Can gay people go to heaven?

[Straw Man]

Unfortunately, I can't make such a claim.
Because his words are consistent with other parts of Scripture, including the Old Testament, and with the words of Jesus Christ.

so you're a fornicator

basically the same status as an "effeminate"

so no kingdom of heaven for you

[MCWAY]

so you're a fornicator

basically the same status as an "effeminate"

so no kingdom of heaven for you

Technically, you're right. HOWEVER......

Once again, you forget verse 11. There's this thing called repentance and salvation through Jesus Christ.

[Straw Man]

Technically, you're right. HOWEVER......

Once again, you forget verse 11. There's this thing called repentance and salvation through Jesus Christ.

same goes for the gays.....right?

[Straw Man]

Your assumption is incorrect. See Romans 1:26-32.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
    and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
    And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,   being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

My guess would be non-effeminate homosexuals.
Again, you forget verse 1 Cor. 6:11. Unfortunately, so do a lot of people.

you bring up a great point

all we can ever do with the bible is make guesses

when this guy Pual supposedly wrote "abusers of themselves with mankind"

I'm going to guess he was talking about child molestors

either that or some other kind of fornicator

[loco]

Can gay people go to heaven?

I pose this question in a historical context: it used to be a commonly held belief in the United States that only white people could go to heaven.  Blacks, Native Americans, and others went somewhere else—not necessarily to hell, but definitely not to heaven.  Given the hostility to gay marriage and the unwelcome climate of most churches in the U.S. to gays and lesbians, I wonder if many churchgoers today believe that gays and lesbians can go to heaven.

YES

If a homosexual repents of all his/her sins(including having sex with someone of the same gender), and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, he/she(gays/lesbians) will go to Heaven.  They are no longer homosexuals because they have repented of that sin.  They may still be gay/lesbian because of a remaining sexual attraction to people of the same gender.  Their chances of making it to Heaven are no different than it is for heterosexuals.  We all have sinned and need Jesus Christ.  

Most Evangelical Christians or "church goers" will tell you this, backed by the Bible.

The problem is that many want to deny that homosexuality is a sin when the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.  The Bible never said that being non-white was a sin.

[BayGBM]

YES

If a homosexual repents of all his/her sins(including having sex with someone of the same gender), and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, he/she(gays/lesbians) will go to Heaven.  They are no longer homosexuals because they have repented of that sin.  They may still be gay/lesbian because of a remaining sexual attraction to people of the same gender.  Their chances of making it to Heaven are no different than it is for heterosexuals.  We all have sinned and need Jesus Christ.  

Most Evangelical Christians or "church goers" will tell you this, backed by the Bible.

The problem is that many want to deny that homosexuality is a sin when the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.  The Bible never said that being non-white was a sin.

That was a widely held belief in the USA and people in the church (parishioners and church leaders) were not shy about articulating it.  In fact, even the intellectuals throughout the 19th century used the Bible specifically to justify slavery.  Many biblical scholars in early America interpreted the Pentateuch as identify blacks as condemned to slavery and morally inferior to whites.

The Old Testament articulates many things as sin that people today embrace as normative including everything from eating certain foods to premarital sex.  Would you deny those things are sins?  The Old Testament also endorses many things that today we outlaw such as polygamy.  So should people of faith live by the Old Testament or not?  Finally, the New Testament (which is the basis for Christianity) does not condemn gay and lesbian unions at all.  If the NT does not identify homosexuality as a sin why should Christians find it objectionable?  If Christians today are being guided by the OT why do they reject things like polygamy and embrace lifestyle choices the OT specifically condemns such as fornication?

[loco]

That was a widely held belief in the USA and people in the church (parishioners and church leaders) were not shy about articulating it.  In fact, even the intellectuals throughout the 19th century used the Bible specifically to justify slavery.  Many biblical scholars in early America interpreted the Pentateuch as identify blacks as condemned to slavery and morally inferior to whites.

The Old Testament articulates many things as sin that people today embrace as normative including everything from eating certain foods to premarital sex.  Would you deny those things are sins?  The Old Testament also endorses many things that today we outlaw such as polygamy.  So should people of faith live by the Old Testament or not?  Finally, the New Testament (which is the basis for Christianity) does not condemn gay and lesbian unions at all.  If the NT does not identify homosexuality as a sin why should Christians find it objectionable?  If Christians today are being guided by the OT why do they reject things like polygamy and embrace lifestyle choices the OT specifically condemns such as fornication?

Everything that you say is irrelevant.  People can argue, twist and spin the Bible all they want.  Whether or not you believe in the Bible, the fact still remains that the Bible clearly states both in the New Testament and in the Old Testament that homosexuality is a sin.  But the Bible never states that being black is a sin.

This goes back to homosexuals comparing their struggle to racism and antisemitism.  They are not the same thing, and in fact they can't compare.  Many blacks and Jews are offended by that comparison.

Yes, gays and lesbians can go to Heaven according to the Bible, if they repent of their sins(homosexuality included) and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

[Straw Man]

forget about the gays

think about how many Catholics are in hell just for eating meat on Friday

how many Christians are doing time in hell for wearing clothes woven with two kinds of cloth

[MCWAY]

YES

If a homosexual repents of all his/her sins(including having sex with someone of the same gender), and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, he/she(gays/lesbians) will go to Heaven.  They are no longer homosexuals because they have repented of that sin.  They may still be gay/lesbian because of a remaining sexual attraction to people of the same gender.  Their chances of making it to Heaven are no different than it is for heterosexuals.  We all have sinned and need Jesus Christ.  

Most Evangelical Christians or "church goers" will tell you this, backed by the Bible.

The problem is that many want to deny that homosexuality is a sin when the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.  The Bible never said that being non-white was a sin.

EXACTLY!!

It appears that Straw is trying to play some "gotcha" games. But, Scripture is quite clear on this subject.

That was a widely held belief in the USA and people in the church (parishioners and church leaders) were not shy about articulating it.  In fact, even the intellectuals throughout the 19th century used the Bible specifically to justify slavery.  Many biblical scholars in early America interpreted the Pentateuch as identify blacks as condemned to slavery and morally inferior to whites.

The Old Testament articulates many things as sin that people today embrace as normative including everything from eating certain foods to premarital sex.  Would you deny those things are sins?  The Old Testament also endorses many things that today we outlaw such as polygamy.  So should people of faith live by the Old Testament or not?  Finally, the New Testament (which is the basis for Christianity) does not condemn gay and lesbian unions at all.  If the NT does not identify homosexuality as a sin why should Christians find it objectionable?  If Christians today are being guided by the OT why do they reject things like polygamy and embrace lifestyle choices the OT specifically condemns such as fornication?

I'm afraid you're dead wrong on your claim about gay and lesbian unions. Anything REMOTELY resembling what we'd call homosexuality or gay/lesbian unions is viewed as nothing but sinful (see 1 Cor. 6 and Romans 1).

It's in BOTH Testaments. When it comes to marriage, only ONE parameter is given: a man and a woman.

Jesus Christ even spoke the words, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?'

That's male and female, not male and male, nor female and female. If there were some exemption for homosexuals, Christ would have made such. He clearly DID NOT.

This isn't an OT vs NT thing. Both testaments refer to homosexuality (or whatever term was used to coin such back in the day: sodomite, male prostitute, effeminate, abusers of self with mankind, lying with a man as one lies with a woman, etc) as wrong, pure and simple.

[MCWAY]

same goes for the gays.....right?

Yep! the key words are REPENTANCE, not excusing such behavior of claiming it's not sinful. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more". As you just said, "same goes for the gays".

[Rhino]

yeah but may lose points for gayness.

[Straw Man]

EXACTLY!!

It appears that Straw is trying to play some "gotcha" games. But, Scripture is quite clear on this subject.

.

Whatchoo talkin bout Willis

You're a fornicator which, according to your buddy Paul, is not any different in the eyes of god then being an "effeminate"

BTW - why do fundies focus so much on gays instead of Adulterers

There has got to be way more adulterers than gays and unlike gay people no one can argue that adultery is not 100% CHOICE, plus you've got the broken marriage vow

Adultery is where the money is at

why bother with minnows when you can go after a whale ?

[MCWAY]

Whatchoo talkin bout Willis

You're a fornicator which, according to your buddy Paul, is not any different in the eyes of god then being an "effeminate"

I already acknowledged that. Why do you keep harping on it, other than your obvious attempt to excuse homosexuality as not being sinful?

BTW - why do fundies focus so much on gays instead of Adulterers

Because adulterers aren't going around, claiming that their sinful behavior is a constitutional right that needs to be subsidized or legally recognized.

There has got to be way more adulterers than gays and unlike gay people no one can argue that adultery is not 100% CHOICE, plus you've got the broken marriage vow

Adultery is where the money is at

why bother with minnows when you can go after a whale ?

Loco already explained that. Besides, when people have attempted to "go after a whale", guess who keeps coming up with Clintonesque rationale for not being harder on adultery....people like you, the same ones trying to excuse homosexual behavior.

Go to the G&O thread if you don't believe me. How many times do we see threads by some of the more infantile males over there, blasting a woman, when they find out that woman has taken her cheating hubby to the cleaners (Look at all the nice thing they've said about Vanessa Bryant, Linda Hogan, Ellen Nordegren, et. al).

[Straw Man]

I already acknowledged that. Why do you keep harping on it, other than your obvious attempt to excuse homosexuality as not being sinful?

Because adulterers aren't going around, claiming that their sinful behavior is a constitutional right that needs to be subsidized or legally recognized.

Loco already explained that. Besides, when people have attempted to "go after a whale", guess who keeps coming up with Clintonesque rationale for not being harder on adultery....people like you, the same ones trying to excuse homosexual behavior.

Go to the G&O thread if you don't believe me. How many times do we see threads by some of the more infantile males over there, blasting a woman, when they find out that woman has taken her cheating hubby to the cleaners (Look at all the nice thing they've said about Vanessa Bryant, Linda Hogan, Ellen Nordegren, et. al).

how can something be a "sin" if one doesn't subscribe to that religious belief?

Seriously though, if you believe being gay is a sin and you also believe Adultery is a sin then they are both sins (according to you)

why not spend an equal or greater time in Adultery

Btw - Adulters already have the freedom  to be Adulterers and the same goes for Fornicators such as yourself

Adultery is a 100% choice, involves a broken vow taken before God (if one believes in such things), harms families, et....

Adultery is where the money is at

As you know, I think your fundie beliefs are nonsense and the same goes for fundie Muslims, Catholics, Mormons etc..

I fully believe is freedom of religion and equally, freedom to have no religion, so I have no problem tolerating your lifestyle choice

too bad you can't do the same

I would be impressed with any religious person who was capable of respecting other peoples choices and not trying to condem others as "sinners" based on their own personal beliefs

This seems to be something that mostly fundie christian and muslims do

when was the last time you saw a Hindu criticizing non-hindus for eating meat or a jew criticizing non jews for eating a cheesburger?

[loco]

how can something be a "sin" if one doesn't subscribe to that religious belief?

Seriously though, if you believe being gay is a sin and you also believe Adultery is a sin then they are both sins (according to you)

why not spend an equal or greater time in Adultery

Btw - Adulters already have the freedom  to be Adulterers and the same goes for Fornicators such as yourself

Adultery is a 100% choice, involves a broken vow taken before God (if one believes in such things), harms families, et....

Adultery is where the money is at

As you know, I think your fundie beliefs are nonsense and the same goes for fundie Muslims, Catholics, Mormons etc..

I fully believe is freedom of religion and equally, freedom to have no religion, so I have no problem tolerating your lifestyle choice

too bad you can't do the same

I would be impressed with any religious person who was capable of respecting other peoples choices and not trying to condem others as "sinners" based on their own personal beliefs

This seems to be something that mostly fundie christian and muslims do

when was the last time you saw a Hindu criticizing non-hindus for eating meat or a jew criticizing non jews for eating a cheesburger?

You have totally derailed BayGBM's thread to get some attention and to vent your hatred for evangelical Christians.  BayGBM asked a question to "church goers" and the Christians on the board answered him.  Your rant is not making any sense and it's irrelevant to the thread.

[Straw Man]

You have totally derailed BayGBM's thread to get some attention and to vent your hatred for evangelical Christians.  BayGBM asked a question to "church goers" and the Christians on the board answered him.  Your rant is not making any sense and it's irrelevant to the thread.

how have I "derailed" Bay's thread?

I don't hate fundies

I'm very tolerant of almost all religious beliefs

how about you?

[Primemuscle]

For all of you who have nothing better to do than discuss whether someone who is gay is going to heaven or not, I have this to say....get a life!

[loco]

For all of you who have nothing better to do than discuss whether someone who is gay is going to heaven or not, I have this to say....get a life!

Are you telling BayGBM to get a life?

[loco]

how have I "derailed" Bay's thread?

I don't hate fundies

I'm very tolerant of almost all religious beliefs

how about you?

LOL...I'm sure Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot thought of themselves as "very tolerant."   

[Straw Man]

LOL...I'm sure Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot thought of themselves as "very tolerant."   

I doubt it

as you well know they were ruthless dictators who killed anyone they saw as a threat to their power

[loco]

I doubt it

as you well know they were ruthless dictators who killed anyone they saw as a threat to their power

Just like you saying that you are "very tolerant" while at the same time attacking Christians on the board who already said that YES, gays and lesbians can go to Heaven if they repent of their sins and accept Jesus, just like heterosexuals.  You saying that you are "very tolerant" while at the same time posting that anyone who believes in God has a mental illness.

[Straw Man]

Just like you saying that you are "very tolerant" while at the same time attacking Christians on the board who already said that YES, gays and lesbians can go to Heaven if they repent of their sins and accept Jesus, just like heterosexuals.  You saying that you are "very tolerant" while at the same time posting that anyone who believes in God has a mental illness.

who did I attack?

just because I think someone's beliefs are nutty doesn't mean I'm attacking them

attacking someone would calling them a sinner or saying they should be condemned to death etc..

I'm very tolerant or your beliefs

Are you tolerant of mine?

[loco]

who did I attack?

just because I think someone's beliefs are nutty doesn't mean I'm attacking them

attacking someone would calling them a sinner or saying they should be condemned to death etc..

I'm very tolerant or your beliefs

Are you tolerant of mine?

You think anyone who believes in God is mentally ill and then you say that you are "very tolerant."    

MCWAY and I just said that YES, gays and lesbians can go to Heaven if they repent and accept Jesus, same as anyone else.  How is that intolerant?

We are not saying that homosexuality is a sin.  The Bible is saying it, and we believe it.

[LurkerNoMore]

so according to  Paul (or whoever actually wrote this part of the bible)

the following people will not be going to heaven:

fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, nor effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous,  drunkards,  revilers, nor extortioners

I assume non-effeminate men are Ok (provided they are not also fornicators, drunkards, etc..) and same goes for lesbians

I'm not really sure  what "abusers of themselves with mankind" refers to.   Did "Paul" provide any clarification on this

BTW - from this list it seems almost no one will be going to heaven.

McWay - I'm guessing you're somewhere on that list too.

Most likely a fornicator at the very least.

Don't forget anyone praying in church or in public will never get into heaven either. 

[Straw Man]

You think anyone who believes in God is mentally ill and then you say that you are "very tolerant."    

MCWAY and I just said that YES, gays and lesbians can go to Heaven if they repent and accept Jesus, same as anyone else.  How is that intolerant?

We are not saying that homosexuality is a sin.  The Bible is saying it, and we believe it.

no I don't

I think fundies of all religions have a form of mental illness

that's very different than simply believing in god