Tell me why...

[Groundzero]

To ZebraHug: I understand Christians are ripped all the time. I totally understand that. The whole Chik-fil-a gig showed that quite well. However, honestly, it would still be a problem if only ONE Christian group kicked out gays just because they felt like it because that in tale usually puts people like you and I in the accusing lot. So, I don't plan to take a holier than thou attitude and say "Oh, SO many of you do this..." but rather I want to know why my Christian family would ever want to turn someone away from the name of Christ.

To all: The question is a little bit personal, and I'd like to find a good remedy if possible. No, I'm not homosexual but I have a good friend who is and he was knocked out of his youth group not because anybody told him to leave, but because the attitude of the church was so condemning in general that he just assumed they would hate him. He left shortly thereafter. So, in my mind, it is kinda like the scene in the movie Cars when Lightning McQueen mutters something about "rusty old cars" in front of his newly made friend Mater. Mater replies "What's wrong with rusty old cars?" since he is one and that kind of hurt his feelings. Lightning quickly makes amends by saying "Not like you Mater! I like you." So, I want to know why people only look at the stereotypical instead of looking at the face of someone they could care for as a brother or sister in the name of Christ. That's why I want to know why. I want to know why because I have friends who won't go to church because they find my family condemning... which, sometimes we are.

Hmmm, well, I can see where you are coming from. Here is my take on it.

If your friend is genuinely interested, his life WILL change, and that will mean him giving up his homosexuality. If he refuses to let go of it, then you don't have much option, but to turn away from him. I've had quite a few close friends who I broke up with on similar issues.
On the flip side, the church shouldn't be condemning, or ostracising, but it's a fine line. I think you'll agree, that sometimes, when we 'feel' condemned, it's because we have to change something. It's up to us how we want to take it. We can get offended, like so many people do, or we can accept it and change.
On the other side, those who judge, must be careful, because as Jesus said, "With what measure you mete, it will be meted to you again." I, for one, am loathe to make any judgement, unless supported by the Word of God CLEARLY.

 

[Shepherdboy]

To Hezekiah: I agree that the difference between any sin is the opinion (or law as you said) behind said sin. We don't typically view someone who said a curse word to be on the same playing field as a murderer. I also agree that it would probably be 'easier' to love somebody who didn't rub the words "I'm different and you can get over it" in your face. I can understand where you are coming from but I'd like to present a slightly tilted front. You find it vulgar to hear them talk of you on their level... but do we as believers not tend to do the same? Perhaps not in virulent speech but rather when we leave them to themselves inside our churches. We bring them to our standard as often as they bring us to theirs. Granted, it's wrong either way, but, I'm curious how often we cry victim from them when it is our own eyes we should be adjusting.

To Gypsy: I totally agree, however, I made the err of assuming being in the church would make it EASIER to show Christ's love instead of outside. I didn't even consider the politics behind it. I see what you are saying about the constant state of sin being present in one's life. If someone were to keep injuring themselves (and possibly others) spiritually, would you allow them to stay in the church... It makes sense and good point of bringing the Scripture into it. I would be curious just to ask, what is the boundary between having a problem that takes a long term fix inside a church family and what is something that is considered disruptive and dangerous to the church (which would entail the legitimate right to get said person out of the church)? Is there a definite Biblical backing for that or is that based more on church opinion according to place and circumstance? (does all that make sense? I get there is a time to actually push off someone but is there a certain set of things that require that... that may be a better way to ask that...)

Also, I have hot buttons too. Apology more than accepted. Thanks for the continuation.

To ZebraHug: Very well put. Knock and it shall be given unto you. You want to change, God will make a way. That makes sense. Question: if you are sick, will God always provide for a way to make you well or are there occasions He lets you remain sick for His ultimate purpose? Many gays do not believe they have a choice to feel the way they do. I know a few Christians who still feel very attracted to the same sex as when they were not saved. The major difference is that they do not act upon these desires. I was attached to pornography for the longest time. I still have deep flesh-fulfilling desires to go back to that. However, I know what God expects of me I want to deliver. What's the difference between my flesh still desiring sin vs a lesbians desire to want another like them? Straight question, not loaded at all. I really want to know what the difference is to understand why some people can change and others cannot. And yes, I do agree that sometimes we feel condemned because we need to change something. To me that's like saying "I feel condemned because I just got told straight up I'm wrong." It definitely happens, no doubt about it.

 

[Groundzero]

To ZebraHug: Very well put. Knock and it shall be given unto you. You want to change, God will make a way. That makes sense. Question: if you are sick, will God always provide for a way to make you well or are there occasions He lets you remain sick for His ultimate purpose? Many gays do not believe they have a choice to feel the way they do. I know a few Christians who still feel very attracted to the same sex as when they were not saved. The major difference is that they do not act upon these desires. I was attached to pornography for the longest time. I still have deep flesh-fulfilling desires to go back to that. However, I know what God expects of me I want to deliver. What's the difference between my flesh still desiring sin vs a lesbians desire to want another like them? Straight question, not loaded at all. I really want to know what the difference is to understand why some people can change and others cannot. And yes, I do agree that sometimes we feel condemned because we need to change something. To me that's like saying "I feel condemned because I just got told straight up I'm wrong." It definitely happens, no doubt about it.

I believe that there are times when God lets us get sick, for his own particular reason.

The thing alot of people don't understand is, the MORE we talk/think about something, the more we will think about and act like that. Homosexuality is a very good model of that. It use to be that homosexuality was deviant behaviour. Now, it's the way that we are born. Oh, that child grew up with those feelings. Correction. That child was given the IDEA and it was REINFORCED throughout his life, and once something gets in your life (especially when it caters to your flesh) it's almost impossible to get rid of.
As you would know with pornography, the memories will haunt you for the rest of your life. Doesn't mean you were born that way, but once exposed, it's too late. The same applies to homosexuality.

Once you get into a lifestyle, it would be impossible to NOT think about it, because you are still in your body of flesh. The flesh doesn't want to obey the spirit. And this is where so many people get it wrong. Sure, you might get 'homosexual' thoughts now and then. That's not sin in itself. Sin is when you actually yield to them.
Paul stated that every imagination MUST be subject to Jesus. So if the thought is not subject to Jesus, we must expel it, no matter how hard it is. I can testify that I'm haunted by my own experience with pornography. And even in the middle of church, I get some of the most vile thoughts. That in itself is not sin. But if I don't rebuke those thoughts, but let them linger and think on them, then I think it's safe to say that we are venturing onto incredibly dangerous ground.

Hopefully I've made some sense.

 

[THE Gypsy]

To Gypsy: I totally agree, however, I made the err of assuming being in the church would make it EASIER to show Christ's love instead of outside. I didn't even consider the politics behind it. I see what you are saying about the constant state of sin being present in one's life. If someone were to keep injuring themselves (and possibly others) spiritually, would you allow them to stay in the church... It makes sense and good point of bringing the Scripture into it. I would be curious just to ask, what is the boundary between having a problem that takes a long term fix inside a church family and what is something that is considered disruptive and dangerous to the church (which would entail the legitimate right to get said person out of the church)? Is there a definite Biblical backing for that or is that based more on church opinion according to place and circumstance? (does all that make sense? I get there is a time to actually push off someone but is there a certain set of things that require that... that may be a better way to ask that...)

IMO...Each case should be treated individually according to the offense, the disruption it causes and above all...the leading of the Holy Spirit, however, we are indeed given a "method" to follow.

Moreover if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word (o. rhema) may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican. Matthew 18:15-17

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortionist; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not all of you judge them that are within? But them that are without God judges. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13

 

[marksman]

It is very difficult not to offend a homosexual. Behind the exterior is a complex emotional dysfunction that generates copious amount of anger and rejection, so it is very easy to see the worst in everything that is said. You might say they are wired to respond negatively.

Two things work simultaneously. One is a defensive detachment which is at work to prevent as much as possible being hurt by others. And two is a reparative drive that is desperately wanting people to accept them as they are. The two conflict each other hence the anger.

With all homosexuals, the problem is not the homosexuality, it is the rejection that they received growing up. Until you deal with the rejection you won't deal with the homosexuality. It is difficult to change if you are only dealing with the fruit (homosexuality) and not the root (rejection).

It is a bit like a blackberry bush. If you only cut off the growth above the ground it will still keep growing. You have to dig out the root to kill it. Those that seek help and don't change are usually dealt with on the basis of their homosexuality, not the rejection.

I would like to think that all Christians hate homosexuality as they hate other sins, whatever it is. I know that God is not all that excited about homosexuality or any other sin. In the process of dealing with the sin, chances are the homosexual will automatically assume you don't like them as non acceptance of their sin means you don't accept them as a person because their identity is their sin.

I know that a homosexual will accept what you say if they know that you accept them. Which is not surprising as most people are like that.

 

[veteran]

The truth of the matter per God's Word is that not all sin is the same. There's some sin that carries a death penalty, and some sin that does not. So absolutist thinking about the idea of all 'sin' being the same doesn't work.

Per God's laws the sin of homosexuality is a very serious sin, because per the Old Covenant it carried the death penalty (Lev.20:13). It is still a grave sin under the New Covenant also (Rom.1:26-27; 1 Cor.6:9; 1 Tim.1:10; Gal.5:19-21). That's why in most all the early U.S. states the sin of sodomy was a punishable offense one could go to jail for, and is still why a child molested by a sodomite is still a punishable offence today.

So how is it one of God's people could ever allow a homosexual couple still practicing the sin to come into the Church and expect the brethren to treat it as something normal and acceptable? God wil not bless that kind of Church that does that.

 

[marksman]

Per God's laws the sin of homosexuality is a very serious sin, because per the Old Covenant it carried the death penalty (Lev.20:13). It is still a grave sin under the New Covenant also (Rom.1:26-27; 1 Cor.6:9; 1 Tim.1:10;Gal.5:19-21).

I hope that we all note that in the same category is jealousy, anger, envy, drunkenness strife, adultery, lying, perjury and enslavers.

No doubt like me, you will have noticed quite a few of these going on in the church.

 

[veteran]

I hope that we all note that in the same category is jealousy, anger, envy, drunkenness strife, adultery, lying, perjury and enslavers.

No doubt like me, you will have noticed quite a few of these going on in the church.

Show me in the OT where jealousy, anger, slavery, drunkenness, envy and lying were punishable by the death penalty in God's law. Adultery was, homosexuality was, witchcraft was, homicide was, etc.

 

[marksman]

What for? I am talking about what is listed in the verses you quoted and pointing out that they are talked about in the same terms as homosexuality.

 

[veteran]

What for? I am talking about what is listed in the verses you quoted and pointing out that they are talked about in the same terms as homosexuality.

My point was how the OT law treated those specific sins I listed, and then how it can keep one out of God's Kingdom per Paul in the NT. In OT times certain sins could be forgiven while others like witchcraft, incest, homosexuality, beastiality, etc., were not, but carried the death penalty.

The difference with the NT per Paul is that today, one CAN be forgiven by Christ for those sins, but still SOME of them can still carry the death penalty on earth today, like homicide for one. The idea is how God judges the seriousness of the sin, for He has different penalties based on the kind of sin, like Apostle John also shows...

I Jn 5:16-17
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
(KJV)

 

[marksman]

I Jn 5:16-17
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. (KJV)

As you did not quote this verse in your original post on the topic, I don't know how you expect me to know what you were getting at, especially as I am not a mind reader.

At the same time, I am autistic and don't have the ability to read between the lines. We take everything at face value and respond accordingly.

 

[Shepherdboy]

To the debate which just randomly showed up... again: I would have to agree that in Levitical law and all the requirements meeting the Israelites, there were differences in sin. Not that any would go unpunished but that some deserved a more detrimental delivery to the punishment. However, the treatment is physically done, and not spiritual. Sin is all equal in the sense that it kills us spiritually; that is, we aren't connected to God any longer. However, God commanded certain sins to be punishable by death PHYSICALLY because of the dangers that continued along with that sin. It's just like why God told the people not to eat certain animals for the longest time. There was a bacteria in most of those meats that could not be cooked out without a certain amount of heat. The Israelites at that point in history could not cook things that hot yet. Bringing it back to topic, God knew about the bacteria long before we did. God knew about AIDS long before we did too. Thus homosexuality was something detestable to the body and should be punishable by death since it might just kill you anyway and God didn't want it running through the camps. However, all sin has the same consequence: separation from God. So in truth, although punishment might be different because of certain circumstances, the sin is all on an equal playing field. I could be a murderer or steal a Tootsie Roll and either way I would be condemned and going to hell without Christ as my Savior. The reversal is true as well; I can do either one and still go to Heaven if I accept Christ as my Savior.

To ZebraHug: Again, well put. I like the way you are presenting your thinking. It makes sense when you put it like that. So, I have a final question for you: Because people have been exposed to this "homosexual" thinking, how can you convince the mind and soul to long after the real love of Christ without completely tearing down the person behind the pseudo-love of homosexuality? As was said a little bit later, it is difficult to not offend people in that situation. I mean, you are straight up telling them that they have a screwed up version of love and should change it to your version. That sounds harsh but I think you understand what I'm trying to say. So how do you get someone to love something they have never experienced? AKA, true, pure love of Christ?

To Gypsy: Thanks for the Bible references. I'll be digging into those for a while now. Also, thanks for the pattern to follow. Makes a lot sense... but then again most of the Bible does.

To marksman: A behaviorist in psychology would agree with you on your opening statements. I agree that the past plays a role in shaping the future however, I do not give it full credit. I have noticed that it is true rejection has played a part in creating the homosexual but I have no noticed it in every case. And regardless of consistencies or patterns, people make choices. I have a friend currently who was abused by all the guys in her life, trashed by pretty much all her friends, and completely rejected by her family even to the point of being kicked out of her house at 13 years old. She would have more factors than most to be lesbian, strictly scientifically speaking, but she isn't. She isn't because she made a choice. She and I have talked about a lot of different things so she and I have actually talked on this very thing before. She use to consider being homosexual but ended up being immune simply because she refused the temptation and followed Christ's voice instead. I loved your last statement - "I know that a homosexual will accept what you say if they know that you accept them. Which is not surprising as most people are like that." It is so true. However real the past may be according to science and fact, homosexuals are like most people. If you don't accept a drunk, then he won't listen to you. If you don't accept an atheist, then he won't listen to you. That doesn't change due to the particular sin. That changes because people want to be loved and accepted and I believe that applies to all people. So I agree that your remedy would probably work, to root out the base problem, but I don't think the base problem is correct since the beginning of witnessing to anyone is to start on their level.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22 - "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."

To veteran: Ok, I appreciate you posting your opinion in the matter and trying to help me understand. That I would like to make clear before I state this next comment. Do not use the Bible as a safeguard unless you actually know what it is talking about. Your first passage, in Leviticus, I ended up reading the whole chapter. God wants anyone who commits these sins (which also includes idol worship if you didn't notice) to be killed so that "there be no wickedness among you." He also did that to every single city that Joshua conquered in the OT AND told the entire nation to do the same time and time again later on. I wonder if all of those cities committed adultery or homosexual type sin. All the same, it isn't based on "because they have done this one thing KILL EM ALL". It's because they blew it, make sure they rest of you get it in your head that you are not to do this. It's to set an example. Achan was used as an example too. In Joshua 7, it talks about Achan who stole from the camps of one of the defeated armies. Stealing: one not mentioned in Leviticus. He was stoned, along with all the animals he stole, and then, as if he wasn't dead enough, they burned everything. No adultery there... but God wanted a pure nation and they delivered.
Your passages in the New Testament:
Romans 1:26-27 - talks about a fact. It simply says that God gave them up to what they wanted. It later goes on in some detail to describe a bunch of others WORTHY OF DEATH (Rom. 1:32) which may include such things like disobedience to parents, pride, and lies. So, homosexual = lies = disobedience at all = death.
1 Corinthians 6:9 - labels it just like marksman said, with a bunch of other things we deem minor. Also, it talks about later on in the same passage (1 Corinthians 6:11) that some of the people Paul was talking to WERE people like this (including homosexuals) and yet were washed by Christ's blood.
1 Timothy 1:10 - simply states that the Law was created not for righteous people but for people who needed it LIKE homosexuals, murderers... and.... liars. Hmmm... oh and "for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;" (1 Timothy 1:10). So, anything that goes against what God says is in the same category as homosexuality... at least, according to this list.
Galatians 5:19-21 - talks about people who get to heaven. People who practice these things over and over won't see the Kingdom... and again, it puts homosexuality in a list with a bunch of other "petty" sins... even rivalries! Believe me, I'm in high school. A rivalry simply means you exist in high school. So if something that small is listed with homosexuality then I would be led to believe that they deserve one and the same punishment... which all goes back to Romans 6:23 "But the WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH, but the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ."
So, as you can tell, I really don't like the concept of people randomly using passages. I've read your arguments over them but I have to disagree that these would apply especially since the sins are labeled with a dozen other sins that are never mentioned with death. I apologize if I was too harsh but I don't appreciate having passages brought out of context. Thanks for reading this and I hope I have not overstepped my bounds. As I stated before, I appreciate the attempt to teach me and help me understand.

 

[Axehead]

Ok, first things first: To Gypsy and Hezekiah
Guys, guys. We are on the same team here. Remember? We are all in the blood of Christ. For the argument you two are going off of, there should be a difference in showing God's love and protecting. In Jude it talks about reaching into the fire and how NOT to get burned because of it. Basic idea, and I'm sure you both know this, it is about saving others and how not to get any contamination on you from it. It is fine to take precautions but that certainly doesn't mean you abandon them. I wouldn't want to be around some of my more 'worldly' friends without a Christian companion around simply because I know myself; I would fall to their sin. Now, I'm not sure if the comparison works but with the child molester concept there is nothing wrong with trying to protect your kids, at least, in my opinion. But you still have to love the molester as Christ would and treat him as you would want to be treated. Does that make sense? All the same, not the real topic here.

To all who replied with the basic idea "Only Christian in name" or "They really don't understand what Christ would have wanted":
You all make a lot of sense. I would agree that a lot of Christians would put sin attached to homosexuals and thus (because it is obviously such a TERRIBLE sin) kinda excommunicate them. Thanks for the input!

To ZebraHug: I understand Christians are ripped all the time. I totally understand that. The whole Chik-fil-a gig showed that quite well. However, honestly, it would still be a problem if only ONE Christian group kicked out gays just because they felt like it because that in tale usually puts people like you and I in the accusing lot. So, I don't plan to take a holier than thou attitude and say "Oh, SO many of you do this..." but rather I want to know why my Christian family would ever want to turn someone away from the name of Christ.

To all: The question is a little bit personal, and I'd like to find a good remedy if possible. No, I'm not homosexual but I have a good friend who is and he was knocked out of his youth group not because anybody told him to leave, but because the attitude of the church was so condemning in general that he just assumed they would hate him. He left shortly thereafter. So, in my mind, it is kinda like the scene in the movie Cars when Lightning McQueen mutters something about "rusty old cars" in front of his newly made friend Mater. Mater replies "What's wrong with rusty old cars?" since he is one and that kind of hurt his feelings. Lightning quickly makes amends by saying "Not like you Mater! I like you." So, I want to know why people only look at the stereotypical instead of looking at the face of someone they could care for as a brother or sister in the name of Christ. That's why I want to know why. I want to know why because I have friends who won't go to church because they find my family condemning... which, sometimes we are.

Changed my mind.

 

[Groundzero]

To ZebraHug: Again, well put. I like the way you are presenting your thinking. It makes sense when you put it like that. So, I have a final question for you: Because people have been exposed to this "homosexual" thinking, how can you convince the mind and soul to long after the real love of Christ without completely tearing down the person behind the pseudo-love of homosexuality? As was said a little bit later, it is difficult to not offend people in that situation. I mean, you are straight up telling them that they have a screwed up version of love and should change it to your version. That sounds harsh but I think you understand what I'm trying to say. So how do you get someone to love something they have never experienced? AKA, true, pure love of Christ?

I don't think that any of us can get someone to love something, no matter who that person is. The best we can do to guide them to Jesus' love, is to be an example of that love. Homosexuals are just like straight people in a sense. They have break-ups, etc. Their 'love' is not some unique love. It gets hit hard too. And if that person is truly sincere, they'll realise that homosexuality is not going to give them the affection they crave for. This is where Christians NEED to be EXAMPLES of Jesus' love.

I guess when it comes to soul-winning, there is no one-fits-all method. Sometimes you need to be direct, other times you just need to be there as a friend. You must follow the Spirit.

Personally, I believe in the example approach. I live my life to the best of my ability to mirror Christ (though I could be doing alot better), and eventually, those around WILL notice. Doesn't matter if you talk to them or not.

So to cut it short, how do you get someone to change their 'version' of love? Firstly, live what you preach. Secondly, follow the Spirit. God may direct you to challenge them outright, or maybe he will direct you to just be there for them and guide them towards him.

 

[veteran]

To veteran: Ok, I appreciate you posting your opinion in the matter and trying to help me understand. That I would like to make clear before I state this next comment. Do not use the Bible as a safeguard unless you actually know what it is talking about. Your first passage, in Leviticus, I ended up reading the whole chapter. God wants anyone who commits these sins (which also includes idol worship if you didn't notice) to be killed so that "there be no wickedness among you." He also did that to every single city that Joshua conquered in the OT AND told the entire nation to do the same time and time again later on. I wonder if all of those cities committed adultery or homosexual type sin. All the same, it isn't based on "because they have done this one thing KILL EM ALL". It's because they blew it, make sure they rest of you get it in your head that you are not to do this. It's to set an example. Achan was used as an example too. In Joshua 7, it talks about Achan who stole from the camps of one of the defeated armies. Stealing: one not mentioned in Leviticus. He was stoned, along with all the animals he stole, and then, as if he wasn't dead enough, they burned everything. No adultery there... but God wanted a pure nation and they delivered.

The matter then was Christ had not come yet. How certain sins were punished then under the Old Covenant still is applied in many ways with today's laws and the courts. So it's not like I'm making things up here. Western society was established upon many of God's laws from the Old Testament Books of the law. Quite a few of them are still in effect today, like the death penalty for homicide (though not in all states). As far as I know, the practice of sodomy is still on the law books in some states today too. It doesn't carry a death penalty, but it could certainly carry a jail sentence. Likewise with incest, rape, thefts, perjury, still many sins that carried harsh penalities within God's laws.

With that applied to the sin of homosexuality, which in Old Testament times was punishable by death, that kind of penalty then puts that particular type... of sin into a certain category along with murder, witchcraft, etc., according to how God views it. The witch burnings of midevil Europe had its basis from God's laws in the Old Testament (not saying the people were right or wrong). Today's society doesn't give that sort of penalty from God's law anymore against the practice of witchcraft. But there certainly are other type laws on the books against some forms of it, like fabrication of drugs, animal ritual sacrifice, child abuse, etc. One can still get arrested if caught doing those kind of things today.

So who downgraded God's penalities per His laws upon those kind of sins today like sodomy, witchcraft, beastiality, rape, murder? Christians and secularists did, a lot of them in hopes of converting the sinner. That's a lot different plan of compassion and understanding towards the sinner than simply agreeing with the sinner to say it's not a sin. And there's the rub.

Your passages in the New Testament:
Romans 1:26-27 - talks about a fact. It simply says that God gave them up to what they wanted. It later goes on in some detail to describe a bunch of others WORTHY OF DEATH (Rom. 1:32) which may include such things like disobedience to parents, pride, and lies. So, homosexual = lies = disobedience at all = death.
1 Corinthians 6:9 - labels it just like marksman said, with a bunch of other things we deem minor. Also, it talks about later on in the same passage (1 Corinthians 6:11) that some of the people Paul was talking to WERE people like this (including homosexuals) and yet were washed by Christ's blood.

Yes, some in the early Churches that Paul was overseer had come out of those old pagan practices and converted to Christ. It's still going on today too with some homosexuals leaving that sin, coming to Christ, and learning to live normal lifestyles. One such group if I recall was 'Exodus...' something.

I'm not for execution of those in the sin. I'm for helping them to come out of the sin with the first step of recognizing it is a serious sin on the order of what God shows in His Word. So what if the secular world hates us Christians for keeping a stance with our Heavenly Father about it per His Word?

1 Timothy 1:10 - simply states that the Law was created not for righteous people but for people who needed it LIKE homosexuals, murderers... and.... liars. Hmmm... oh and "for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;" (1 Timothy 1:10). So, anything that goes against what God says is in the same category as homosexuality... at least, according to this list.

No, that's where you're wrong. Paul lists a group of sins together, but they do not all carry the same 'physical' penalties today on this earth. Homicide (pre-meditated murder) is still very serious; a murderer can get executed in some states still, and in a lot of foreign countries. Embezellment is a type of theft sin. If it's the right type, it can carry many years in prison. Even manslaughter from drunk driving can include a long prison sentence today. So we need to come to reality about this, and teach our children appropriately about it.

Galatians 5:19-21 - talks about people who get to heaven. People who practice these things over and over won't see the Kingdom... and again, it puts homosexuality in a list with a bunch of other "petty" sins... even rivalries! Believe me, I'm in high school. A rivalry simply means you exist in high school. So if something that small is listed with homosexuality then I would be led to believe that they deserve one and the same punishment... which all goes back to Romans 6:23 "But the WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH, but the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ."
So, as you can tell, I really don't like the concept of people randomly using passages. I've read your arguments over them but I have to disagree that these would apply especially since the sins are labeled with a dozen other sins that are never mentioned with death. I apologize if I was too harsh but I don't appreciate having passages brought out of context. Thanks for reading this and I hope I have not overstepped my bounds. As I stated before, I appreciate the attempt to teach me and help me understand.

I'm not the one here using Scripture randomly. Right now we are under Christ's Grace, but the law system and the courts is still a reality that doesn't fit generalizations about all sin being treated the same. That's was my original point, and that's still my point now.

 

[marksman]

To marksman: A behaviorist in psychology would agree with you on your opening statements. I agree that the past plays a role in shaping the future however, I do not give it full credit. I have noticed that it is true rejection has played a part in creating the homosexual but I have no noticed it in every case. And regardless of consistencies or patterns, people make choices. I have a friend currently who was abused by all the guys in her life, trashed by pretty much all her friends, and completely rejected by her family even to the point of being kicked out of her house at 13 years old. She would have more factors than most to be lesbian, strictly scientifically speaking, but she isn't. She isn't because she made a choice. She and I have talked about a lot of different things so she and I have actually talked on this very thing before. She use to consider being homosexual but ended up being immune simply because she refused the temptation and followed Christ's voice instead

G'day Shepherd Boy. You may be surprised that I have no problem with what you have said. You say that you have not noticed rejection in every case. When discussing such a subject in a public forum, one has to for brevity sake deal in generalities. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but as a rule, they do not become the rule.

For example, one of the biggest lies perpetrated today is the use of the word gay to describe a homosexual as all my research shows that gay and homosexual is an oxymoron. Then the indignant homosexual says he knows one that is very happy. Might well he but one person does not a body of research make.

Many homosexuals, and I will use that word so as not to open myself to correction, are in total denial about this. I attended a course on homosexuality facilitated by a lesbian. She said at the first meeting that there was nothing certain about homosexuality and I challenged her and said the one thing that is certain is rejection.

Of course the whole room was in uproar at my suggestion, so I said quite calmly "let's all go round the room and tell us what your relationship with your parents were like". Surprise, surprise, everyone admitted that they felt rejected by their parents. What you might call the proof of the pudding.

I believe that homosexuality is a choice and in life we are called upon to make choices every day. I know of twin boys who were raised by an alcoholic father. One ended up like his father and the other said he was not going to end up like his father so he lived an alcohol free life and became a very successful businessman. Both made their choices.

You said your friend did not become a lesbian because she made a choice. I congratulate her on her fortitude and determination. However, that is only one case which cannot be used to determine a case study. At the same time, if you are not a christian, you don't have the privilege of making such a decision, as in all probability you want nothing to do with God.

 

[Groundzero]

Amen Marksman.

If you read through the history of the kings of Israel, some of the most powerful and God-fearing kings, came from a family who didn't worship God at all! It's a personal choice that people make.

 

[Shepherdboy]

Hey there guys. Didn't want to leave you all hanging too much but I really haven't had time to reply recently. Sorry about that. I appreciate all the input and I've learned a lot. Thanks again!
Shepherdboy

 

[marksman]

If you read through the history of the kings of Israel, some of the most powerful and God-fearing kings, came from a family who didn't worship God at all! It's a personal choice that people make.

So true and it is a very important fact. Free will is a two edged sword as we can choose good or bad and if we are confronted with the bad, we can choose to continue in it or give it up.

The sad thing is that the homosexual movement has bought into the lie that they are born that way. That makes it very difficult to admit that there is anything amiss. This shows us very clearly that homosexuality is a work of Satan because God would never deliberately hide the truth from someone as it is the truth that sets you free.

To insist that a person stays in bondage to sin is just not logical.

 

[mjrhealth]

Just remember where Jesus went. the pubs, the bars, the whores, the tax men, as He said,

Mar_2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Jesus went to the sinners, for He knew the religious ( self righteous) would not listen.

My son has a friend who is gay, i have no problems with Him neither does God. I will leave the judgement to Him.

In All HisLove