Gay & Believing - Is there room for both?

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Are we talking about 3 months here, as in "the offer remains open for the summer season" or "the autumn season"? Seriously, how long is a season?

However long God decides is sufficient to extract a final answer from a man I'm inclined to suppose.

Timescales would vary from person to person based on their own response I imagine. It might be too that with some personality types and circumstances influence things - that God takes a slower approach in his attempt to save this person and with that one, a fast approach.

Since circumstance and a persons own sin are both used a levers by God in his attempt to prise the person loose from their attachment to independence, there isn't likely to be a set formula used.

Then after 3 months of wild Gay Christian sex, its time to make your mind up? Give it up or go to hell.

The offer is presented to fallen people for a season. Once a person accepts the offer and becomes a Christian (Christian as defined by God, not man) they are no longer fallen and so 'for a season' no longer applies to them.

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see why not since found-ness, as I have been saying, isn't established or maintained by your behaving a certain way.




For the reason given above.

I sincerely doubt that there's a Christian here who would claim other than that there isn't a day that goes by during which they don't wilfully disobey God.

Disobeying God is sin, Christians are sinners. They don't claim otherwise.



It's not based on behavior at at any rate. Get that much clear in your head.

It would appear consistent with both my own experience, the experience of others around me and the stories of many people who encountered Jesus in the gospels .. as well as the testimony of those in Old Testament and New that:

.. coming into relationship with God occurs when* a person reaches a point in their life when the only possible person who could fill the unbearable need the person finds themselves as having .. is God.

The need that drives a person to the edge might vary from person to person - it could be sickness (think the woman with the bleeding issue), it could be a sense of being outcast and ostracized (think of the tax collector), it could be approaching death (think the thief on the cross), it could be anguish at loss (think the Centurian whose child lay dying), it could be all sorts of things.

The person might not even believe that God exists at the time. But when they reach the very** bottom of their own personal barrel and there is no place/escape/salve/drug/distraction/hope/person/ left to turn to then they might turn to God.

And God will turn up in response.

Or they might continue the resistance and pop a fuse and go mad. Or they might continue the resistance and attempt to escape surrender by killing themselves***. But escape from the torment they must - to God or to otherwise


* when ..it need not be that a person reaches this point. We are permitted to evade and deny and avoid being brought to this place. Some people will get through their lives without ever hitting a personal crisis. Others will hit personal crises but work through them without God.

** very ..means the absolute rock bottom. And it won't be arrived at by the same means in every case. The Roman Centurian's daughter lying dying brought HIM to HIS own personal bottom of the barrel moment. It might not bring another person to that place.

*** which isn't to say that everyone who goes mad or everyone who kills themselves is saying no finally to God in their doing so

Seriously?

Okay then, here are two scenarios.

Person A: As far as behaviour goes, this person is almost the perfect Christian. Tries to live according to Christ’s teachings where possible and genuinely repents when not. However this person has never had an ‘’unbearable need’’ that needs to be filled, has never hit rock bottom in any sense in the way you describe.

Person B: Abjectly amoral in every sense, does not live according to any biblical teachings, has broken every commandment etc, and is also a homosexual. However this person does hit rock bottom where there is an ‘’unbearable need’’ that only God can fill. As a result, God’s influence attempts to steer them onto a ‘’righteous path’’. However, this person doesn’t respond to God’s influence. Person B continues living as they always had, amoral, breaking all the commandments, continues indulging in homosexual behaviour, never to repent.

According to you, Person A is lost and will go to hell, and Person B is found and will go to heaven?

old hippy

Spacedog wrote: »

The church welcomes gays and can even arrange special retreats to help cure you with the power of faith and prayer.

You can't "cure" people of their sexuality.

Why anyone would actively seek to associate with people who have oppressed and victimised them over centuries is beyond me.

Of course there's room for "God" or any other deities in a persons life. Not sure if there's room for organised religion.

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

Person A: As far as behaviour goes, this person is almost the perfect Christian. Tries to live according to Christ’s teachings where possible and genuinely repents when not.
However this person has never had an ‘’unbearable need’’ that needs to be filled, has never hit rock bottom in any sense in the way you describe.

Okay. One thing we can say for sure is that whilst their sin produces a genuine repentance, that genuine repentance isn't of a kind that makes them mourn over the fact that they repeatedly find themselves sinning.

Can we call a repentance that doesn't desire the only actual solution to the problem of a persons sinning "genuine"? I don't think so.

Person B: Abjectly amoral in every sense, does not live according to any biblical teachings, has broken every commandment etc, and is also a homosexual. However this person does hit rock bottom where there is an ‘’unbearable need’’ that only God can fill.

Shall we assume you mean they've reached the bottom of the barrel described by me earlier? Okay. They've reached that point and cry out / turn to God. God's criterion for saving them is now met (them crying out), God changes their status from 'lost' to (irrevocably) "found". They are now a Christian (per God's definition of the word), they are now a child of God.

God now "takes up residence" and begins a process called sanctification, where the person is influenced to walk more and more in step with God. This doesn't mean the person won't sin anymore, they will.

As a result, God’s influence attempts to steer them onto a ‘’righteous path’’. However, this person doesn’t respond to God’s influence. Person B continues living as they always had, amoral, breaking all the commandments, continues indulging in homosexual behaviour, never to repent.

The person will find a change coming about in themselves. It doesn't necessarily mean a homosexual will stop having homosexual sex - it might be that gossiping or mean-ness are things that God chooses to work on in them. Or it might be that he diverts them from casual sex and perhaps later from homosex and later from homosexuality altogether. Or he may not get to dealing with homosexuality at all before the person pops their clogs.

According to you, Person A is lost and will go to hell, and Person B is found and will go to heaven?

The trouble with Person A's performance is that you haven't actually marked it on a scale to show us how good it is in absolute terms. Using terms like "where possible" allows for any kind of non-Christian behaviour.

If measuring against God's standards (and taking the fullest measure of what "Christ's teachings" involves) Person A would score abominably. The "where possible" card would be played all day every day.

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. One thing we can say for sure is that whilst their sin produces a genuine repentance, that genuine repentance isn't of a kind that makes them mourn over the fact that they repeatedly find themselves sinning.

Can we call a repentance that doesn't desire the only actual solution to the problem of a persons sinning "genuine"? I don't think so.





Shall we assume you mean they've reached the bottom of the barrel described by me earlier? Okay. They've reached that point and cry out / turn to God. God's criterion for saving them is now met (them crying out), God changes their status from 'lost' to (irrevocably) "found". They are now a Christian (per God's definition of the word), they are now a child of God.

God now "takes up residence" and begins a process called sanctification, where the person is influenced to walk more and more in step with God. This doesn't mean the person won't sin anymore, they will.




The person will find a change coming about in themselves. It doesn't necessarily mean a homosexual will stop having homosexual sex - it might be that gossiping or mean-ness are things that God chooses to work on in them. Or it might be that he diverts them from casual sex and perhaps later from homosex and later from homosexuality altogether. Or he may not get to dealing with homosexuality at all before the person pops their clogs.




The trouble with Person A's performance is that you haven't actually marked it on a scale to show us how good it is in absolute terms. Using terms like "where possible" allows for any kind of non-Christian behaviour.

If measuring against God's standards (and taking the fullest measure of what "Christ's teachings" involves) Person A would score abominably. The "where possible" card would be played all day every day.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. Originally you said the distinction between the lost and found is ‘’not based on behaviour at any rate’’, but now you’re saying that by God’s standards Person A ‘’would score abominably’’. You say yourself that all Christians sin on a daily basis, why would Person A score ‘abominably’ and not Person B? Why is God taking Person A’s ‘’non-Christian’’ behaviour into account and not Person B’s?

Why does God punish someone who tries as hard as they can to be a good Christian person in all aspects of their life, but reward another who does the exact opposite?

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

Now you’re contradicting yourself.

I can assure you I'm not

Originally you said the distinction between the lost and found is ‘’not based on behaviour at any rate’’,

My apologies. I wasn't clear enough.

The distinction between a lost person and a found person is one of status. The found person has a relationship with God (for instance) and the lost persons doesn't. The found person has God residing within them (creating a 'God awareness') and the lost person doesn't.

What isn't based on behavior is a person's coming to be transferred from the lost position to the found position.

Clearly, a found person can steal a Mars just as a lost person can.

but now you’re saying that by God’s standards Person A ‘’would score abominably’’. You say yourself that all Christians sin on a daily basis, why would Person A score ‘abominably’ and not Person B? Why is God taking Person A’s ‘’non-Christian’’ behaviour into account and not Person B’s?

He is taking both their behaviors into account - but in different ways because of their different status' before him.

The lost person's transgressions only add to the charge sheet that will face them if they remain lost and come to stand before God at Judgement.

The found person's transgressions are dealt with by God in the same way a good father will deal with a child's transgressions. The good father might well discipline the child because of his transgressions - in order to correct the child and encourage him to navigate the right path.

Even though God's action in both cases might be the same (the bible speaks of God's disciplining of his children including the extremes of their being struck sick .. or dead), the motivation is different.

Why does God punish someone who tries as hard as they can to be a good Christian person in all aspects of their life, but reward another who does the exact opposite?

He rewards the one ( with salvation) because they are obedient to God. He has commanded that they stop going their own way, under own steam, according to own ideas (giving a nod in his direction "where possible") and they have stopped.

The other person, the person who "tries their best" are disobeying God in a fundamental way. They are ignoring that all their 'good' acts are sourced in a person who is steeped in sin up to their neck - so much so that they can't even see that their motivations are very often rotten.

To argue the point (assuming I am correctly representing the gospel) is to argue with God that he is wrong in his assessment and that somehow you are in a position to judge the goodness of your actions. You couldn't grant that power to yourself - you have no way of accurately judging your motivations.

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can assure you I'm not




My apologies. I wasn't clear enough.

The distinction between a lost person and a found person is one of status. The found person has a relationship with God (for instance) and the lost persons doesn't. The found person has God residing within them (creating a 'God awareness') and the lost person doesn't.

What isn't based on behavior is a person's coming to be transferred from the lost position to the found position.

Clearly, a found person can steal a Mars just as a lost person can.




He is taking both their behaviors into account - but in different ways because of their different status' before him.

The lost person's transgressions only add to the charge sheet that will face them if they remain lost and come to stand before God at Judgement.

The found person's transgressions are dealt with by God in the same way a good father will deal with a child's transgressions. The good father might well discipline the child because of his transgressions - in order to correct the child and encourage him to navigate the right path.

Even though God's action in both cases might be the same (the bible speaks of God's disciplining of his children including the extremes of their being struck sick .. or dead), the motivation is different.





He rewards the one ( with salvation) because they are obedient to God. He has commanded that they stop going their own way, under own steam, according to own ideas (giving a nod in his direction "where possible") and they have stopped.

The other person, the person who "tries their best" are disobeying God in a fundamental way. They are ignoring that all their 'good' acts are sourced in a person who is steeped in sin up to their neck - so much so that they can't even see that their motivations are very often rotten.

To argue the point (assuming I am correctly representing the gospel) is to argue with God that he is wrong in his assessment and that somehow you are in a position to judge the goodness of your actions. You couldn't grant that power to yourself - you have no way of accurately judging your motivations.

But we’re all steeped in sin, you said yourself we are all sinners. Why is Person A’s sins being punished and Person B’s isn’t? Person A has good acts, Person B has none at all, person B in fact has done abhorrent acts, they’ve broken the commandments, including murder. But Person B will be rewarded for his misdeeds because of his status?

Why does God give us rules to live by if they are ultimately meaningless?

Where in the Gospel does it tell us that we are only ‘’found’’ in the way that you describe? Where does it say that you can disobey God’s will throughout your life until your death and still be rewarded because of your status?

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

But we’re all steeped in sin, you said yourself we are all sinners. Why is Person A’s sins being punished and Person B’s isn’t? Person A has good acts, Person B has none at all, person B in fact has done abhorrent acts, they’ve broken the commandments, including murder.

Even one sin on your account earns you Hell. That means person A and person B are both on their way to Hell unless that can be averted by salvation. If B wasn't saved, Hell would be arguably worse for him and so all is fair in that regard: B gets is worse than A because B behaved worse than A.

But Person B will be rewarded for his misdeeds because of his status?

Person B has no misdeeds on his account. The penalty for them is borne by Christ. Salvation isn't a reward (a reward is something you earn), it's a gift. You don't have to earn it.

Why does God give us rules to live by if they are ultimately meaningless?

The rules are anything but meaningless.

For lost people, breaking rules brings with it consequences from which there is no effective escape: guilt and shame follow rule breaking. A lost person can suppress guilt and shame - they can bury it out of sight if they like. God permits that.

But the potential exists for God to cause all this guilt and shame to rise up before your eyes in a devastating way that will cause to you to fall to your knees in despair over how rotten you actually are. Then you will cry out to him and he will save you.

He uses your law breaking as a means to propel you into salvation.

Alternatively, if you refuse to the bitter end, all your lawbreaking will be brought before you at Judgment and will be used to justify your being cast forever from God's presence.

He uses your law breaking as a means to propel you into Hell.


That's a twofold function of the law. Hardly meaningless

Where in the Gospel does it tell us that we are only ‘’found’’ in the way that you describe? Where does it say that you can disobey God’s will throughout your life until your death and still be rewarded because of your status?

You can't really quote mine your way to large doctrines like that - it's a bigger discussion. Needless to say that if "going to heaven" relied on a person not disobeying God post-salvation then heaven would be empty

But the outline I've given is pretty much (non-Roman Catholic) orthodox Christian understanding

soterpisc

Gay & Believing - Is there room for both?

Answer no.

If you mean Gay as defined by modern society with the culture that has built up around it then you can't be Gay and be a Christian at the same time.

Any before any Gay groups go jumping down my neck.. You also can't be Hetersexual and play the field and then want to be a believer at the same time.

If you are a person who has same sex attraction, but have chosen to follow your faith there is nothing wrong. But you can't choose a Gay life and at the same time be a Christian.

Our sexuality has a finality,,, And as much as society has moved on, to have same sex attraction is not the normal function of sexuality. Same as not being able to see properly is not the normal functionality of ones eye.

There is no sin in having same sex attractions, but to say this is normal and should be acted on is where Religion and Society diverge.

So if you are asking can you be Gay as understood by a liberal society and at the same time be a Christian Believer, then then answer is sadly no.

Same as I can't have consensual heterosexual with a girl after a night out.

Society will judge my religious beliefs as ancient, offensive, but going on the teachings the Christ left these are the beliefs we have to follow.

old hippy

I'm sorry for gay people who genuinely believe in God and are excluded by ignorance, fundamentalism and prejudice. I believe in Jesus (not in an organised religious way) I'm of the opinion he just wanted people to love one another.

I do what I like with who I like and try not to hurt others, luckily, society and religion's judgements have no bearing on my day to day existence.

Peace :cool:

soterpisc

old hippy wrote: »

I'm sorry for gay people who genuinely believe in God and are excluded by ignorance, fundamentalism and prejudice. I believe in Jesus (not in an organised religious way) I'm of the opinion he just wanted people to love one another.

I do what I like with who I like and try not to hurt others, luckily, society and religion's judgements have no bearing on my day to day existence.

Peace :cool:

We don't exclude them by "ignorance, fundamentalism and prejudice." They exclude themselves.

And todays gay and liberal culture is equally ignorant, fundamentalist and prejudiced.

old hippy

soterpisc wrote: »

We don't exclude them by "ignorance, fundamentalism and prejudice." They exclude themselves.

And todays gay and liberal culture is equally ignorant, fundamentalist and prejudiced.

keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

What would Jesus say?

soterpisc

old hippy wrote: »

What would Jesus say?

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Matthew 5:27-28 [/FONT]Matthew 19:4-5

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

Even one sin on your account earns you Hell. That means person A and person B are both on their way to Hell unless that can be averted by salvation. If B wasn't saved, Hell would be arguably worse for him and so all is fair in that regard: B gets is worse than A because B behaved worse than A.

Person B has no misdeeds on his account. The penalty for them is borne by Christ. Salvation isn't a reward (a reward is something you earn), it's a gift. You don't have to earn it.

The rules are anything but meaningless.

For lost people, breaking rules brings with it consequences from which there is no effective escape: guilt and shame follow rule breaking. A lost person can suppress guilt and shame - they can bury it out of sight if they like. God permits that.

But the potential exists for God to cause all this guilt and shame to rise up before your eyes in a devastating way that will cause to you to fall to your knees in despair over how rotten you actually are. Then you will cry out to him and he will save you.

He uses your law breaking as a means to propel you into salvation.

Alternatively, if you refuse to the bitter end, all your lawbreaking will be brought before you at Judgment and will be used to justify your being cast forever from God's presence.

He uses your law breaking as a means to propel you into Hell.

That's a twofold function of the law. Hardly meaningless

You can't really quote mine your way to large doctrines like that - it's a bigger discussion. Needless to say that if "going to heaven" relied on a person not disobeying God post-salvation then heaven would be empty

But the outline I've given is pretty much (non-Roman Catholic) orthodox Christian understanding

Okay, so let me just make sure I get this straight...

Pre-salvation: Your are lost, no matter how good or bad you are you're going to hell.
Eureka Salvation Moment: You reach rock bottom and accept God as you saviour, you realise the only person who could fill the unbearable need you have is God.
Post Salvation: You are found, no matter how good or bad you are you're going to heaven.

Is that about right?

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

Okay, so let me just make sure I get this straight...

Okay

Pre-salvation: Your are lost, no matter how good or bad you are you're going to hell.

Correct. All are just various shades of bad.

Eureka Salvation Moment: You reach rock bottom and accept God as you saviour, you realise the only person who could fill the unbearable need you have is God.

Incorrect.

You reach rock bottom, have nowhere left to turn and if not opting for the remaining options (go mad, commit suicide, etc) then you will cry out to God. He's makes that option available at that point (don't worry about the details)

You are saved and as a result you have a Eureka moment (although it need not always be a Damascus road like moment). "God actually exists!!"

Post Salvation: You are found, no matter how good or bad you are you're going to heaven.

Correct. In God's sight you are completely righteous - despite your sin. Your sin is transferred to Christ and your account is seen as always spotless.

And because you are seen so you are fit for heaven and "to heaven" you will go

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay



Correct. All are just various shades of bad.



Incorrect.

You reach rock bottom, have nowhere left to turn and if not opting for the remaining options (go mad, commit suicide, etc) then you will cry out to God. He's makes that option available at that point (don't worry about the details)

You are saved and as a result you have a Eureka moment (although it need not always be a Damascus road like moment). "God actually exists!!"




Correct. In God's sight you are completely righteous - despite your sin. Your sin is transferred to Christ and your account is seen as always spotless.

And because you are seen so you are fit for heaven and "to heaven" you will go

It's not particular fair on those believers who don't reach rock bottom is it? I mean, it's hardly their fault that they're living perfectly happy lives with what they think is a perfectly acceptable belief in God?

That's not even taking into account the children who die every year who were too young to even understand such a concept, let lone hit rock bottom. It's pretty sad that they're in hell, no?

alex73

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's not particular fair on those believers who don't reach rock bottom is it? I mean, it's hardly their fault that they're living perfectly happy lives with what they think is a perfectly acceptable belief in God?

That's not even taking into account the children who die every year who were too young to even understand such a concept, let lone hit rock bottom. It's pretty sad that they're in hell, no?

OK... When did this thread get from Gay & Believing - Is there room for both? to Children in hell??

The whole thing is very simply... If you are Gay and have Gay sex then you can't be a Christian and follow Christ... Same as if you are heterosexual and have casual sex.

The whole salvation issue has already been discussed ad-neaseum.


As for un-baptised kids.. For sure God has called them to himself..Souls that pure belong to God.

MagicMarker

alex73 wrote: »

OK... When did this thread get from Gay & Believing - Is there room for both? to Children in hell??

The whole thing is very simply... If you are Gay and have Gay sex then you can't be a Christian and follow Christ... Same as if you are heterosexual and have casual sex.

The whole salvation issue has already been discussed ad-neaseum.


As for un-baptised kids.. For sure God has called them to himself..Souls that pure belong to God.

You might want to tell antiskeptic this, as he doesn't agree with you.

Festus

Can you be homosexual and believing?

Of course you can. Just as Satan and the demons believe.
No doubt there are plenty of demons in Satan's cohort who are so inclined or maybe even swing both ways.

Can you be homosexual and have faith? Of course you can.

But what does it mean for a homosexual who wants to be a practising Christian?
It means accepting the teachings in the Bible and the teachings of Christ.
In a word - Chastity.

There is nothing in the Bible or the teachings of Christ that makes sexual relationships between members of the same sex acceptable to God. They are sinful, and while there is nothing sinful in being a homosexual, engaging in homosexual activity is sinful.

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's not particular fair on those believers who don't reach rock bottom is it? I mean, it's hardly their fault that they're living perfectly happy lives with what they think is a perfectly acceptable belief in God?

The way you live a happy life in false belief is by utilising the ability sinners have to "suppress the truth". Let's take an example of a perfectly happy person who does something nasty to someone else. Guilt and shame are the natural consequences of this (for God has equipped us so).

How can a person be perfectly happy when they've got to contend with guilt and shame? Well they can't - not if they don't suppress the guilt and shame.

How is this done? Well, self-justification is one method, forgetting is another, denying that any harm was done is another. And so the guilt and shame that rightfully attach to the sin is suppressed. All you need is a god made in own image and likeness who won't ruin the party.

If the person wants to suppress a life time of guilt and shame (and a whole host of other stimuli aimed at bringing them to their knees - of necessity I've to present a simple enough model of the whole) then that is a matter for their will.

It's perfectly fair that they be held to account for the expression of their will. Which includes maintaining a model of god who won't stand in the way of all their suppression

That's not even taking into account the children who die every year who were too young to even understand such a concept, let lone hit rock bottom. It's pretty sad that they're in hell, no?

I don't do "what about babies and idiots?" discussion. It's too diverting when the discussion is with a person who is neither. Eg: You.

lmaopml

Festus wrote: »

Can you be homosexual and believing?

Of course you can. Just as Satan and the demons believe.
No doubt there are plenty of demons in Satan's cohort who are so inclined or maybe even swing both ways.

Can you be homosexual and have faith? Of course you can.

But what does it mean for a homosexual who wants to be a practising Christian?
It means accepting the teachings in the Bible and the teachings of Christ.
In a word - Chastity.

There is nothing in the Bible or the teachings of Christ that makes sexual relationships between members of the same sex acceptable to God. They are sinful, and while there is nothing sinful in being a homosexual, engaging in homosexual activity is sinful.

However, there is only one judge; and it is not mankind, but we are custodians of the word! The rules are fairly clear - Actually there is another thread on the forum about, of all things, self 'punishment' etc. and how it brings us 'closer' to God. It's not about self punishment, it's about self denial.

In fact, it would probably surprise people to understand that 'self punishment' is misunderstood in that it sometimes takes extreme cases as it's 'heroes'..and blatently ignores the unsung ones.

No such thing; there are heroes, every day unsung ones that curb drug addiction, alcoholism, self pride, jealousy, self rightousness, etc. etc. etc. and these things are exactly the same as the battle sometimes lost and other times won against any single material or physical persuit of 'happiness'.

The 'battle' of life, and mastering it to know yourself, is the very same for both the 'Gay person who believes' and also the 'Straight person who is full of pride'...

We all kneel. We all know our faults and failings and so too does God above who judges everybody..

I would most certainly encourage the 'Gay and Believing' ( strange as it seems ) to continue their journey of faith..and face their battles, because they are not alone; many others don't even see their faults and failings to even begin to acknowledge them....It's the journey that matters and whether Christ is central..He'll take it from there I'm quite sure.

That doesn't mean that deliberately going against the Gospels is 'ok' - It just reduces 'sexuality' to any other relationship issue that every single person experiences gay or no without prejudice. So no prizes. We're all in the same boat.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

But what does it mean for a homosexual who wants to be a practising Christian? It means accepting the teachings in the Bible and the teachings of Christ. In a word - Chastity

At risk of having some clown completely misconstruing what I am about to say (cue the timer on my mobile).

A drug addict becomes a believer. He is not able to be chaste in the simplistic manner you appear to demand. What now?

There is nothing in the Bible or the teachings of Christ that makes sexual relationships between members of the same sex acceptable to God. They are sinful, and while there is nothing sinful in being a homosexual, engaging in homosexual activity is sinful.

The same could be said of any sinful activity. Is there any sinful activity that you find yourself coming back to? Something for which "Be chaste in X" doesn't work?

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

At risk of having some clown completely misconstruing what I am about to say (cue the timer on my mobile).

A drug addict becomes a believer. He is not able to be chaste in the simplistic manner you appear to demand. What now?





The same could be said of any sinful activity. Is there any sinful activity that you find yourself coming back to? Something for which "Be chaste in X" doesn't work?

TBH, I think the issue with the particular sin in question, is the seeking of it being acceptable. When I go back, sadly:(, to gorge at the trough of sin, I realise I am sinning or have sinned. That is the HUGE difference here IMO. A struggling drug addict who finds God etc, will realise their sinful ways even if they give into it. With the sin in question, I find the issue is the seeking of it to be classified as something not sinful.

I think as Christians, we must be sensitive to the issue, but always making sure that we hold true to what the bible says on the matter. I find that these days, there are often 2 extremes of this scale in play all too often. Those who are extremely insensitive to the human side of the issue, and those who are much to sensitive to the human side of the issue. We need to strke a balance, of being loving, and welcoming, but at the same time being crystal clear as to what Christs ways entail.

ISAW

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's not particular fair on those believers who don't reach rock bottom is it? I mean, it's hardly their fault that they're living perfectly happy lives with what they think is a perfectly acceptable belief in God?

That's not even taking into account the children who die every year who were too young to even understand such a concept, let lone hit rock bottom. It's pretty sad that they're in hell, no?

Soteriology
This is kind of embarking on the salvation theology of "saved by faith alone"
The thing is when you repent the slate is wiped clean so the the past deeds good or bad don't count for anything so leave them out.
However after one is saved they may still sin or fail to do good works as Christians are called to do. In that sense they won't get to heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29

Catholic and Orthodox Christians distinguish between initial justification —which in their view occurs at baptism— and final justification, accomplished after a lifetime of striving to do God's will. Protestants believe that justification is a singular act in which God declares an unrighteous individual to be righteous because of the Crucifixion of Jesus. Justification is granted to all who have faith, but even that is viewed as a gift from God by Lutherans and Calvinists, who use Eph 2:8 to support that belief.

Justification is seen by Protestants as being the theological fault line that divided Catholic from Protestant during the Reformation

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't do "what about babies and idiots?" discussion. It's too diverting when the discussion is with a person who is neither. Eg: You.

Well there's nothing to discuss, in your words anyone who is lost is going to hell. Considering children can't be found in the way that you describe, then they are lost and are therefore going to hell.

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well there's nothing to discuss, in your words anyone who is lost is going to hell. Considering children can't be found in the way that you describe, then they are lost and are therefore going to hell.

In our discussions, the element of choice (Yes/No) to God has featured large when it comes to eternal destination. A child of a certain age can't be said to be capable of this choice. In which case we've got an unknown with respect to children (and perhaps, "idiots").

You can seek an exit by focusing on a narrow element of the whole (people are born lost) and ignoring the fact that choice is involved.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, I think the issue with the particular sin in question, is the seeking of it being acceptable. When I go back, sadly:(, to gorge at the trough of sin, I realise I am sinning or have sinned. That is the HUGE difference here IMO. A struggling drug addict who finds God etc, will realise their sinful ways even if they give into it. With the sin in question, I find the issue is the seeking of it to be classified as something not sinful.

I think as Christians, we must be sensitive to the issue, but always making sure that we hold true to what the bible says on the matter. I find that these days, there are often 2 extremes of this scale in play all too often. Those who are extremely insensitive to the human side of the issue, and those who are much to sensitive to the human side of the issue. We need to strke a balance, of being loving, and welcoming, but at the same time being crystal clear as to what Christs ways entail.

Precisely.

I've a mate of mine who reached rock bottom in the classic sense of the word: alchoholism, coke, hash, prescription drugs, social welfare fraud, ill health, destructive relationships.

Then he turned.

Over the last 10 years I've watched him re-emerge. Bit by bit the shackles have been released. And bit by bit the Lord has brought to his attention the latest thing that needs dealing with. 10 years ago it was alcohol that was removed from his life. 2 years ago it was hash. Tomorrow it might very well be the disabilty allowance he claims but perhaps doesn't quite need as much as he did in earlier times.

Bullseye1

Can someone point to me the passage where Jesus said being gay or having gay thoughts is evil and sinful? I cannot believe the man would have said it.

To the OP yes there is room to be both. I would not listen to a single word of people who call you or your actions as being evil. As long as you are faithful and love your partner that is all that matters.

antiskeptic

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Can someone point to me the passage where Jesus said being gay or having gay thoughts is evil and sinful? I cannot believe the man would have said it.

To the OP yes there is room to be both. I would not listen to a single word of people who call you or your actions as being evil. As long as you are faithful and love your partner that is all that matters.

This is the Christianity forum where the bible as a whole is considered valid commentary. Within that context it is relatively easy to formulate an argument for homosexual activity in thought or deed (as well as any non-marital sexual activity in thought or deed) as contrary to God's order.

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

In our discussions, the element of choice (Yes/No) to God has featured large when it comes to eternal destination. A child of a certain age can't be said to be capable of this choice. In which case we've got an unknown with respect to children (and perhaps, "idiots").

You can seek an exit by focusing on a narrow element of the whole (people are born lost) and ignoring the fact that choice is involved.

Where is the choice? According to you there is no choice until you hit rock bottom.

So people who believe in god but are still lost because they haven't hit rock bottom, are they supposed to choose to hit rock bottom in order to be offered salvation?

This all makes very little sense tbh, even your fellow christian posters don't appear to be with you on this one. In fact I've never met a single christian who seems to think as you do.