I understand that most people have an issue with the "acts" associated with homosexuality. What I am having trouble understanding is the double standard that exists between straight and gay couples. For example, there is one couple who commits homosexual acts (presumably outside of marriage as only a few states have legalized same-sex marriage). Another different couple commits heterosexual acts, also outside of marriage. Both actions are sinful according to the bible, right? Why is there only outrage and controversy surrounding the homosexual acts? I'm guessing that pre-marital sex between heterosexuals is just as rampant in America as homosexual sex. However, I can't remember the last time I saw a 6-page thread on BGP discussing the sinfulness of pre-marital sex. Again, it's really the double standard that is confusing to me. Not to mention, at the end of the day, as long as all those engaging in "sinful" sex acts repent for their sins, they're still getting into heaven. With that being said, I will refer back to the question in my original post: Why does it matter a sexual act is sinful or not, knowing that all people--gay, straight, or otherwise--still have a way to get to heaven?

 

Gotcha. I posted in a thread (probably last year) the same basic idea. Why such a strong denouncement of homosexuality and a glaring oversight of promiscuity of heterosexuals? It really does seem to be a double standard. I think that it hits too close to home for some.

Gotcha. I posted in a thread (probably last year) the same basic idea. Why such a strong denouncement of homosexuality and a glaring oversight of promiscuity of heterosexuals? It really does seem to be a double standard. I think that it hits too close to home for some.

 

 

Ha! No kidding. I'd guess that a lot of people who denounce homosexual acts as sinful engaged in some kind of heterosexual pre-marital sex. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there are some involved in this BGP discussion who making those claims while conveniently ignoring their own sinful past. It drives me nuts that some people are so oblivious to their own hypocrisy. :irked:

It really does seem to be a double standard. I think that it hits too close to home for some.

 

Let me take a stab at it. The church has always stood against homosexuality as well as sex outside of marriage for heterosexuals. I do not see a double standard that the church is taking because...............

 

I think the church feels that it is being attacked by a world that claims that homsexuality is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

The church does not feel as though they are being attacked by a world that claims that pre-marital sex is acceptable in hte eyes of the Lord.

No one is claiming that people are "born" having pre-marital sex, but others are claming that people are "born" with homosexuality.

Therefore the homosexual issues are the ones that the church is most vocal about.

It is not a double standard, both are wrong, but only one of those issues seems to be thrusted into the spotlight.

 

I am not asking if you agree, but do you at least understand my attempt to explain this?

Let me take a stab at it. The church has always stood against homosexuality as well as sex outside of marriage for heterosexuals. I do not see a double standard that the church is taking because...............

 

I think the church feels that it is being attacked by a world that claims that homsexuality is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

The church does not feel as though they are being attacked by a world that claims that pre-marital sex is acceptable in hte eyes of the Lord.

No one is claiming that people are "born" having pre-marital sex, but others are claming that people are "born" with homosexuality.

Therefore the homosexual issues are the ones that the church is most vocal about.

It is not a double standard, both are wrong, but only one of those issues seems to be thrusted into the spotlight.

 

I am not asking if you agree, but do you at least understand my attempt to explain this?

Looks good! :thumb: Now can you flow chart it?

Let me take a stab at it. The church has always stood against homosexuality as well as sex outside of marriage for heterosexuals. I do not see a double standard that the church is taking because...............

 

I think the church feels that it is being attacked by a world that claims that homsexuality is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

The church does not feel as though they are being attacked by a world that claims that pre-marital sex is acceptable in hte eyes of the Lord.

No one is claiming that people are "born" having pre-marital sex, but others are claming that people are "born" with homosexuality.

Therefore the homosexual issues are the ones that the church is most vocal about.

It is not a double standard, both are wrong, but only one of those issues seems to be thrusted into the spotlight.

 

I am not asking if you agree, but do you at least understand my attempt to explain this?

 

I never asked for any explanation. I never mentioned "the" church (as if there was only one...lol) in any of my posts. I am speaking of individuals.

We all sin. This, I think we can all agree on. My understanding is that Jesus died for our sins, so all sinners can make it into heaven if they accept Jesus as their personal savior. For those who believe homosexuality is a sin: Do homosexuals who have accepted Jesus as their savior make it to heaven too? I'm guessing many will answer yes to this question, otherwise you would have to agree that Jesus did not die for our sins. And if that is the case, why the discussion? If everyone can get a free pass into heaven by accepting Jesus, why bother worrying about these "sins", especially those that have really no negative impact on society. (And BTW, these "victimless sins" that I refer to are not limited to just homosexuality. I'd also add a lot of the other seemingly outdated Scripture-based laws in Leviticus.)

 

Serious questions. I truly don't understand everyone's uproar over an act between two consenting adults, when in fact, even if homosexuality is considered sinful within the Bible, a Christian homosexual still makes it to heaven. Anyone care to explain this to me?

I think that is a rational thought that most of us have had at one time. We may think it doesn't matter if we sin or not because we have forgiveness of sins and we will go to Heaven anyway. That is a fallacy in thinking and very dangerous way to live and is a mockery of God's grace.

 

Forgiveness of sin requires more than just accepting Jesus. When Peter preached the first Gospel sermon on the day of Pentecost in the book of acts he detailed Christs sacrifice, death, burial and resurrection. He told how his death was on the hands of those who crucified him and that He was now made Lord and Christ and was sitting on the right hand of God. The people were pricked in their hearts and they asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do" Peter told them "Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" On that day about 3000 of them were baptised and were added to the Lord's Church.

 

The need for repentance is repeated throughout the NT as a requirement for salvation. We cannot just continue to sin and think that God's grace will cover us. We all sin and fall short daily, and we can receive forgiveness if we truly repent of that sin and continue to TRY to live by putting that sin behind us and not repeat it. But we have to try and we have to turn away from that sin, even though we may sometimes fail in our weakness.

 

What you are suggesting would be a mockery to God and would not be repentant, IMO. Paul addresses this in his letter to the Roman church. He details how Adam brought sin into the world and many were condemned by it, and how Jesus death, grace abounded to cover our sins. (Rom 5:12-21) Then the next verse in Romans 6:1 Paul rights "What shall we saythen? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid"

Ha! No kidding. I'd guess that a lot of people who denounce homosexual acts as sinful engaged in some kind of heterosexual pre-marital sex. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there are some involved in this BGP discussion who making those claims while conveniently ignoring their own sinful past. It drives me nuts that some people are so oblivious to their own hypocrisy. :irked:

It's likely you are correct. Does that make either act less sinful?

Why such a strong denouncement of homosexuality and a glaring oversight of promiscuity of heterosexuals?

 

This question is from one of your posts.

Gotcha. I posted in a thread (probably last year) the same basic idea. Why such a strong denouncement of homosexuality and a glaring oversight of promiscuity of heterosexuals? It really does seem to be a double standard. I think that it hits too close to home for some.

 

Ha! No kidding. I'd guess that a lot of people who denounce homosexual acts as sinful engaged in some kind of heterosexual pre-marital sex. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there are some involved in this BGP discussion who making those claims while conveniently ignoring their own sinful past. It drives me nuts that some people are so oblivious to their own hypocrisy. :irked:

 

No hypocrisy by me, I am a sinner, I fall short on a daily basis. I desire to do better and I repent and ask for forgiveness on a regular basis. It is only because of God's grace and mercy that I have any hope of receiving salvation. I am thankful that he loves a worm like me enough to allow me that hope.

 

 

Premarital sex is just as much a sin as homosexual sex. So is lying. So is stealing. No excuses, people are sinful. We have no hope without repentance and the blood of Jesus to wash those sins away.

I never asked for any explanation. I never mentioned "the" church (as if there was only one...lol) in any of my posts. I am speaking of individuals.

As a matter of fact, I would say that there is only one. The one Jesus established, His church. The Kingdom of God. Christ built his church and he died for her. It is man who has built divisions.

 

Of course there is no room in this already crowded discussion for this topic, but it is a good one. :thumb:

Sorry for not being clear enough, but your answer was what I was expecting. You have a literal interpretation of that passage/statement, which led you to believe (rightly so, IMO) that Jesus is the way to salvation.

 

I consider it a metaphorical statement, not a literal one.

 

I see it as accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior you can get to heaven.

If one denounces Christ, do you think one still can get to heaven?

 

I see it that way, too, but evidently if I take anything in the Bible as metaphorical or allegorical then I am wrong, which I assume means that I am destined for hell.

 

Ok, TB&G, I'm confused. You say that you think the statement that Christ is the way to salvation, then you state that you think that that particular scripture is metaphorical, not literal. When RTS says that "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior you can get to heaven" you agree.

 

At the risk of sounding obtuse, what do you believe? I'm confused. Do you believe that Christ is the only way to Heaven or not?

I'm not sure how this discussion has turned into comparing how Christians feel about homosexuality in comparison to heterosexual sin. It's not remotely true that Christians condone heterosexual sin but denounce homosexual sin. I don't know where those dots were connected, but a pure fallacy, nonetheless.

This question is from one of your posts.

 

Again, I never mentioned "the" church. I am interested in individual beliefs.

Ok, TB&G, I'm confused. You say that you think the statement that Christ is the way to salvation, then you state that you think that that particular scripture is metaphorical, not literal. When RTS says that "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior you can get to heaven" you agree.

 

At the risk of sounding obtuse, what do you believe? I'm confused. Do you believe that Christ is the only way to Heaven or not?

 

I'm lost on what you are lost about. We need a GPS. :lol:

 

I believe that accepting Christ as my personal savior is the only way to Heaven. I believe that the wording of "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" is a metaphorical, instead of literal statement. That "through me" part is very ambiguous and my interpretation is what I mentioned about the acceptance of Christ as my savior. It surely is not an original interpretation, but one that I agree with.

I'm not sure how this discussion has turned into comparing how Christians feel about homosexuality in comparison to heterosexual sin. It's not remotely true that Christians condone heterosexual sin but denounce homosexual sin. I don't know where those dots were connected, but a pure fallacy, nonetheless.

 

Perhaps the disconnect again comes with the difference between individuals vs a church teaching. I know far too many individuals that denounce homosexuality while they themselves partake in premarital (or even other-marital) sex yet are members of religions that denounce both.

 

I wish that there was a way to know numbers, but in my personal life I know way more heterosexuals that engage in premarital (or other marital) sex than homosexuals. Yet, for some reason the big push is that homosexual sex will bring God's wrath on our country while no one is even mentioning the former. If a fast food chain spoke out against pre-marital (or again, other marital) sex or said that we were wrong for shaking our fists at God in saying that marriage vows didn't have to occur before sex, their support would be lukewarm at best.