homosexuality is wrong ..BUT

[tango]

Scripture speaks of homosexuality as a detestable sin to God. There is no getting around it.

Except if you look deeper than the word the NLT uses it's not always quite as black-and-white as it appears.

Monogamous? As in married? Whether one is monogamous or promiscuous, it is all perverse and fornication.

To coin the phrase, "your saying so don't make it so". Care to provide some support rather than merely making assertions without evidence? This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post - if you want to convince people who are unconvinced merely making an assertion is unlikely to win many people around. If what people hear is you quoting a verse from one specific translation, compared to someone else providing a detailed study as to the likely meaning and possible interpretations of the original Greek, which one do you think they will find more convincing? The study of the Greek may draw the wrong conclusion but if the best effort you make at countering that argument is to simply restate your position and ignore the argument the chances are you'll be the one written off as being blinded. There are enough people out there who merely state "what the Bible says" and some of them don't even know what the Bible does say - they heard it from someone else and never thought to question it. I'd rather know why I believe what I believe and be able to explain it to someone, than merely state it and restate it and restate it again, and any time someone disagrees just fall back on restating the same thing yet again.

People who know Jesus and believe the word of God know it is sinful

So you're just going to write off a reasoned argument with an assumption about the person making it? That should persuade a lot of people.

If one is an unbeliever, then one may have the opposite view about these things.

Apparently quite a few believers have the opposite view to yours too.

 

[tango]

We need to bring correction to people who claim Christ and at the same time uphold sin. We cannot judge the sinner who is not saved, and that is biblical. They haven't the standard of righteousness that God calls us to live out. We as believers do, and when we see believers being compromised by sin and approving of it, then we are to discern/judge that for what it is: hypocrisy, and rebuke it.

We are indeed to judge within the fellowship (e.g. Gal 6:1), but we shouldn't expect those others to change their ways based on nothing more than "because I said so" or quoting a single verse that they may dispute. We need to join the dots up a bit to make sure it is clear, as opposed to a matter of personal opinion, that this act falls into that category at that category is clearly identified as sinful in this passage. It would probably help at that point to be ready to address objections because the chances are we won't be talking to someone who is brazenly sinning, knows they are sinning and doesn't care. The chances are we'll be talking to someone who has figured out some justification for what they are doing even if they are making tenuous links between things to make it happen, or someone who has undertaken a serious study and drawn a different conclusion to our own.

 

[Full O Beans]

We are indeed to judge within the fellowship (e.g. Gal 6:1), but we shouldn't expect those others to change their ways based on nothing more than "because I said so" or quoting a single verse that they may dispute. We need to join the dots up a bit to make sure it is clear, as opposed to a matter of personal opinion, that this act falls into that category at that category is clearly identified as sinful in this passage. It would probably help at that point to be ready to address objections because the chances are we won't be talking to someone who is brazenly sinning, knows they are sinning and doesn't care. The chances are we'll be talking to someone who has figured out some justification for what they are doing even if they are making tenuous links between things to make it happen, or someone who has undertaken a serious study and drawn a different conclusion to our own.

When we bother to teach the word, our expectation for those who are hungry and seeking the truth is that they will receive it. I'm talking about those who claim to be Christians. All others simply need some real love and care...that love of Jesus that draws them to Him.

 

[Rens]

Will look further into this

If there was adultery and the other one remarries it's not sin. Telling someone they may never remarry if it's impossible to reconcile, which you don't have to in the case of adultery, would be a doctrin of demons: forbidding to marry. The person might get tempted to go to porn or fornicate if they may not marry. Even if one was an adulterer and he repents and the other one doesn't want him back anymore I believe he may remarry for that reason. In the O.T. those people got stoned, now you can die with Christ.

 

[Alithis]

If there was adultery and the other one remarries it's not sin. Telling someone they may never remarry if it's impossible to reconcile, which you don't have to in the case of adultery, would be a doctrin of demons: forbidding to marry. The person might get tempted to go to porn or fornicate if they may not marry. Even if one was an adulterer and he repents and the other one doesn't want him back anymore I believe he may remarry for that reason. In the O.T. those people got stoned, now you can die with Christ.

Well..correct me if im wrong.. But the scriptures clearly state its grounds for divorce. But they dont clearly state it as permission to remarry . remember im speaking of folks already baptized into his death and resurrection.not people who have yet to be born again.
But the aspect you present of being stoned..and dying in christ is a very interesting one for sure. Iv not seen it that way.
Also i want everyone to know i dont intend to be all judgy on the topic ...i seek to know the nitty gritty truth of this matter.i just wont take it lightly. just because many remarry does not make it right.
And.... Hi messy ..gud to see ya

 

[Rens]

Well..correct me if im wrong.. But the scriptures clearly state its grounds for divorce. But they dont clearly state it as permission to remarry . remember im speaking of folks already baptized into his death and resurrection.not people who have yet to be born again.
But the aspect you present of being stoned..and dying in christ is a very interesting one for sure. Iv not seen it that way.
Also i want everyone to know i dont intend to be all judgy on the topic ...i seek to know the nitty gritty truth of this matter.i just wont take it lightly. just because many remarry does not make it right.
And.... Hi messy ..gud to see ya

I read an article from a guy about that text: to the unmarried, that's not virgins. Loosed from a wife is divorced.

 

[Rens]

I met a guy on a dating site who was divorced. No Biblical reason, his wife wanted to seperate for a while because he had problems with her daughter. Then he said: Well then I'm gonna divorce and he did because he wanted to have a partner. She said: oooh that's such a pity. Lol I told him to go back to his wife.

 

[tango]

When we bother to teach the word, our expectation for those who are hungry and seeking the truth is that they will receive it. I'm talking about those who claim to be Christians. All others simply need some real love and care...that love of Jesus that draws them to Him.

Do you really expect someone to accept something without question just because you consider yourself to be "teaching the word"? If people are seeking the truth I would still encourage them to test every word they hear, simply because there's a lot of bad teaching out there. "Because I said so" is a poor substitute for encouraging people to read, to study, to understand for themselves.

If you believe someone is sinning you should be able to explain to them why their behavior is sinful with Scripture, and be ready for a counter argument as to why they believe it is not sinful. If you can't counter their positions how do you expect to make any headway? Of course some people will clutch at straws, butchering the context of Scripture to try and justify something they know they shouldn't really be doing. Other people will have undertaken a detailed study of Scripture and drawn a different conclusion. If you can't explain your stance without relying heavily on the precise form of words used by your chosen Bible translation (especially when that translation is written in fairly colloquial language) you'll struggle to make your case.

 

[Full O Beans]

Do you really expect someone to accept something without question just because you consider yourself to be "teaching the word"? If people are seeking the truth I would still encourage them to test every word they hear, simply because there's a lot of bad teaching out there. "Because I said so" is a poor substitute for encouraging people to read, to study, to understand for themselves.

I am talking about literally teaching, and teaching people that God has placed any of us among for that purpose.

When people are open and hungering for truth, they will receive it because Holy Spirit reveals it to them, no matter who He uses to proclaim it.

If you believe someone is sinning you should be able to explain to them why their behavior is sinful with Scripture, and be ready for a counter argument as to why they believe it is not sinful. If you can't counter their positions how do you expect to make any headway? Of course some people will clutch at straws, butchering the context of Scripture to try and justify something they know they shouldn't really be doing. Other people will have undertaken a detailed study of Scripture and drawn a different conclusion. If you can't explain your stance without relying heavily on the precise form of words used by your chosen Bible translation (especially when that translation is written in fairly colloquial language) you'll struggle to make your case.

Of course, that is what the bible teaches. We are to be always ready to give an answer for the hope we have. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[tango]

I am talking about literally teaching, and teaching people that God has placed any of us among for that purpose.

When people are open and hungering for truth, they will receive it because Holy Spirit reveals it to them, no matter who He uses to proclaim it.

Sure, but those people should also be testing the words that they are presented, as the Bible says. Paul lauded the Bereans for testing his teaching and told the Thessalonians to test all things. God may make people hungry for truth but let's not pretend there will also be a lot of people out there presenting a false gospel and a lot of people out there who would rather have their ears tickled by a candy-coated gospel that assures them that everything is fine.

If someone has received a false gospel, or if they have convinced themselves that their homosexual relationship is Scripturally acceptable with a bit of semantic trickery, you're going to need more than a single verse from a fairly colloquial interpretation of Scripture to counter someone else's exploration of the underlying Greek and Hebrew.

Of course, that is what the bible teaches. We are to be always ready to give an answer for the hope we have. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

That's not really the point I was making. My point is that if you're going to make a point you really need to be able to explain it and understand it. If you're using one of the more colloquial interpretations of Scripture like the NLT or The Message it's often a good thing to compare it to some of the more formal translations. And where there are contentious issues and one side is exploring the underlying meaning of the words used (even if their intention is to support their case rather than discover the truth) it's going to be hard to convince them using nothing more than a relatively loose English translation.

Of course there is an argument to leave the convicting to God but if we're not going to even attempt to "contend for the faith" or "study to show (ourselves) approved" we might as well bring a message that is nothing more than "repent sinners" and leave it to God to convict people of whatever sin is in their lives. Of course that can create all sorts of confusion if God leaves something in someone's life temporarily because he is focusing on other matters first.

 

[Full O Beans]

Sure, but those people should also be testing the words that they are presented, as the Bible says. Paul lauded the Bereans for testing his teaching and told the Thessalonians to test all things. God may make people hungry for truth but let's not pretend there will also be a lot of people out there presenting a false gospel and a lot of people out there who would rather have their ears tickled by a candy-coated gospel that assures them that everything is fine.

If someone has received a false gospel, or if they have convinced themselves that their homosexual relationship is Scripturally acceptable with a bit of semantic trickery, you're going to need more than a single verse from a fairly colloquial interpretation of Scripture to counter someone else's exploration of the underlying Greek and Hebrew.



That's not really the point I was making. My point is that if you're going to make a point you really need to be able to explain it and understand it. If you're using one of the more colloquial interpretations of Scripture like the NLT or The Message it's often a good thing to compare it to some of the more formal translations. And where there are contentious issues and one side is exploring the underlying meaning of the words used (even if their intention is to support their case rather than discover the truth) it's going to be hard to convince them using nothing more than a relatively loose English translation.

Of course there is an argument to leave the convicting to God but if we're not going to even attempt to "contend for the faith" or "study to show (ourselves) approved" we might as well bring a message that is nothing more than "repent sinners" and leave it to God to convict people of whatever sin is in their lives. Of course that can create all sorts of confusion if God leaves something in someone's life temporarily because he is focusing on other matters first.

We are all encouraged by God to be as the Bereans. I have never once alluded to anything otherwise.

 

[tango]

We are call encouraged by God to be as the Bereans. I have never once alluded to anything otherwise.

I never said you did. My point is that testing involves more than looking for a single verse in one translation of the Bible and assuming that's the beginning and the end of the reasoning process.

If you present a few verses from 1 Corinthians and that's the sum total of your point, and another person undertakes a detailed study of multiple passages of Scripture which includes looking at the underlying Greek and Hebrew, as well as possible cultural connotations and concludes something different, which version do you think someone struggling with homosexual desires is likely to accept? Your one passage, or a detailed study that suggests the meaning of the text isn't as simple as what you've presented?

If we can make a strong case for something it also shows we've thought it through ourselves. In many ways it's something of an academic exercise for heterosexual people to undertake a Scriptural study to try and figure whether the meaning is as simple as a first reading of passages in 1Cor and Romans would suggest, simply because it doesn't make much of a difference in our lives. But as soon as a gay person comes into our lives it becomes more relevant. For example I have a friend who is a lesbian, and I'd rather make sure my Scriptural understanding is correct because I don't want to beat her over the head with Scripture that I haven't correctly understood myself, and neither do I want to soothe her and let her think everything is just dandy if it isn't. Since she obviously has a vested interest in a conclusion that she's just fine, if I want to make a case that she's not just fine I need something more than one Bible verse that can be (and is) questioned by people who take an opposing view.

 

[Alithis]

i feel i still must draw attention back to the topic of adultery.. why is it folks are just not keen to get so passionate on that part of the topic ?

 

[psalms 91]

All sin is roong bot just homosexuakiy or adultry but since jomosexuality is where christyiand are being attacked belief wise and is prominant in the news although not lately it is natural that chriistians would concentrate on iy

 

[Alithis]

All sin is wrong not just homosexuakiy or adultry but since homosexuality is where christians are being attacked belief wise and is prominent in the news although not lately it is natural that christians would concentrate on it

not so oddly, it is the reverse that has aided the sodomite movement to where it is today .action in the flesh breeds flesh .they have skillfully used the carnal judgments of the general church to pander to the carnal senses and present themselves as " a persecuted sect ".. i find it interesting that all of thier efforts to become accepted in society have often been in response to the churches judgments .
perhaps it would have been more effective to present the gospel with as much passion as we presented the judgments .

but as i raised earlier this unbalanced overtly condemning judgment stance is often a sign of guilt in other areas and as adam in the garden we want to quickly point the finger and say ..yeah but what about him over there look what he's doing ... while adultery is rife in the western church .
whichever way we paint it .. the lord s judgment begins in the house of the Lord and he wil judge us according to his own word .. not according to what that other guy over there is doing ..

 

[psalms 91]

True I agree that we will be judged first but I will still not bow my knee at the alter of the homosexual

 

[tango]

not so oddly, it is the reverse that has aided the sodomite movement to where it is today .action in the flesh breeds flesh .they have skillfully used the carnal judgments of the general church to pander to the carnal senses and present themselves as " a persecuted sect ".. i find it interesting that all of thier efforts to become accepted in society have often been in response to the churches judgments .
perhaps it would have been more effective to present the gospel with as much passion as we presented the judgments .

You make some good points here. When statistics show large numbers of men in the church (including in full time ministry) with varying degrees of issues with pornography it's remarkable how quick that same church is to scream fire and brimstone the minute a man gets it together with another man. It's entirely possible that those who struggle with pornography aren't the same as the people who are quick to condemn homosexuals, but it is interesting to see a focus on one form of sexual misbehavior at the expense of another. But maybe it's because of a sense of safety - I forget if it was this thread or another one where I mentioned that, as a heterosexual man, the chances of ever being caught in a compromising position with another man is vanishingly small. That means it's safe to speak against homosexuality because it's not something that will ever come back to bite me. But speaking against adultery, pornography, or other sexual sins that relate to heterosexual activity is a riskier proposition - the same heterosexual desires that give me the easy option of taking a woman to be my wife create the potential to someday be caught in a compromising situation with another woman. So speaking vocally against heterosexual sin could very easily come back to bite me one day.

but as i raised earlier this unbalanced overtly condemning judgment stance is often a sign of guilt in other areas and as adam in the garden we want to quickly point the finger and say ..yeah but what about him over there look what he's doing ... while adultery is rife in the western church. whichever way we paint it .. the lord s judgment begins in the house of the Lord and he wil judge us according to his own word .. not according to what that other guy over there is doing ..

Behavior relating to other peoples' sin isn't necessarily so easy to trace like that. Someone who is very vocal about another person's sin might be trying to cover a sense of their own guilt, but equally someone who is very permissive towards another's sin might be hoping the same level of permissiveness will be extended to them, should their sin ever come to light.