Homosexuality

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is homosexuality a sin?


  • Total voters
    133
Status
Not open for further replies.

IHSscj

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
16
0
0
Rex said:
There is a lot of information shared here but all of it is of no use or value until IHSscj sorts out for himself the sin or definition, of the unrest with-in himself.

I don't believe hes convinced in his heart that homosexuality is a sin, what some homosexuals do is consider it a sin only when it reaches the state of burning lust, but apparent genuine love between two same sex individuals in not a sin. It looks to me like IHSscj is at a very critical point in his life a real struggle that to me revels itself in the tossing back and forth pleading for a clear and definite black and white explanation about the state of affairs he finds himself in.

Is it a sin or is it not? is there a state homosexuality becomes an exceptionable practice in Gods eyes? for many it my be a clear and unquestionable answer, but to those that suffer and struggle, are at war with-in, things are not always so clearly visible.

Of course this is simply my 2 cents
Bingo! 2 cents? This is like the widow's offerring! Mark 12: 42-44. TY! :D
And I am looking closely at some of the longer posts made in this thread recently.




marksman said:
I am not sure that anyone is consciously forsaking the gathering together with a spirit led gathering of God's people.


As I said in my previous post, the word "church" (ekklesia) does not appear in this verse. It refers to a gathering or collection of people so it is obvious it refers to something else other than what we term "church."

And it is undeniable that people can "go to church" every Sunday morning for 10 years and at the end of it all, they are no different to what they were 10 years ago.

What this means is that "going to church" is seriously flawed when it comes to knowing God personally or "going to church" has little value or is "going to church" not what God intended or is "going to church" the best way to avoid commitment and dying daily or is "going to church" something done to give me a good time or is "going to church" a man made concept to replace the true church and allow man to build his own kingdom.

Apart from the fact that in Corinthians it says that when you come together "every man has..." When was the last time you went to a meeting when every person contributed to what took place bearing in mind as well that the verse in Hebrews tells us to "exhort one another." It does not say the pastor is to exhort everyone else.

In 99 our of every 100 meetings, it is all down the few professionals to do EVERYTHING and the rest are just members of their cheer squad.

Church membership is a serious issue. I believe it deserves a thread of its own.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
marksman said:
I am not sure that anyone is consciously forsaking the gathering together with a spirit led gathering of God's people.
Then you have not read the posts I was replying to.

dragonfly said:
It's only a tangent because you first mentioned a 'primary leader', an idea that feeds the flesh of the minister rather than the body of the Lord.
Primary leader is in inverted commas. Someone has to take charge at a meeting, common sense. If he gets too boastful and arrogant, elders remove him.

dragonfly said:
Where does it say that an elder has to be present wherever two or three are gathered in the name of Jesus Christ?
Post # 1113 is not long. I am guessing that you nor Marksman read it :huh:.

mjrhealth said:
I have yet to find a church that teaches teh truth. Second problem if you insist on listening to those who are in error, soon that error will creep into your thinking, It cant be helped. Go, jump into a vat of red dye and see what happens. If you want the truth you have it in Jesus.


Simple, the more time you spend at the feet of Jesus the more into the truth you will go, the more time you spend listening to man teh more in error you will grow.

In All His Love
You have already stated this, please read the replies, alot of effort went into them.
 
Jul 6, 2011
447
12
18
mjrhealth said:
I have yet to find a church that teaches teh truth. Second problem if you insist on listening to those who are in error, soon that error will creep into your thinking, It cant be helped. Go, jump into a vat of red dye and see what happens. If you want the truth you have it in Jesus.


Simple, the more time you spend at the feet of Jesus the more into the truth you will go, the more time you spend listening to man teh more in error you will grow.

In All His Love
The problem is what you are claiming is opposite to what He says love and the truth is.
[/QUOTE]Its like someone saying that they have seen the world and thats how they know it is flat.
 

dragonfly

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2012
1,882
141
63
UK
Hi KingJ,

I did read post 1113, but anyone can quote all the verses where elders are mentioned. It still doesn't mean that a gathering of Christians is invalidated when one is not present. You are extrapolating too far, and creating a rule with which scripture - nor the Lord - burdens believers.
 

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Note these are all talking about our obligations to our brothers and sisters in Christ. We are to be there for them as they are there for us.
And according to you, we have to "go to church" to do this.

"Going to church" is religion. Being church is relationship and it is when we are in relationship with God and man that we can do the things in the verses you listed.

I did read post 1113, but anyone can quote all the verses where elders are mentioned. It still doesn't mean that a gathering of Christians is invalidated when one is not present. You are extrapolating too far, and creating a rule with which scripture - nor the Lord - burdens believers.
And I read the post as well. In all probability, an Elder was present because the meeting would be in his home. In NT times it was common to build an upper room in your house if you had the money which held about 30 people.

But unlike Elders today, the Elders in the NT church served the congregation, they did not have authority over them.

That does not mean however, that if two or three gathered together, say in a cafe for fellowship and coffee, an Elder has to be there to make it valid. There is no scripture to support such an idea.

Another point is that if they met in homes that held 30 people, and the church in that town had 3,000 believers, that means 100 homes would be utilised with each one having an Elder present, that means 100 Elders serving the body of Christ.

Quite a different story to today and no one called "a pastor" in sight running the show.

Then you have not read the posts I was replying to.
What makes you think that we are all waiting with baited breath for your posts?


Primary leader is in inverted commas. Someone has to take charge at a meeting, common sense. If he gets too boastful and arrogant, elders remove him.
I was in a fellowship for 10 years and in all that time we never had anyone "take charge" of a meeting. We could not see the point as the Holy Spirit always did it better than us so we left it to him to run the show and decide who would or would not minister and what they would minister.

I realise that it is a foreign concept to you but them is the facts.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
marksman said:
What makes you think that we are all waiting with baited breath for your posts?
Why you would say that? I have noticed that you have been rude to me from your first post. I think we need to discuss arrogance and how it kills truth and blinds one, before further discussing anything else.
 

I am Second

New Member
Jan 22, 2013
45
2
0
USA
Homosexuals want very much to justify their sin. That is a huge difference.
I agree, not only do they want to justify it they want to legalize it and that is where I have a problem. What about the pedophiles, do they come next, can't discriminate against them. Where does it end?
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Most not only want it accepted, but celebrated.
As far as pedophiles, the push is no beginning for acceptance and understanding:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

A very disturbing read....
Conference aims to normalize pedophilia
10:00 AM 08/15/2011







Playground-e1316116439543.jpg

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.
The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.
Researchers from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois will be among the panelists at the conference.





B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA’s definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading” because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.
“It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding,” said Howard Kline, science director of B4U-ACT, in a July 25, 2011 press release. “The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever.”
The press release announced a letter the group sent to the APA criticizing its approach, and inviting its leaders to participate in the August 17 conference. “The DSM should meet a higher standard than that,” Kline continued. “We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about.”
APA spokeswoman Erin Connors told The Daily Caller in an emailed statement that her organization was not participating in the conference and would not comment on its aims.
Child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting professor at Liberty University’s School of Law, said the conference is part of a strategy to condition people into accepting pedophiles.

“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize,” Reisman said. “You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”
According to Reisman, empirical data show that pedophiles typically molest many children before finally being caught.
“The data on paroled pedophiles confirms these predators repeat their crimes against children and are known to have escalated them even to murder,” Reisman said.
Several speakers at the August 17 conference, including B4U-ACT director of operations Dr. Richard Kramer and conference keynote speaker Dr. Fred Berlin, of the Johns Hopkins University, have actively opposed sex offender notification laws.
“What purpose does calling someone a ‘pervert’ or ‘predator’ serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred?” Kramer wrote in a March 14, 2009 blog entry on the website ReformSexOffenderLaws.org. “How is this productive? It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts.”


Berlin has similarly compared society’s reaction to pedophilia to that of homosexuality prior to the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that decriminalized sodomy.
B4U-ACT’s own website puts Berlin’s views front and center. “Just as has been the case historically with homosexuality,” he writes, “society is currently addressing the matter of pedophilia with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions.”
Berlin’s opposition to, and even noncompliance with, Maryland’s sex offender notification law drew scrutiny from former Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran in the early 1990s.





In 1990 The Baltimore Sun reported that Berlin refused to report pedophiles under his care who were actively molesting children.
In an emailed statement to TheDC, Berlin distanced himself Monday afternoon from other B4U-ACT conference participants’ stated aims, saying that he opposes removing pedophilia from the DSM and that he hopes to stop pedophiles before they act.
Berlin also disputed Reisman’s contention that he wants to decriminalize pedophilia, noting that “society’s interests can best be served by supporting both criminal justice interventions and public health initiatives.”
Reisman remains unconvinced. “His empathy was with the pedophile and the pederast, not with the child victim,” she told TheDC. “He refused to report the criminal to law enforcement because he said they were in treatment.
“Taxpayers pay for treatment and they are molesting kids. They go out to Berlin, and he gets paid by us [the taxpayers] for therapy.”





Reisman also claims that mental health practitioners like Berlin want to place pedophilia on a par with neuroses or clinical depression, and counsel pedophiles rather than incarcerate them.
“The scientific defense of pedophiles follows on the natural outgrowth of … [Alfred Kinsey’s] 1948 book ‘Sexual Behavior of the Human Male’ where he describes the rapes of infants and children, as would any pedophile, as ‘orgasmic,’” Reisman said.
Reisman warns that declassifying pedophilia as a mental illness could result in the repeal of child-protection statutes because the law always follows the input of psychiatry. She points to psychiatry’s normalization of sadomasochism, exhibitionism, and homosexuality as precedents.
t has been carried from the university to the law, going back to Kinsey,” Reisman said.
And other conference panelists such as Jacob Breslow, a graduate student in gender research at the London School of Economics, plan to discuss how political activists can exploit removing pedophilia from the next edition of the DSM for their own ends.
“Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can better understand Minor Attracted Persons,” Breslow writes in a summary of his upcoming August 17 presentation.
“This understanding may displace the stigma, fear and objection that is naturalized as being attached to Minor Attracted Persons and may alter the terms by which non-normative sexualities are known.





.
 

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Why you would say that?
I am at a bit of a loss to know what you mean by this statement.

I have noticed that you have been rude to me from your first post. I think we need to discuss arrogance and how it kills truth and blinds one, before further discussing anything else.
If I may read between the lines here. You object to anyone else having a differing view that brings yours into question.

I am not surprised by the push to normalise paedophilia. When the push for SSM started, NAMBLA got into the act and started their campaign to make molesting children legal.

NAMBLA is short for the North American Man Boy Love Association.

Expect the bestiality brigade to follow suite.
 

whitestone

New Member
Apr 3, 2011
368
24
0
Gold Beach Oregon
Yes, to answer the OP, homosexuality is a sin before the Lord. All sins kill the sinner. It doesn't matter which sins, anyone who practices sin is dead in their sin. We all need to repent of our sins and go and sin no more in the power of Christ come and living in you. If you still sin, it is the "fruit" of evidence that Christ isn't in you.
The thing I'm concerned with is how modern 'christians' claim they still sin and can't be expected to be perfect, yet still point their fingers at homosexuals or abortionists. hypocrites to say the least.
If your life has sin in it, of ANY kind, you are just as dead as a non-repentant homosexual and your 'christianity' is a fraud. Be very concerned about this.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
marksman said:
I am at a bit of a loss to know what you mean by this statement.

If I may read between the lines here. You object to anyone else having a differing view that brings yours into question.
Marksman, you need to read your posts before posting. You are rude and sarcastic. Makes it impossible to discuss with you.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
whitestone said:
.The thing I'm concerned with is how modern 'christians' claim they still sin and can't be expected to be perfect, yet still point their fingers at homosexuals or abortionists. hypocrites to say the least.
If your life has sin in it, of ANY kind, you are just as dead as a non-repentant homosexual and your 'christianity' is a fraud. Be very concerned about this.

-- What unmitigated tripe.

According to your standard, then Paul was a hypocrite and his Christianity was a fraud.

After all, Paul said "The very things I hate I end up doing, and that which I want to do I just don't do." (Romans 7:15)

Yet Paul spoke out against a whole litany of sins INCLUDING homosexuality.


Your "point their fingers" statement has been proven deceptive and wrong so many times, it has become almost comical.

The majority of Christians only speak about homosexuality when asked about it (or in many cases, confronted with it).

Christians rightfully acknowledge they sin and are doing their best not to. They acknowledge their behavior is wrong and seek God's forgiveness.

They are not the ones who have pointed out that homosexuality and the killing of children is wrong - GOD HAS

You would have them remain silent when asked about it because they are not sinless themselves. Using your mentality, then NO CHRISTIAN ANYWHERE would be able to preach the Gospel and point out that all have sinned and must do their best to turn away from that sin.

Homosexual supporters and abortionists do not see their actions as sin and have no desire whatsoever to turn away from it. THAT is the difference.

If you are unable to comprehend the difference then you should really remain silent.

I suspect you comprehend the difference just fine though, but don't want to have to accept it.




.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
And I forgive you for perpetuating unfair blanket accusations against all Christians.
Any chance you'll remember why you left so you can act on it?
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
whitestone said:
Yes, to answer the OP, homosexuality is a sin before the Lord. All sins kill the sinner. It doesn't matter which sins, anyone who practices sin is dead in their sin. We all need to repent of our sins and go and sin no more in the power of Christ come and living in you. If you still sin, it is the "fruit" of evidence that Christ isn't in you.
The thing I'm concerned with is how modern 'christians' claim they still sin and can't be expected to be perfect, yet still point their fingers at homosexuals or abortionists. hypocrites to say the least.
If your life has sin in it, of ANY kind, you are just as dead as a non-repentant homosexual and your 'christianity' is a fraud. Be very concerned about this.
We can be rude and arrogant when we don't see eye to eye and I don't blame you for wanting to leave ;). But you have to see there are good and bad on every site. Rude and humble. Then there are those who go through phases. Its just an internet thing imo.

As for your post, dont you think it is a tad ''rude'' to not even read the posts on the last two pages :huh:. It is so tiresome to hear someone quote the OP when the thread has gone on for so many pages. If you even read the last 2 pages you will see your post has been fully addressed and imho debunked.

You need to compliment Foreigner for the effort taken to repeat what has already been said.

I believe in extremities of sin for Christians and have explained myself well. Perhaps quote my posts? Homosexuality IS an extremity of giving in to the flesh. Something a saved Christian should not be able to live in / continue in without fear of losing their salvation. You can judge the difference between watching porn and committing adultery on your wife can't you? sin is sin to the unsaved only.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
And Jesus turned to the accused and said, " where are your accusers",

and the accused pointed to the christians and said," over there"

Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

christians seem to have some rather big logs in there eyes, many seem to be gathering stones, lest see whomshall we stone first.

Ahhh, the homosexuals..

In All His Love
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
mjrhealth said:
And Jesus turned to the accused and said, " where are your accusers",

and the accused pointed to the christians and said," over there"

Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

christians seem to have some rather big logs in there eyes, many seem to be gathering stones, lest see whomshall we stone first.

Ahhh, the homosexuals..

In All His Love
WHY do you purposely ignore scripture to exhort and help our brothers? scripture that says we must judge all things?

Your view has been debunked on the prior page, did you miss it? Must I re-post?

The devil is known for frustratingly quoting half truths, you want that reputation too?
 

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Marksman, you need to read your posts before posting.
What a strange comment. How on earth would you know whether I do or don't read my posts before posting? Do you have ESP? If I don't you have given me faint praise as my posts are word and spelling perfect so I must have a perfect typing ability.

You are rude and sarcastic.
So you keep saying. I am fully aware that you are superior to me and know everything and I don't so I will just have to accept the cross I have been given.

Makes it impossible to discuss with you.
I wasn't aware that you wanted to discuss anything with anyone. I was under the impression that this forum was for you to be able to advise us of the truth and for us to accept it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.