Posted on 01/23/2002 6:22:00 AM PST by helmsman
The point I was making was that someone who sins, but believes in Jesus, will, according to the accepted Christian salvation doctrine, be saved and enter Heaven (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-13). It may be true that the person will need to first confess his sins to God and repent for them, but he will still enter. Furthermore, seeing as though Jesus made it clear that sinful thoughts will count against you to the same degree that sinful actions will (Matt 5:21-30, Mark 7:20-23), one can easily assume that even the most pious Christians will be in a state of sin when they perish, since sinful thoughts are virtually impossible to keep down completely.
So, in the context of our current issue, is it not reasonable to assume that a bible-believing Christian who happens to have strong homosexual urges which he cannot resist will also be permitted the same salvation that a heterosexual Christian who periodically falls and commits heterosexual sins will be given? If the gay Christian continues to commit sin, in thought and action (just as every straight Christian does), but receives salvation anyway, wouldn't this be a case of a gay sinner entering Heaven? Or, a pervert, as some here have claimed.
That is correct according to Christian teachings. That is also why the current homosexual agenda is so destructive. It teaches people that what God has called an abomination is not a sin at all. Who says so? They say so. It should be apparent whom they serve.
Furthermore, seeing as though Jesus made it clear that sinful thoughts will count against you to the same degree that sinful actions will (Matt 5:21-30, Mark 7:20-23), one can easily assume that even the most pious Christians will be in a state of sin when they perish, since sinful thoughts are virtually impossible to keep down completely.
This is one of the most misquoted aspects of Christianity. Thinking about how you'd like to kill someone, even thinking about how'd you'd like to do it, is a clear example of a sinful thought. Having the thought pop into your mind and be immediately rejected is not a sin.
So, in the context of our current issue, is it not reasonable to assume that a bible-believing Christian who happens to have strong homosexual urges which he cannot resist will also be permitted the same salvation that a heterosexual Christian who periodically falls and commits heterosexual sins will be given?
Actually, now you've entered into the realm that only God can know for sure. Sin separates us from God, correct? Do you know the exact measure of sin (assuming for a second that sin could be measured) that it takes to deny salvation? Of course you don't! But you're attempting to allow yourself to think you might be "reasoning" it out via analogies.
God expects us to control our actions. Unrepentant sin is unforgiven sin.
If the gay Christian continues to commit sin, in thought and action (just as every straight Christian does), but receives salvation anyway, wouldn't this be a case of a gay sinner entering Heaven?
Can you name any such person who has entered Heaven? The thief on the cross was supposed to go to paradise that very day, but only after he had repented all of his sins. By denying that homosexuality is a sin, these folks deny their victims the possibility of repentance.
Thanks for posting the article, though. I've forwarded it around to several people who've used the enclosed e-mail address to send their support in preventing the homosexual agenda from hijacking the March For Life.
Whatever the problems you may have with the gay movement, the issue was whether or not gay Christians have as equal a claim to salvation through Christ as do straight Christians. The theological consensus among Christians seems to imply that they do, as long as the normal prerequisites are met. But it is a fact that straight Christians regularly fall from their observant behavior into sin. They know they are sinning, but they do it anyway because they succumb to temptation. As I understand Christian belief, this would not cause them to lose their salvation as long as they get right with God. I would assume that a gay Christian could also recover in the same way.
Thinking about how you'd like to kill someone, even thinking about how'd you'd like to do it, is a clear example of a sinful thought. Having the thought pop into your mind and be immediately rejected is not a sin.
I understand. But are you denying that contemplating sinful behavior, especially illicit sex these days, is uncommon among Christians? The Promise Keepers organization was basically founded to address this problem in the Christian Church.
Do you know the exact measure of sin (assuming for a second that sin could be measured) that it takes to deny salvation? Of course you don't! But you're attempting to allow yourself to think you might be "reasoning" it out via analogies.
No, Sir, I am simply reading Christian scripture and attempting to understand what one has to do to achieve entrance into Heaven. I don't think that's unreasonable or presumptuous for anyone to do given what is at stake, if the Christian story is true.
God expects us to control our actions. Unrepentant sin is unforgiven sin.
But we can't always control our actions, even though we may wish to. Everyone falls from sinless behavior eventually. And the only point that I made was that a heterosexual sin will buy you a ticket to Hell just as easily as a homosexual sin will.
So long as you can acknowledge that any homosexual act is a sin.
And just remember that a cornerstone of the homosexual agenda in Christian Churches is to fool Christians into denying that homosexual acts are sinful.
It's an old memory - it predates the World Wide Web. If I can find anything in a search, I'll do so, but I'm not even sure how to form the query right now.
Shalom.
No. I said nothing about morality. Sorry, I thought it was implicit in my response that those who trample on the Constitution and Bills of Rights (felons, terrorists and Klansmen, for example) have no place at the March for Life, for obvious reasons.
"...but you would deny Nellie the same right? "
Is it her right?
The first sentence on the March for Life homepage reads: The MARCH FOR LIFE is the collective effort of grassroots prolife Americans to assure that our laws protect the right to life of each human being. Plagal is grassroots, prolife, and American. What's the problem, here? Why can't they be welcomed with the caveat, applying to all participants -- straight, gay, or liberal Democrat, that especially because the March includes so many youngsters and conservative Christians, any overt sexuality doesn't belong.
Nowhere on the Website is the March referred to as the: Nellie Gray March for Life. Ms. Gray doesn't own the March. It is a tax-exempt non-profit and therefore owes a modicum of tolerance toward law-abiding, tax-paying Americans who wish to peacefully participate in a march on their own Nation's Capital.
Listen, Argee, I wish all openly, flagrantly gay men and women would go back into their, no doubt, tastefully appointed, cedar-lined closets and stay there. What they do together in those closets I don't want to know. (I don't even want to think about...)
But they, and other atypical pro-life organizations, have an important place in the pro-life mainstream for reasons that benefit our cause and therefore the unborn.
First, they break the false stereotype of pro-lifer as right-wing, fundamentalist Christian male trying to foist his religious morality on poor, helpless women (by bombing clinics, of course.) Gay men tend not to be Baptists and most feminists are not men. This narrow stereotype has been an enormous handycap as it allows pro-aborts and the complicit media to portray all pro-lifers as one isolated group of fanatics to be dismissed or preferably jailed.
Shunning gay, feminist and atheist pro-life organizations only supports the notion of pro-lifer as Morality Cop. This is very bad PR in a very wicked PR war waged by NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, et al.
I could go on and on, obviously. We may have to agree to disagree, but I enjoy the thread!
We will have to agree to disagree. I will grant you a point and ask you to grant one to me.
I'll grant you, Nellie may be shooting herself in the foot by exercising her right.
Will you grant me: we have been quiet about the fact that homosexual behavior is a perversion that is better treated than tolerated for far too long?
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.