Nope. You made a false interpolation of what I said.Ingbert made a false claim and I was pointing the error out.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope. You made a false interpolation of what I said.Ingbert made a false claim and I was pointing the error out.
The bible doesn't speak about "anal sex" but in Lev 18, 22 it says:Now there is a word that one does not see every day..............."Homosexual intercourse".
Good grief my friend. Do you not know that there is NO SUCH THING!!!!!!!!
It is called Anal Sex.
Again, you quote a formulation which I used very intentionally. A person who believes in salvation through Christ is not necessarily a Christian (see also James 2, 19).You said.........
"I know of some homosexuals who are actually believers in Christ but who do not attend any church because of their homosexuality. "
Not so my friend. There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian!!!!!!!!
If the person is professing to be a Christian yet is unrepentantly practicing homosexuality, then it would appear that he would not be saved.
1 John 2:4..........
"The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
So, a homosexual can be saved, but once saved, the Spirit of God will move that person to repent of the sin of homosexuality. If a person continues to practice homosexuality unrepentantly, promoting it, etc., then that person would not be demonstrating evidence of regeneration therefore HE/SHE IS NOT SAVED.
It is also in fact a very controversial question whether sin which is actually repented but not overcome, will render the sinner's salvation null and void.
........why does it seem to be a so much worse sin than others in some Christian circles?
.....why is this particular abomination so much worse than other abominations such as gossip (Prov. 6:19)?
Okay, so why is this particular abhorrent and detestable sin so much worse than the other abhorrent and detestable sins, such as gossip or eating certain types of seafood?
Col. 2:16-17 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ
Mark 7:18-23 And He said to them, "Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don't you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated." As a result, He made all foods clean. Then He said, "What comes out of a person—that defiles him. For from within, out of people's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, lewdness, stinginess, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a person."
Acts 10:9-15 .............The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
The bible doesn't speak about "anal sex" but in Lev 18, 22 it says:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
I therefore used the word "intercourse" - and I did so fully on purpose - because an 'intercourse' is a way in which something is practiced (at least for my understanding of the English language, see also: Wiktionary: Intercourse, please note that English is only my second language) - a way which something is practiced like i.e. "as with". "Sexual intercourse" is therefore a word used for "sex" because it is the way man and woman lie with each other. "Homosexual intercourse" was used by me to refer to a man who "lie with mankind as [those who have heterosexual intercourse lie] with womankind".
Again, you quote a formulation which I used very intentionally. A person who believes in salvation through Christ is not necessarily a Christian (see also James 2, 19).
It is also in fact a very controversial question whether sin which is actually repented but not overcome, will render the sinner's salvation null and void.
Believe what you want. We're done.
Why do you need to point out to anyone what they are doing wrong? Sounds like it would be for self gratification instead of trying to aide in leading poeple to God. I don't like it when some christians try to push their beliefs on others who may not wish to have the same beliefs. Even if a an unbeliever may have been likely to turn to God you may be pushing them further from him.
I don't wish to ofend you so I'm really sorry if I have. I just felt like I should reply since it looks like my words have the changed and twisted in what I previously wrote.
I had high hopes for this site.. now I'm not so sure this is a place poeple are coming together to grow. I hope saying that changes some hearts and we can set aside some of our differences and come together for God.
thanks for listening.
Why would you think that? I haven't received any answers yet, only excuses and justifications and things like "they're not real Christians" or....
Is nobody here willing to even acknowledge that homosexuals are treated differently than other sinners by Christians in general?
Or is it just that nobody actually read the OP?
No, homosexuality is not a choice.
Yes, there is.
Specifically what sin are you accusing me of? You must answer this in detail if you want me to reply to any more of your rants.
Yeah, this is why I was hesitant to post these kinda threads. They always turn out this way. But somebody suggested I post a couple threads because this is such a "friendly" site and it would different here.I've watching this topic go on for six pages now without ever actually addressing the original question. I've seen a lot of very unkind comments that just prove how polarizing this issue is, and I'm honestly left with the conclusion that the main reason that homosexuals, even those that do not actually practice the acts themselves, cannot be Christians is because Christians simply cannot tolerate the people. I'm not seeing "hate the sin but love the sinner" here. I'm seeing an endless string of accusations and misrepresentations. This is very sad. Is anger and intolerance really the only way we know how to demonstrate the love of Christ? If this is how we treat homosexuals, then it should be no surprise to us that so few ever repent of their sins, both real and imagined. This is sad.
I get that you all have very strong feelings on this issue, but we've crossed a line here. Does this thread make me think of a friendly Christian environment? I'm not saying to just accept it, but the point of this thread was why is homosexuality looked upon as so much worse than all other sins. After reading six pages, I'm left to conclude that it is an emotional issue. Is there Biblical support for it? Yes. But there is no support for the ridiculous emotional backlash I'm seeing in this topic. That is my 2 cents and the last I will say on this topic as a poster.
Now, as a moderator, I am putting a warning down for the remainder of this thread. Discussion needs to be friendly and reflective of the spirit of this site.
No. Actually I can not see why "anal sex" could be less acceptable in society than "homosexual intercourse", especially since between a married man and woman, this is not biblically prohibited.Your explination sounds acceptable to me. Now allow me to tell you that in the context of the conversations we are having on this subject, it at first glance sounded as if you were using words to make it (Homosexuality) more acceptable to society.
Actually, in the bible, a distinction between born and unborn children is made (see for example Ex 21:22), even though it's not said that a ruling like this could also apply for the deliberate destruction of the unborn child.Example:
1) We (Humanity in general) call the death of unborn children by choice...ABORTION.
God calls that same thing MURDER.
Why the differance. For one reason.......Abortion sounds better and makes the "practice" palitable.
No. Actually I can not see why "anal sex" could be less acceptable in society than "homosexual intercourse", especially since between a married man and woman, this is not biblically prohibited.
"Homosexual intercourse" is also a more general term. For example, I'd not believe that oral sex between homosexuals is biblically permitted.
Actually, in the bible, a distinction between born and unborn children is made (see for example Ex 21:22), even though it's not said that a ruling like this could also apply for the deliberate destruction of the unborn child.
I am very much pro-life, but I'd clearly distinct between abortion and murder. In fact, abortion is illegal in Germany, even though it is not punishable. See also:
- BVerfGE 39, 1 (Summary)
- § 218 (a/b/c) StGB
It's really worth reading, by the way.
Bam!The regulation encountered in the Fifth Statute to Reform the Penal Law at times is defended with the argument that in other democratic countries of the Western World in recent times the penal provisions regulating the interruption of pregnancy have been "liberalized" or "modernized" in a similar or an even more extensive fashion; this would be, as the argument goes, an indication that the new regulation corresponds, in any case, to the general development of theories in this area and is not inconsistent with fundamental socio-ethical and legal principles.
These considerations cannot influence the decision to be made here. Disregarding the fact that all of these foreign laws in their respective countries are sharply controverted, the legal standards which are applicable there for the acts of the legislature are essentially different from those of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Underlying the Basic Law are principles for the structuring of the state that may be understood only in light of the historical experience and the spiritual-moral confrontation with the previous system of National Socialism. In opposition to the omnipotence of the totalitarian state which claimed for itself limitless dominion over all areas of social life and which, in the prosecution of its goals of state, consideration for the life of the individual fundamentally meant nothing, the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany has erected an order bound together by values which places the individual human being and his dignity at the focal point of all of its ordinances. At its basis lies the concept, as the Federal Constitutional Court previously pronounced (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2, i 12), that human beings possess an inherent worth as individuals in order of creation which uncompromisingly demands unconditional respect for the life of every individual human being, even for the apparently socially "worthless," and which therefore excludes the destruction of such life without legally justifiable grounds. This fundamental constitutional decision determines the structure and the interpretation of the entire legal order. Even the legislature is bound by it; considerations of socio-political expediency, even necessities of state, cannot overcome this constitutional limitation (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1,14 36). Even a general change of the viewpoints dominant in the populace on this subject - if such a change could be established at all - would change nothing. The Federal Constitutional Court, which is charged by the constitution with overseeing the observance of its fundamental principles by all organs of the state and, if necessary, with giving them effect, can orient its decisions only on those principles to the development of which this Court has decisively contributed in its judicial utterances. Therefore, no adverse judgment is being passed about other legal orders "which have not had these experiences with a system of injustice and which, on the basis of an historical development which has taken a different course and other political conditions and fundamental views of the philosophy of state, have not made such a decision for themselves" (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, 18, 112 117).
Well, it did pretty much prove the premise of the OP even if it didn't get any real answers.
And one more thing....all sin is not equal!!! If you think kit is, show me the verse. God says all sin leads to death, not that murder is equal to swearing when you stub your toe.....
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
All sin leads to death so that there is only one way to Salvation, Christ Jesus.
Furthermore, the Bible says God is just!
If all sin is equal in God's eyes, why would He be so unjust as to impose a more severe penalty on one sin than another? Especially when there are verses that specifically say the punishment should fit the crime.
And one more thing....all sin is not equal!!! If you think kit is, show me the verse. God says all sin leads to death, not that murder is equal to swearing when you stub your toe.....
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
All sin leads to death so that there is only one way to Salvation, Christ Jesus.
Furthermore, the Bible says God is just!
If all sin is equal in God's eyes, why would He be so unjust as to impose a more severe penalty on one sin than another? Especially when there are verses that specifically say the punishment should fit the crime.