Is homosexuality a worse sin than promiscuity?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is homosexuality a worse sin than promiscuity or adultery?

[Lazy Agnostic]

opinion:
Most of those vehemently against homosexuality are trying desperately to extinguish the part of their psyche that can see how it may be appealing.

[The Laughing Man]

"opinion?" More like "prejudiced lie."

[Lazy Agnostic]

You mean like your out-of-context quote of Jefferson?

[The Laughing Man]

Wow. That totally absolves you of your blatant lie. I applaud you. :ahem:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Well, mine was opinion (shared by many who are not fearful of thinking for oneself); yours is in quotes and is indeed a blatant lie because I've seen a post of you being informed of it.

Will you be ammending that quote or are you one of "those" who believe lies are permissible to further "the Kingdom of Christ"?

...and please lose the sarcasm; it is unbecoming.

[mickiel]

[Seems like a fair question. I think both are sins of lust, so is it fair to say one lust is worse than another? I think some forms of lust are more perverted than others, such as child pornography. Is homosexuality more perverted than fornication, i would argue that it is, but i must include in the arguement, that all lust is sin, so just because i view one thing as more perverted than another, i still must see the sin in the other side. I would also say this;, both are sins that Jesus will forgive, so ultimately , its how Jesus deals with sin that is more important, not how we view it. Would Jesus be more forgiving to homosexuals than other humans would be, that is a define yes he would. Humans are so self-righteous, we tend to look down on others who do "things" we do not do ourselves. The ability to forgive will challange human righteousness everytime.

[themuzicman]

A sin is a sin. There is no better or worse.

Michael

[Xmansmommy]

Personally, I don't believe homosexuality is any worse that promiscuity. As Mickiel has already stated, they are both lusts of the flesh. I know some might argue that because God made man to be united with woman, that homosexuality is worse. And while it's true, God did create woman for man, He also instituted the marriage "covenant." So either sinful fulfillment of the flesh is considered an abomination to God. I don't know what the statistics are, but perhaps it would be interesting to compare the average "rate" that a promiscuous woman/man sins, with a homosexual. :hrm:

[FirstSunday33ad]

There is no “better” sin or “worse” sin – that is like being a little bit pregnant. Homosexuality is no better or worse than lying, stealing, adultery, etc, etc.

But it is that description of it that upsets some the most. They want it to be not a sin at all.

[prgmrdave]

Yesterday @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89534#post89534)
Jimmy Higgins:

Is homosexuality a worse sin than promiscuity or adultery?

It depends, of course, on how you "compare" sins. Are you asking for the Christian viewpoint here?


Yesterday @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89571#post89571)
Lazy Agnostic:

opinion:
Most of those vehemently against homosexuality are trying desperately to extinguish the part of their psyche that can see how it may be appealing.

Is the same true of those vehemently against adultery and promiscuity?

Any individual act of disobedience might have worse or not-as-bad consequences than any other individual act of disobedience.

But all sins are equally "bad" from the standpoint that once the Law is broken, it's broken. No amount of traveling under the speed limit can erase that one time you did 45 in a 25mph zone.

[Xmansmommy]

Today @ 09:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89897#post89897)
prgmrdave:
Any individual act of disobedience might have worse or not-as-bad consequences than any other individual act of disobedience.

But all sins are equally "bad" from the standpoint that once the Law is broken, it's broken. No amount of traveling under the speed limit can erase that one time you did 45 in a 25mph zone.

Very well said Dave! :smile:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 09:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89897#post89897)
prgmrdave:

Is the same true of those vehemently against adultery and promiscuity?
Nope

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89910#post89910)
Lazy Agnostic:


prgmrdave:
Is the same true of those vehemently against adultery and promiscuity?

Nope

Ah, of course not. Just those people (Christians) who are against homosexuality, right? :ahem: Your bald-faced, prejudiced lie is obvious and sickening. But I'm sure that won't stop you from vomiting it out on cue and "defending" it by diverting attention away from it.

[mickiel]

[Thats when the mirror will reflect all kinds of ugly. All have sinned , period. None of us are righteous, oh but some of us are so righteous, we measure ourselves, by ourselves, we become the standard of righteousness by which others are judged. This kind of mentality well see sin everywhere, except in themselves.

[Epoetker]

Most of those vehemently against homosexuality are trying desperately to extinguish the part of their psyche that can see how it may be appealing.

If true, (and this is actually likely)this would pretty much kill the "genetically gay" defense. My theory is that the sex instinct is a heck of a lot more pliable than we assume it is. (For good reason-nobody looks the same at 30 as they do at 40, or 50, or 60, etc., so if one is to have one of those lifelong happy marraiges one has to be able to update the preferred mental image. At least that satisfactorily explains it from a guy's perspective. Also shows why pornography is so destructive-training the mind on alternative unreal mental images will destroy the neurological bond with normal wife.

Oh, and myself, I'm generally against gayness for the whole devloping a society of narcissists bit. And for heaven's sake, WHERE ARE THE HETEROSEXUAL FASHION DESIGNERS?

[Woman]

Jinx,

[theist]

Last time I checked- sin, no matter the offense, seperated you from God. Ofcourse, I do not believe in a "gay believer".

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[mickiel]

Today @ 03:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91586#post91586)
theist:

Last time I checked- sin, no matter the offense, seperated you from God. Ofcourse, I do not believe in a "gay believer".

Christ forgives sins, which inculdes those gays committ. He died for the sins of all, gays are not excluded from that list.




in HIS grip,

rustyb

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 10:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91586#post91586)
theist:

Last time I checked- sin, no matter the offense, seperated you from God. Ofcourse, I do not believe in a "gay believer".

in HIS grip,

rustyb

Do you believe in an adulterous believer?

How about a lying believer?

A stealing believer?

A covetting believer?

Do these things disqualify you?

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Homosexuality is a condition where as promiscuity is an action.

[greyphilosophy]

Pilgrim,

Are you saying that homosexuality is better or worse than promiscuity? Which is worse, being an alcoholic or getting drunk?

~Grey

[Pilgrim]

Homosexuality is not the same as a homosexual act. Therefore I would have to say that in this case promiscuity is the worse sin. Becaue one can not be rightloy said to be promiscuous if one has not already been engaged in lose sexual practice.

[dawnghost]

05-09-2003 @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91419#post91419)
Epoetker:
Also shows why pornography is so destructive-training the mind on alternative unreal mental images will destroy the neurological bond with normal wife.

bravo! :thumb:

[Ric]

:solly: You don't know how much I wanted to say that homosexuality is a worse sin than promiscuity or adultery, but I know that they are equal.

Promiscuity and adultery is so common in today's society that it is easily overlooked and I am afraid that might be the way homosexuality might be looked at in the very near future. :solly:

[Woman]

Ofcourse, I do not believe in a "gay believer".


That's okay!

God does!


And lucky for you, he'll forgive your hubris.

[Socrates]

I've already justified these views in my posts: Homosexual activity and adultery (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=88527#post88527)
All sins are NOT equal (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=92042#post92042)It's also important to note that Jesus told the adulteress "Go and sin no more", so this would also apply to any forgiveness of those who commit homosexual activity.

[Solly]

I went with the Yes option, though I think the issue is more nuanced than the options given - as it always is. Homosexuality covers one brand of sexual activity, whereas "promiscuity" covers several things, from under age sex, to adultery and pornography.

On a "level playing field" of consenting adults, then I vote yes, since the latter is an abuse of privileges (those reserved for the marriage bed) whereas the former is an abuse of nature (yes, that old chestnut). Paul specifically targets homosexuality (in both kinds) as an evident sign of God's wrath in sinful humanity, along with idolatry, and from which they proceed on to applauding those who go against God. But Rom 2 is a warning about our response - not to judge when we are also guilty, if not in the same way. Paul highlights the goodness of God that is meant to lead to repentance, and I believe the only proper response is the presentation of the gospel, not hate campaigns. You will never eradicate it - (any more than you will eradicate simple sexual desire that even has some here "baying" at avatars (if only in jest, but perhaps not entirely, or else why was Triphicus' picture removed), - since it is part of the sinful condition of humanity.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 06:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100879#post100879)
Woman:
That's okay!

God does!


And lucky for you, he'll forgive your hubris.

God believes in gay believers?
by stating this, are you saying that 'gay christians' are going to heaven?

[themuzicman]

Just like covetous Christians and lying Christians and stealing Christians and adulterous Christians and.... (judgemental Christians)

Get the idea?

Michael

[Steven]

it goes against nature

[Ric]

Today @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101477#post101477)
Steven:

it goes against nature

http://theologyweb.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=101477



:rofl:

[kilnerad]

I'm not taking one side or another, but I believe that God sees that all sin is the same.

I refuse to call homosexuality a sin, because I believe that the church may be living a lie right now with their stance on homosexuality.

All sin is hurtful to God though. It is really irrelevant whether one is worse than the other, because all sin takes away from the Glory of God. I don't think that you can actually measure which is the worst.

I think you homophobes need to lighten up. You aren't going to change people's minds on homosexuality. They'll do it whether you want them to or not. You won't be able to win over these homosexuals to Jesus Christ if you continue to judge them either. Personally, I believe that the church needs to do away with the laws on homosexuality in the same way that the early church (instigated by Paul) did away with the laws on circumsicion. I think that we in the church are at a crossroads, and God is seeing if we, as a global community, will take the right path...and that path, in this day and age, would be to stop worrying about homosexuality. It's gonna happen whether we want it to or not. The most important thing to do is to Love God with everything you have, and Love your neighbour as well. You can do that, as far as I'm concerned, while being a fag.

[Pilgrim]

Did any one see the Fred Phelps flyer on Mr. Rogers. It was just plain trash.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 06:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101861#post101861)
kilnerad:
I think you homophobes need to lighten up. You aren't going to change people's minds on homosexuality. They'll do it whether you want them to or not. You won't be able to win over these homosexuals to Jesus Christ if you continue to judge them either. Personally, I believe that the church needs to do away with the laws on homosexuality in the same way that the early church (instigated by Paul) did away with the laws on circumsicion. I think that we in the church are at a crossroads, and God is seeing if we, as a global community, will take the right path...and that path, in this day and age, would be to stop worrying about homosexuality. It's gonna happen whether we want it to or not. The most important thing to do is to Love God with everything you have, and Love your neighbour as well. You can do that, as far as I'm concerned, while being a fag.

well, 'homophobes' itself is not a right word to use, but anyway... I don't agree with you in some points here. we HAVE BEEN able to win homosexuals to Christ, exactly by not judging them.

but one thing is to condemn the sinner, and another thing is to condemn the sin. the Bible is AGAINST homosexualism, it is a sin. so we should not stop worrying about it.

also, if you love God with everything you have, you will follow His orders. why should a pervertion (sorry for using this word, but this is what I think homosexualism is) separate you from Him? this just doesn't make sense.

so this is my opinion: gay christians do NOT exist. he's either gay or christian, can't be both. but a gay person can change his ways (it has happened) and give his life to Christ. is it hard? YES. and I think the church should be much stronger in union and faith to be able to deal with this nowadays, but unfortunately, it's not.

so, again, I agree with you that we should not hate homosexuals, but I disagree with you that we should not worry about them.

[themuzicman]

Since we're making up words,

What about covetousism? Or adulteryism? Or Theftism?

If homosexuals can't be christians, how can those who break other laws be Christians? Are you claiming to be perfect, or unsaved?

Michael

[dawnghost]

Today @ 03:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102136#post102136)
themuzicman:
Since we're making up words,

What about covetousism? Or adulteryism? Or Theftism?

If homosexuals can't be christians, how can those who break other laws be Christians? Are you claiming to be perfect, or unsaved?

Michael

I am not claiming to be perfect, of course not.

but I do not covet.
I do not commit adultery.
I do not steal.

I try my best. I guess that's what we should do, right?
if you commit adultery or practice theft or whatever and call yourself a christian, maybe you need to rethink your conduct.

after all, if you repent for being weak and sinning but keep on it again and again, maybe you're not trying your hardest. :wink:

[themuzicman]

"Let He who is without sin cast the first stone."

The fact is that being a Christian is just that: a state of being. It is not influenced by our actions, our sins, or our own "goodness". Yes, as Christians, we should pursue God and submit to His sanctification.

But there is no case to be made that one must stop having homosexual urges to become a Christian, nor is ther any evidence that homosexuals cannot be Christians, any more than someone who fights with other sins in their life.

I think maybe you should start loving the sinner, and letting God throw the stones.

Michael

[dawnghost]

Today @ 04:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102257#post102257)
themuzicman:
I think maybe you should start loving the sinner, and letting God throw the stones.


dawnghost
so, again, I agree with you that we should not hate homosexuals, but I disagree with you that we should not worry about them

I think maybe you should have paid more attention to what I had said before. :smile:

my main point is not one against homosexuality though, it's against the fact that many people realize they commit 'that sin', that's an abomination to God, but do nothing to change because 'we have a sinful nature', so that'd be something natural.

our task is to become closer and closer to God. would you actually consider yourself a christian if you cheated on your wife?

Jeremiah 23:14
"Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing:
The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood;
And they strengthen the hands of evildoers,
So that no one has turned back from his wickedness.
All of them have become to Me like Sodom,
And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.

[themuzicman]

Yes. Not because I think adultury is OK, but because being a Christian isn't about what I do good or bad. It's about who I am in Christ. And adultury doesn't change who I am in Christ.

Michael

[Woman]

dawnghost,

When were your wings and halo issued? You don't sin anymore? Would you consider yourself then to be far above the rest of us?

Frankly, your self righteous attitude is exactly the thing that turns more people away from the church than toward it. I take it you are also NOT a typical Christian who believes in salvation by faith alone?

There is one sin you may want to contemplate, one of the "deadly" ones...Pride.

May God grant you humility, love for others and a broader vision.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 05:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102847#post102847)
Woman:
dawnghost,

When were your wings and halo issued? You don't sin anymore? Would you consider yourself then to be far above the rest of us?

did I claim to be better than you?


Frankly, your self righteous attitude is exactly the thing that turns more people away from the church than toward it. I take it you are also NOT a typical Christian who believes in salvation by faith alone?

yes, I believe in salvation by faith alone. but do you think you have no responsabilities whatsoever just because you've accepted Christ's sacrifice? please! grow up a little bit. I never said you needed to be perfect, but you have to try to be the best you can be.


There is one sin you may want to contemplate, one of the "deadly" ones...Pride.

what the heck? if I were to play your cheap little game, look what I'd say: "there is one sin you may want to contemplate: envy" :duh: come on, you don't even know me.


May God grant you humility, love for others and a broader vision.

that to you too. :ahem:

[Woman]

dawnghost

what the heck? if I were to play your cheap little game, look what I'd say: "there is one sin you may want to contemplate: envy" come on, you don't even know me.

dg,

Of course I don't know you. I only know what you think. You've made it clear that you believe people who are living in sin are not "Christians."

Can you really not see how hurtful this is to most people? Most people ARE sinners. They sin over and over again. If you are telling them that to come to Christ means they won't sin any more or that if they do they aren't "real" Christians - how is that doing God's work? You asked someone if they cheated on their wife would they still be a Christian? Of course they would. Sinning doesn't make you an ex-Christian. Does your church teach you this?

My statement stands.

Thank-you for your blessings.

[Pilgrim]

I don't know woman. If someone lived in continual and un repentant sin then I think it is fair to question them and even to come to the conclusion that their faith is not genuine.

After all, accountability and discipline and discipleship are a large part of what it is to live in the community of faith. In fact those are the very reasons God calls us to live in community, so we can hold each other accountable.

Scripture clearly lays out the models by which we may do this letting us know that our place is not God's but that we are care takers one for another.

Just my $0.02

[Vorkosigan]

I don't know woman. If someone lived in continual and un repentant sin then I think it is fair to question them and even to come to the conclusion that their faith is not genuine.

Or maybe they have a different idea of what it means to believe in god or live in sin. I know Christians who argue that unless you are a pacifist you are not in fact a Christian....or Christians who argue that pacifism is incompatible with Christianity. Who is right?



After all, accountability and discipline and discipleship are a large part of what it is to live in the community of faith. In fact those are the very reasons God calls us to live in community, so we can hold each other accountable.

Yes, this is a common method of social control in authoritarian states -- get the community to report on the community. This is another reason why what you call love we see as authoritarian power.

Additionally, I thought the whole idea of Protestantism was to free each person to respond to God in his or her own way. It appears that you guys got rid of the Pope, and replaced him with each other.


Scripture clearly lays out the models by which we may do this letting us know that our place is not God's but that we are care takers one for another.

You seem to have confused "caretaker" with "judge."

Vorkosigan

[themuzicman]

Today @ 09:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103117#post103117)
Pilgrim:

I don't know woman. If someone lived in continual and un repentant sin then I think it is fair to question them and even to come to the conclusion that their faith is not genuine.

After all, accountability and discipline and discipleship are a large part of what it is to live in the community of faith. In fact those are the very reasons God calls us to live in community, so we can hold each other accountable.

Scripture clearly lays out the models by which we may do this letting us know that our place is not God's but that we are care takers one for another.

Just my $0.02

BUT, none of that affects the assurance of our salvation.

Michael

[dawnghost]

Today @ 07:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102910#post102910)
Woman:
Of course I don't know you. I only know what you think. You've made it clear that you believe people who are living in sin are not "Christians."

no, clearly you do not know what I think. but I will post it again, in hopes that you'll actually read it this time:


dawnghost:
yes, I believe in salvation by faith alone. but do you think you have no responsabilities whatsoever just because you've accepted Christ's sacrifice? please! grow up a little bit. I never said you needed to be perfect, but you have to try to be the best you can be.


Woman:
Can you really not see how hurtful this is to most people? Most people ARE sinners. They sin over and over again. If you are telling them that to come to Christ means they won't sin any more or that if they do they aren't "real" Christians - how is that doing God's work? You asked someone if they cheated on their wife would they still be a Christian? Of course they would. Sinning doesn't make you an ex-Christian. Does your church teach you this?

no, my church does not teach me this. it teaches me that when you make a commitment, you should honor that commitment, though. to a person, or to God.

about cheating on your partner, as an example: you have a husband. you cheat on him. then you are sorry and you repent. but then you cheat on him again. and again. and again! I am not seeing you put a lot of effort here to honor your commitment to your husband now.

I sin, you sin, everybody sins. but to get lazy on your conduct because Christ's payed the ultimate sacrifice for us... that's just childish.


Woman:
My statement stands.

what a coincidence. so does mine.

[Epoetker]

Or maybe they have a different idea of what it means to believe in god or live in sin. I know Christians who argue that unless you are a pacifist you are not in fact a Christian....or Christians who argue that pacifism is incompatible with Christianity. Who is right?

The one whose argument is most grounded in the clearest reading of the Scripture. Given your penchant for multiplying and muddying definitions for everything from "neoconservative" to "terrorist" to "democracy," (usually, I'm afraid, when you begin to lose the arguments on the merits) I'm not sure that argument is the way to reach you. If the right conclusion disagreed with your atheistic preconceptions, you'd probably start questioning the meaning of "pacifism," "violence," and "Christian."


Yes, this is a common method of social control in authoritarian states -- get the community to report on the community.

Your insinuation is foolish and ignorant. Accountability is also a common method of keeping businessess in free societies honest and hard-working. No one would invest in a business that kept all its earnings secret and expected the shareholders to come knocking. Learning about a business through appreticeship (now known as internship) is a time-honored tradition in ALL societies. And anyone who's hired a personal trainer to discipline them in the various fields of physical fitness can attest to the verse "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."


This is another reason why what you call love we see as authoritarian power.

Is this the root of your worldview? Do you see all uses of power as intrinsically evil? Do you think all "personal" choices, no matter how asinine or destructive, must be honored?


Additionally, I thought the whole idea of Protestantism was to free each person to respond to God in his or her own way.

No, the whole idea of Protestantism was at first to get the established church to cease what we believed to be unscriptural practices. We broke away after much warring and debate, and since, then, the presence of an outside Christian critic, while possessing its own problems, has motivated the Catholic church to reform itself for the better.


It appears that you guys got rid of the Pope, and replaced him with each other.

Yes, exactly. Due to the inherent moral danger in allowing a single fallible person to proclaim their interpretation of Scripture as infallible truth, we went for a more decentralized system, that, as I've said, served better on the outside to reform the church over the centuries than it ever could have if it had stayed in.

Incidentally, this pretty much mirrors the peer review process in those scientific journals you idolize, but I never hear you complaining about their "authoritarianism."

[kilnerad]

Following Jesus is not about following a set of rules. We have already destroyed our relationship with God by sinning. God has healed that relationship through the death of his son on a cross, and through the disposal of our sin in the depths, and through the resurrection of his son. God has healed our relationship. Because of this very act God can accept liars, thieves, homosexuals, the homeless, the poor, the lame, racists, etc. into his Kingdom.

Study the word Grace (in a theological context of course), and you'll know what I mean. A good resource is Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?"

[Wayfarer]

Quite a bit going on here. I think the most scriptural standpoint is to acknowledge that Christ didn't just die for your sins. He has become your life. He gave His life for your life. You no longer belong to you, but Christ. As His body we are the expression of Him here on earth. With that said, we need to understand that I have been crucified with Christ and I am now resurrected with Him.

So what does all that mean. When sin is evident in my life then my nature is the image people see. When sin is not evident in my life then Christ is the image people see. When the image is more of me then I am obviously still in the process of learning to yield to Christ. This in no way absolves me of the sin, Christ has already done that. If I am truly living in the understanding that I am crucified with Christ then I must also understand that when the old nature seems to be evident I must stop looking to my nature as a sign. Since that nature was crucified on the cross it no longer has dominion over me, Christ does.

Sounds quaint and Christian like, but the reality is I must first understand that the old man died and a new man has been resurrected. If I choose to use the ways of the old mand to determine my reality then my reality will be a life filled with death. If I choose to use the ways of Christ, then my life is filled with life. We must always remember that this life is a process of Christ being manifest in His body. If sin is evident in my body that doesn't mean I am not a believer. People throw the "Christian" buzz word around because they are speaking of or promoting a culture of people Jesus never intended to exist, Christianity.

The disciples were first called Christians as they were being crucified. It was the same mocking Jesus warned His disciples would happen to them. The Roman soldiers were mocking them and calling them "little Christs" because they were dying the same way their leader had. Not because of the life they were living. Remeber they were in hiding becuase of fear of being put to death. To try and interject a modern day mentality of "Christianity" into the first century is not very responsible exogesis.

I am a believer in Christ, not becuase of what I do, but because of what He has done. I thank Jesus daily for the longsuffering He has toward me in His understanding that the only thing that will change me is Him and His work in my life, not me trying to change me for Him. If we could not fix ourselves before the redemption of the law how is it we can fix ourselves now through our own deeds?

I know what your responses will be. I have already seen them on the post. For a reminder of who we are I suggest your read Romans Chapter 7 and be reminded of Pual's delima. If Paul is sinning as he clearly implies I guess we must consider his salvation and whether he was truly a Christian and based upon your understanding we must now determine Paul was a sinner and through out 2/3 of the New Testiment as probably influenced errant writings.

[Pilgrim]

Following Jesus is not about following a set of rules. We have already destroyed our relationship with God by sinning. God has healed that relationship through the death of his son on a cross, and through the disposal of our sin in the depths, and through the resurrection of his son. God has healed our relationship. Because of this very act God can accept liars, thieves, homosexuals, the homeless, the poor, the lame, racists, etc. into his Kingdom.

Study the word Grace (in a theological context of course), and you'll know what I mean. A good resource is Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?"
So what shall we say then, that we should sin all the more so that grace may abound?

[Cowthulu]

So what shall we say then, that we should sin all the more so that grace may abound?

Not if we listen to Paul. Roman 6:15 is pretty clear on this. :smile:

[Pilgrim]

Not if we listen to Paul. Roman 6:15 is pretty clear on this. :smile:
:thumb: