So does this mean a homosexual Christian can't go into heaven. Homosexuality is a sin - yet humans are sinners from birth till death and all sins are equal. However the Bible says that thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. won't enter the kingdom of heaven but hasn't that happened before? Or will they only be allowed to enter once they turn away from ALL their misdeads even though they'll most likely commit some form of sin the next day. If a homosexual is just as much of a sinner as I am why is it that I'm allowed in heaven even if that person is a believer?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:22 am
ChibiHigh
So does this mean a homosexual Christian can't go into heaven. Homosexuality is a sin - yet humans are sinners from birth till death and all sins are equal. However the Bible says that thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. won't enter the kingdom of heaven but hasn't that happened before? Or will they only be allowed to enter once they turn away from ALL their misdeads even though they'll most likely commit some form of sin the next day. If a homosexual is just as much of a sinner as I am why is it that I'm allowed in heaven even if that person is a believer?
If they choose to continue to indulge their homosexual lusts, no they can't. They need to acknowledge that it's against God's will and not want to engage in it anymore. Repentance is the difference. There have been testimonies of lesbians, gays and bisexuals being delivered from their orientations/carnal desires. That's what sexual orientation is: a carnal desire, one you don't have to pursue/indulge in—and in some cases, the sinful desire is eliminated altogether.
Similar example: my mother was an alcoholic and since being saved, she has lost all desire for alcoholic beverages I think instantly since the moment she asked for it specifically in prayer. She doesn't even drink (though it isn't sin to drink, but she's not interested in drinking whatsoever—a drastic change). I don't think homosexuality is any different. It is a lust/desire of the flesh and it is possible to crucify any desire of our fallen flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit which we received from on high (Galatians 5:22-24; Luke 24:49), if not given the power to walk in the spirit despite the remaining desire of the fallen flesh.
real eyes realize
Invisible Guildswoman
Offline
ChibiHigh
Offline
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:51 pm
Another argument I've heard is that "since the Bible condones incest, multiple wives, concubines, etc. then how is homosexuality any different ?" I was going to say in response that that was probably because of the time period but that would open the door to an argument such as "doesn't that make the Bible outdated" or such.
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:14 pm
The Bible also condones not getting married at all, and doing it only if you feel you can't control yourself, giving you an outlet for your desires. *Shrugs*
When you focus on what a particular person is doing wrong, they tend to feel defensive. They might say a lot of different things, but the end result is that they're less interested in Christianity. I've often found it's better to accept people for who they are... something along the lines of "Well, yes, our faith does teach that it's wrong... but God's willing to overlook that, and if He's going to do that, then I'm not going to do any less."
It can also help to explain to them that a lot of Christian thought is schooled in tradition, history, and a certain degree of cultural understanding... so if they want to know why Christians think it's wrong, then they're not going to get a full answer unless they take the time to study the history and background of the subject... which can be a great time to invite them to a Bible study group or some such.
The Bible also condones not getting married at all, and doing it only if you feel you can't control yourself, giving you an outlet for your desires. *Shrugs*
When you focus on what a particular person is doing wrong, they tend to feel defensive. They might say a lot of different things, but the end result is that they're less interested in Christianity. I've often found it's better to accept people for who they are... something along the lines of "Well, yes, our faith does teach that it's wrong... but God's willing to overlook that, and if He's going to do that, then I'm not going to do any less."
It can also help to explain to them that a lot of Christian thought is schooled in tradition, history, and a certain degree of cultural understanding... so if they want to know why Christians think it's wrong, then they're not going to get a full answer unless they take the time to study the history and background of the subject... which can be a great time to invite them to a Bible study group or some such.
what's the big deal about not getting married at all? also telling nonbelievers God will overlook your sins without telling them they need to accept his word as truth and that God will withhold judgment until death
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:55 pm
It was Paul's view in the New Testament. Some researchers are of the opinion that he thought the end of days would happen in the near future, and that people should react accordingly. *Shrugs*
As for the other bit, uh, I suppose it's useful to add on that he's willing to overlook mistakes if all you do is ask... for people who don't know much about Christianity, I think it's better to avoid the "repentance" bit and focus on "forgiveness". Otherwise they start to feel defensive and judged again, and that's bad.
I firmly believe that homosexuality is a sin, as defined in the Bible, I do however believe that we are meant to hate the sin, & love the sinner, instead of saying God hates all homosexuals *coughWestborobaptistchurchcough*. As said in Mark 12:31 we are to love everyone.
"The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
As far as what the "severity" of homosexuality is, I believe it is a sin, just like every other sin is a sin, and EVERY sin can be forgiven.
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
The thief on the cross must've done a great deal of bad deeds to have been executed on the cross, crucifixion was reserved only for those who had committed extremely horrendous crimes... However, even though every single action up to his point of crucifixion was sin oriented, when he believed in Jesus he would be with Him in Paradise, regardless of all the sins he had committed. (Luke 23:43)
However, I do believe that born-again Christians should NOT be "gay". Just like every other sin, just because we're saved and all of our sins are forgiven, it does not mean that we can simply continue sinning like before. We should be compelled to do the opposite as said in Romans 6.
"For sin's power over us was broken when we became Christians and were baptized to become a part of Jesus Christ; through his death the power of your sinful nature was shattered... Your old evil desires were nailed to the cross with him; that part of you that loves to sin was crushed and fatally wounded, so that your sin-loving body is no longer under sin's control, no longer needs to be a slave to sin; for when you are deadened to sin you are freed from all its allure and its power over you."
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:23 pm
I just thought of something interesting to add to this when I read the replies... A relationship between a man and a woman -Marriage, is the example by which God compares the Church and the Trinity. The Church is the Bride... and the Groom (God) seeks and protects her. The same way that the "Bride" seeks, respects, and bows to the authority of the Groom (God).
I feel like this analogy breaks down completely when you involve 2 Grooms/2 Wives.
It also needs to be noted that sexual sin (whether it be homosexual or just sex outside of marriage) is sexual sin. Those who are not followers of God have a hard time understanding the concept of abstaining from sex outside of a heterosexual Marriage.
Verses:
Ephesians 5:25-27 ESV Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Isaiah 54:5 ESV For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.
John 14:1-3 ESV “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. (This is a reference to Jewish wedding tradition where the groom would have to build/prepare a house for his wife before he brought her to the home)
I don't quite understand that analogy or how it would break down
Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:08 am
ChibiHigh
I don't quite understand that analogy or how it would break down
Apologies. Let me see if I can explain my analogy better.
In the relationship between man and God there is a clear Head of the House. God is the authority in the relationship. The last word, the one that makes the hard decisions, the one that is to protect man( The Church).
Likewise... our marriages are supposed to be a reflection of God's relationship with the Church. The Man is the head of the house. He makes the hard decisions if an agreement can't be made. He's the one who is the Authority. He is charged with protecting his Bride and children. And is to lead them in their Walk with God as well as provide the strength in the relationship.
The Bride - (wives and the church) Wives are to respect and honor the Husband, as man is to respect and honor God. Submit to the Leadership of the Husband, as he submits to the leadership of God. (note this does not mean that you have to be your husbands slave. The church is not a slave to God. But we do accept God's leadership. In the same way, we are to accept our husband's leadership) We are also to provide love, support and accountability to our family in their walk with God and in life.
These are very CLEAR roles that God gives to Husband and Wife. Man and the Church. In a same sex marriage... these roles cannot be fullfilled. With TWO heads of House... there will always be a fight for seniority. Without a wife that is there primarily to help and love and provide that accountability all you have is leaders. And it is clear in the bible that the role of HUSBAND and WIFE is to be fulfilled by MAN and WOMAN.
This subject that I brought up is not meant to overshadow the passages in the Bible that clearly address God's feeling on homosexuality. We are able to have the mind of Christ as Christians... and sometimes its easier to understand God's commands if you try to understand God's reasoning for making such commands. (Besides God being the Last Word and his judgement being righteous)
It's a bit of a read, however it goes very deep. Lots of great scripture in there.
Also pray for your friends.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:18 am
It's simply not wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it condemn two consenting adults of the same sex for being together. It condemns adult men having sex with catamites, or little boy prostitutes. A very conservative and well-known Bible study organization actually acknowledges that, but I forget what the name of their organization is >.>;;
Remember, in those times, prostitution and sex with young boys was very common. Not having sex with little boy prostitutes is a rule that I think we can all agree to.
Also, Sodom & Gomorrah had so many other problems. There's no reason to believe that they were condemned solely for homosexuality other than false teachings without having read the BIble.
Translation really is everything =/ Let's not forget that the same passage prohibits cutting one's hair & eating shellfish… Let's also remember that these passages are in TOT, & in TNT Jesus tells us that some old laws are no longer valid.
It's simply not wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it condemn two consenting adults of the same sex for being together. It condemns adult men having sex with catamites, or little boy prostitutes. A very conservative and well-known Bible study organization actually acknowledges that, but I forget what the name of their organization is >.>;;
Remember, in those times, prostitution and sex with young boys was very common. Not having sex with little boy prostitutes is a rule that I think we can all agree to.
Also, Sodom & Gomorrah had so many other problems. There's no reason to believe that they were condemned solely for homosexuality other than false teachings without having read the BIble.
Translation really is everything =/ Let's not forget that the same passage prohibits cutting one's hair & eating shellfish… Let's also remember that these passages are in TOT, & in TNT Jesus tells us that some old laws are no longer valid.
That is a fairly recent, and liberal interpretation based around the interpretation of two words Arsenokites and Malakos. It has it's origin in professor Dale Martin, of Yale university as far as I am able to tell.
Quote:
Although originally written in Hebrew, we look to see how these OT passages were rendered in Greek. In the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the OT), we find that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 both use the two Greek words arsenos and koiten together (the root words for arsenokoites). The phrase from Lev 20:13 is rendered in Greek: kai os an koimaythay meta arsenos koiten gunaikos bdelugma etoiesan amphoteroi ("and if a man might lie with a male as with a female, abomination/desecration they both have done"). Notice that arsenos and koiten not only both appear in this sentence, but arsenos immediately precedes koiten. Thus, it is no stretch to see how Paul, who undoubtedly would have been familiar with these verses from the Septuagint, could have from their influence put the two words together to form a new word, arsenokoites, and as he did so, clearly had in mind "a man bedding a male as a female" (Lev 20:13).
This conclusion is not based on arsenokoites appearing in unrelated lists from a century or two after Paul and then speculating on what might have been the intended meaning. It is based directly on analysis of a text Paul would have been familiar with and whose meaning was and is clear. Even though at the time the Septuagint was written the two words had not previously (so far as we know) been joined together to make the single word arsenokoites, the essential meaning had already been established in the Septuagint's rendering of these verses. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would have been referring to and proscribing male homosexuality in general in the sense of a male lying with a male as with a woman as did Leviticus.
A more in-dept comment to Dale Martin's claims can be read by clicking the link above.
The Bible is quite clear, and I don't say it to be harsh or condemning, but because I feel we can't go beyond what the Bible is telling us. It is simply not safe to apply our own goggles when reading the text. Superimposing cultural relativistic moral, or personal preference onto the text is ill-advised. It is a revisionist approach to the Bible. The Bible should have the last say, not culture, not emotions or preference.
Reply
