never interpreted correctly. In other words, their "axiom" was wrong.

So for me, the true "axiom" is what Christ says, and if it seems to differ with the OT somehow, then I accept the teaching of Christ first. I accept it as the true will of God, because when we look at Jesus we see God. It's not the other way around, I believe.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
RE: How can you explain Jesus' refutation?

I addressed the correct perspective of the Sermon On The Mount once already. I do not wish to do it all over again.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Zaac]

There have been so many threads debating homosexuality in particular, but for a Christian, what constitutes sexual immorality? Someone said in another post that the first person you have sex with is considered your spouse in God's eyes. All other encounters then are adultery or fornication. If so, is everyone committing the sin of fornication who has ever had more than one partner?

Perhaps an even more important question, for those who believe homosexuality is not a sin, are you talking about the same thing: having one partner for life? Are then all other homosexual acts a sin in your eyes too?

If it's outside the confines of God ordained marriage between a husband and his one wife, it is sexual immorality.

The marriage bed, however is undefiled. Unless a husband and wife bring a third person into their sex life to defile it.

 

[rahmiyn]

If it's outside the confines of God ordained marriage between a husband and his one wife, it is sexual immorality.

The marriage bed, however is undefiled. Unless a husband and wife bring a third person into their sex life to defile it.

I can only say this. If I were born with as strong a desire to love someone of my own sex in the way I have desired my husband, I would struggle with this before God because of the way scripture describes same sex.

I know I would. The best I can relate is when I smoked. I was a smoker when I became a Christian, and it was seven years before I quit. Even then, it was my father's early death from heart disease that firmed up my final resolve to quit, as by then I had babies who were his genetic grandsons.

It was the most difficult thing I ever did. I prayed. I paced and cried. And, even though I believe strongly that it was God who gave me the day-to-day strength to continue on and finally beat the desire, it was a very difficult struggle. And when I encounter Christians today who still smoke, I can only sympathize with their struggle and pray for them. But, I would never treat them as someone who is not really saved. That's up to God.

It is this that causes me to sympathize with someone who was born to feel repulsion at the idea of being intimate with the opposite sex, but who has strong desires to love someone of their own sex.

Right now, all I want to say to anyone, regardless of the sin, is that we have a savior in Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty for our sin, and who promises if we follow him, if we turn and seek him, he will provide us a Comforter who will make our burden light.

And there is not doubt that this controversial subject in particular is a terrible burden for many who can't see themselves even responding to the initial call, because they can't imagine living a life without love and intimacy, when it's acceptable for others to. I truly can understand their plight, and I feel great compassion for anyone who was born this way.

Surely, the compassion God feels for them is far greater, great enough that he would send his only Son to die for them, and His Holy Spirit to bring comfort to them.

 

[Zaac]

I can only say this. If I were born with as strong a desire to love someone of my own sex in the way I have desired my husband, I would struggle with this before God because of the way scripture describes same sex.

Perhaps this is why, when God's word speaks to sexual immorality It says Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

There's a lot of stuff that our flesh wants to do. Heterosexual people struggle with vices also. But these things must be placed underneath the blood of Christ.

I know I would. The best I can relate is when I smoked. I was a smoker when I became a Christian, and it was seven years before I quit. Even then, it was my father's early death from heart disease that firmed up my final resolve to quit, as by then I had babies who were his genetic grandsons.

But you sound like you had a desire to quit. On some level, you no doubt recognized that addictions are just another name for idolatry. They have to be under control.

People idolize sex too. we think because the urge is so great that we have to have it. God provided a means of dealing with that within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman.

But people have to first acknowledge that something is wrong before it can be conquered.

It was the most difficult thing I ever did. I prayed. I paced and cried. And, even though I believe strongly that it was God who gave me the day-to-day strength to continue on and finally beat the desire, it was a very difficult struggle. And when I encounter Christians today who still smoke, I can only sympathize with their struggle and pray for them. But, I would never treat them as someone who is not really saved. That's up to God.

Which is why when folks tell me that people can't identify as gay and be a Christian, I have to disagree. The sin committed by gay people is no different than the sins committed by straight people.

Straight Christians fornicate and it doesn't make them any less saved. But because God's word never says that folks can CONTINUE in unrepentant sin and truly be saved, there has to be a point where the heterosexual or homosexual recognizes that fornication detracts from a witness for Christ.

It is this that causes me to sympathize with someone who was born to feel repulsion at the idea of being intimate with the opposite sex, but who has strong desires to love someone of their own sex.

I can sympathize with it too. It seems like life would be so much simpler if God had just said "this too is okay". But He didn't. And because He didn't, we have to call folks into obedience to what He does say.

Right now, all I want to say to anyone, regardless of the sin, is that we have a savior in Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty for our sin, and who promises if we follow him, if we turn and seek him, he will provide us a Comforter who will make our burden light.

And there is not doubt that this controversial subject in particular is a terrible burden for many who can't see themselves even responding to the initial call, because they can't imagine living a life without love and intimacy, when it's acceptable for others to. I truly can understand their plight, and I feel great compassion for anyone who was born this way.

I can't really speak to how people are born. All I know is that God has told us not to do certain things. And we must CHOOSE whether or not we are going to do those things or obey Him.

Surely, the compassion God feels for them is far greater, great enough that he would send his only Son to die for them, and His Holy Spirit to bring comfort to them.

Absolutely. That's why the desire to be pleasing to Christ must come before the desire to be pleasing to the flesh.

I think that God is allowing the opportunity for folks who identify as having an orientation toward the same sex to have some awesome testimonies.

How great would it be to hear one Christian after another saying that he loves Jesus so much that he was wiling to lay everything at the foot of the cross including a sexual identity?

 

[rahmiyn]

Thank you for your reply, Zaac. I do agree with you, but I'm still uncomfortable with your last sentence, not because it isn't what I'm sure God would LOVE from all of us, but because I feel uncomfortable desiring this for anyone but myself--seeing my own crosses as pretty heavy at times, but also finding rescue in our Lord.

I do wonder what you think of this, though. There have been so many Christians who have left their spouses in the church setting, sometimes children too, to marry someone they had had an affair with. There are even times when the person has headed a ministry, and they continue in this ministry afterwards (saying they have been forgiven.)

Technically, they would be doing the same thing a Christian homosexual would, if they were to marry their partner. They would be living in sin, because the Bible says anyone who divorces and remarries under these conditions is an adulterer.

How would you treat such a situation in your church? Maybe even more so, how would you see this with regards to their salvation?

 

[Zaac]

Thank you for your reply, Zaac. I do agree with you, but I'm still uncomfortable with your last sentence, not because it isn't what I'm sure God would LOVE from all of us, but because I feel uncomfortable desiring this for anyone but myself--seeing my own crosses as pretty heavy at times, but also finding rescue in our Lord.

It has to be an individual decision. I think everyone has something in their life that holds them somewhat in bondage. The question is whether or not we let it master us.

I do wonder what you think of this, though. There have been so many Christians who have left their spouses in the church setting, sometimes children too, to marry someone they had had an affair with. There are even times when the person has headed a ministry, and they continue in this ministry afterwards (saying they have been forgiven.)

Just absolutely unacceptable. This should not be allowed to continue. But sadly it does. This is one of the reasons why folks look at the Church with an air of hostility. Folks hate hypocrisy.

Technically, they would be doing the same thing a Christian homosexual would, if they were to marry their partner. They would be living in sin, because the Bible says anyone who divorces and remarries under these conditions is an adulterer.

Absolutely.

How would you treat such a situation in your church? Maybe even more so, how would you see this with regards to their salvation?

Biblically, any such person is to be removed from any position of leadership. For sure folks can be adulterers(i.e King David) and still be genuinely saved. But there should be a confession of sin, repentance and a desire to rightfully be restored to the Body by a truly contrite heart.

 

[Dorothea]

If you don't take the bible litterally you might be doing anything ad it would be ok. I hope you have read your bible and know this already but scriptures only speak of sex being right when it is one man, one woman, after the marriage covenant. All else is immorality.

I believe this to be correct as well. But even in marriage, there can be sexual acts that are immoral in some cases, such as not treating each other with mutual respect and love and joining together in spiritual, physical, and mental union during lovemaking. Marriage is about mutual submission and mutual selfless acts towards each other. So, in knowing that, marriage is a sort of martyrdom and is very difficult. IMO.