Why is it so hard to have a dialogue about homosexuality?

[cool_name123]

Please Read What My Question Actually Is Before Responding to The Title of this Post


So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this. I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed if another thread were to form or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love ethic than it does a Sexual ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental and we need to change how we approach this issue. This point, when flushed out in further detail, is meant to garner a bit of empathy towards those being affected by the church on this matter.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used my speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus ask us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely pederasty, or a more dominant kind of relationship between an adult and a child (or temple supported male prostitution). The word Paul uses here (Arsenokoitēs) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of... But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (a word that is quite commonly translated as pederasty) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed that one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 20 by ThePainefulTruth]

"The universe was either created by God or came into existence spontaneously. The burden of proof, or even to ask that we put our faith in one idea or the other as the Truth, is on whoever claims to possess the certain answer or body of hard evidence."

Have I asked you to put your faith in one idea or another yet?

Then why do you make this statement? Are you attempting to copout from the reality in which you live? Are you attempting to find or create a way of saying "you must provide proof" to me, so that you may feel confident and justified in your own doubt?

I have not asked you to put your faith in one idea or another.

I have declared to you that I have seen sufficient proof of God by contact with my own senses and communication between Him and I.

It is up to you whether you decide to hear that testimony or not. And I have not pushed you to believe blindly what I say.

Please notice your behavior here, for you wish to justify your position to yourself by projecting things onto me that I have not said. There has to be a motive as to why you do this. In this discussion, you have listed your motive as "hate." And I am sure that is part and parcel of it. But I advise you to not lie to yourself about me or what I am speaking, that you may convince yourself that you are justified in what you say.

So let me be clear again:

I believe God exists, not blindly, and not on faith alone...but because I have met Him. I have only my testimony, and you may choose to accept or reject it at will, but I urge you to not do so lightly.

Whatever it is that you believe about life, the universe, and everything...I am sure that you do not have a quality of proof that meets or exceeds my quality of proof for my beliefs.

For, if you believe in common descent taught by Evolution...then you know that you have no proof of such a belief, but only things which you grasp at to support it. For no man has ever seen one "kind" of animal descend from a lineage of another "kind" of animal. We have fossil records, which evolutionists claim, by blind religious faith in their beliefs, can provide reasoning to suggest common descent....but they do not have an actual example of it by which they have seen it occur naturally. They have no testimony of it. And one might readily admit "such a thing can't be seen...because it takes millions of years", as if that is a defense and justification. But it is not a defense and justification. It is an admission of a lack of proof. That which you call a defense and justification....is a lack of proof and infact an admission of inability to prove. So call it what it is...a lack of proof.

So if your standard is "One must provide proof for their beliefs"...then why do you not provide proof for your own beliefs *to yourself, for yourself*?

The answer is: Because you were ready and willing to accept that teaching blindly, for your heart sought an alternative explanation. And if lesser support could be found for it...you were willing to accept it on lesser support.

Now, I cannot give to you that which I have seen and experienced. It is impossible for me to put a cable connection to my brain, connect it to yours, and download my memories. But the fact remains...if my testimony is true....then my proof for my beliefs *to me, for me* is far superior than the proof which you have for your beliefs *to you, for yourself*.

Therefore, we are at an impass when it comes to exchanging proofs, for I can neither provide proof of God to you, nor can you provide proof of evolution (or whatever it is you may believe) to me.

The difference is...I have seen my proof. But you have not seen your proof. I have seen and met God and His angels. You have not seen a controlled natural scientific environment in which one "kind" naturally produced offspring in its ancestry that was of a different "kind."

So, as a result of the weakness of your argument, you will convince yourself that my testimony is false. That I am a liar, or crazy, or some other scapegoated excuse. And you cannot prove that excuse either, can you? But you will believe it. Not because you can prove it...but because you want to believe the excuse that you would create against my testimony.

Now you understand why you end up banging your head against a wall. You lack sufficient proof for your beliefs, when you speak your beliefs against another man whose beliefs are contrary to yours and yet far more proven to him than yours are to you.

This isn't about me proving my beliefs to you, or about you proving your beliefs to me.

This is about me proving my beliefs TO ME, and you proving your beliefs TO YOU.

You should take a moment to reflect on whether it is possible for you to receive such proof as I have received also. For you have said "bring me your proof" when I cannot bring you my proof. But you can still receive proof if you search for it yourself.

If you remain in bondage to your emotions and desires, as a slave to your flesh and mind...then you will never choose to seek proof of God. For you willingly deny the seeking of it. And if you do not seek, then how can you find? And if you do not ask, how can it be given? God respects your will even more than you respect your own will.

If you say to yourself "I will not allow my desires and mind and predispositions to cause me to cop out of seeking truth even if the truth goes against everything I have ever wanted to be true" and then you ask God to reveal Himself to you, not out of anger toward Him, or of demanding or testing Him...but out of true desire to find and meet Him.....

Then you will be granted sufficient proof in your own unique way, from God, which will become undeniable and very real to you. And you will become converted, not against your Will, but in a manner in which your Will itself is converted, and your heart changed, and your hatred of other things to love of other things. And not wrongly so. You might think it wrongly so, but if you actually met the Presence of God...how would it be wrong that God proved His existence to you?

But you need to deeply and genuinely ask, out of humility, not pride or anger or hatred.

If you do not ask, and you wish to not be in His Presence...He *Will* respect those wishes, and keep Himself from your presence.

But if you do ask, and you wish to be in His Presence...He *Will* respect that wish also, and reveal Himself to you. And you will then finally have your proof.

And the proof of your desire to seek proof of His existence is formulated by your quest to read a Bible with the true-hearted attempt to believe it could really be true.

And if that happens....

You will not be able to share that proof with others, either. For it is experiential, and it is meant for you and you alone. And such proof is granted only to those who seek to find it.

For if God gave sharable proof, then He would be violating the wishes of those who do not desire to see proof of His existence. It would be wrong of Him to do so, and it would violate His Holiness.

So when He gives proof...it is by this standard.

What you fail to understand is if you genuinely asked, it would be provided to you. I cannot provide it. Only God provides it. And because He is holy, and respects the wishes of your heart, He will not show Himself to you if you do not want Him in your presence.

That is what true and unconditional and unimposing love does.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 20 by ThePainefulTruth]

"It's obvious you only want to go off on tangents, chase after red herrings and set up straw men, so I won't be responding to any more of them."

I do believe this thread topic was about dialogues about homosexuality, of which you were not part of the discussion.

And I do believe you were the one who entered the discussion on a rampage disclaiming Christianity, when that is not the topic of this thread.

Yet you accuse me of being the one going off on tangents.

I am willing to chase your tangents, and that is the most that I am guilty of.

[Mr.M]

Looking objectively at the bible in the historical context of its intended purpose (an instruction manual on how to live) one can readily see that Leviticus is primarily concerned with avoiding health and social catastrophe. It is no great surprise to find clarification on proper sexual behavior next to advice on what foods to avoid. For the time period it represented the law and the health department in one package. It explains why it can feel very mechanical in its recitation. I think this infers that the admonitions against homosexuality are a public safety issue revolving around the nuclear family concept it encourages. That it eventually becomes a very large issue later in Christendom is a problem of assimilation of the Greco-Roman societies to Christianity similar to paganism. Like the divinity of Jesus and the concept of hell, it seems like an idea that got carried too far.
Mind you this is only my anti theist self-trying to be objective in an opinion on your query.

[bluethread]

Mind you this is only my anti theist self-trying to be objective in an opinion on your query.

It is appreciated. It is more than we get from many atheists here. That is one reason why it is hard to have a dialogue about many things. For me expecting people to change the law such that the state has to grant legal status to a relationship between a father and son, which involves anal sex, carries things too far.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to Mr.M]

Great points made. Thank you for input that isn't just bashing a position trying to find a way to pick apart its source. As a Christian, I happen to have very similar agreement to you about the relevance of Leviticus regarding hygiene.

That said, as a Christian I still feel that Leviticus was indeed law, but that no man is able to enact that law unless he is a righteous person who can judge. At the time of Leviticus's useage...the tradition goes that the spirit of God resided within the temple (or the tabernacle for the periods where there was no temple). His residence could be seen by not just the Israelites, but also their enemies, as all people could see the cloud that surrounded the temple by day, and the pillar of smoke and fire that surrounded the temple by night.

If there was ever a question of judgment, a priest could literally go up and ask God for a decision on the matter.

But when Jesus died, God left the temple, and the curtain was torn. When he left, there was no one left to judicate the Mosaic Laws. With the spirit of God being gone from physical manifestation...so was the enforcement of the law. This is how Grace and freedom entered the stage at that point in time.

So even though those laws still apply to each of us individually...they are not enforced. And in light of their lack of enforcement, we are expected to treat each other with grace, love, and truth.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 8 by help3434]

"What choice and decision?"

The choice and decision to accept Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead.

Is it a choice if you can't believe even if you tried, or if you never heard of such a concept because you live in a time and place where Christianity is not prevalent?

If a person has never read the verse, but has heard it spoken, then it is the same as if they have read the verse.

If a person is a child or mentally handicapped and unable to comprehend, then Romans 5:13 applies:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

If a person has committed a sin, but they are truly ignorant of knowing that it was a sin...then it is not imputed. In this way, God is Gracious in a way that is totally opposite of the American System of law which declares that one is guilty of the law even if they do not know the law exists.

Apply liberally.

If a person asks God for forgiveness and to save them in whatever way that is unknown to them, and they had never had the chance to hear the Gospel, and search for salvation, and did not ever have it revealed to them that Jesus was the way, by resurrection....but they relied upon God and His unknown way to salvation...then it is conceivable that they might be saved in their ignorance. I wouldn't put a stamp of gaurantee on that, but it might be possible. But I would argue that if such a man existed on Earth....God would reveal His Word to that man through a supernatural mean (perhaps an angel, or a Bible supernaturally appearing in front of the man).

Such an extreme set of circumstances hardly occurs here. And for the most part, those who sin...know what their sin was...and they do not ask God for salvation from it. They do not seek the scriptures, even when it is in plain sight. And therefore, they are guilty and Romans 5:13 does not apply to them. Romans 5:13 is not a copout for Universalism. It is a standard of God's Grace.

I have to disagree with you there. Most people in the world are not Christians, much less Christian fundamentalists, so most people don't have the same concept of what "sin" is that you do. With your access to the internet all of the world's holy books are in plain sight in a sense. When was the last time you studied the Guru Granth Sahib? If the Sikhs are right then should you be judged for not reading and following what their scriptures say?

Assuming they do not believe in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead: According to all of the things that I have thus spoken on this thread...they are not saved. I hope you have not assumed that the things I have spoken somehow suggest that such people are saved.

Don't worry, I did not assume any such thing. You should on the other hand worry about the implication of your beliefs. People are damned even if they can't help not not believing? Doesn't sound very fair to me. Do you believe that God is not a perfect and just judge?

You are speaking to a man who has not declared that those portions of the Bible are irrelevant. I specifically stated "irrelevant to salvation doctrine." I did not state "irrelevant in general." They are very relevant, as my post acknowledged. All of those portions about repentance, traditions, law....are all very relevant. They simply are not relevant *to salvation doctrine* for they do not declare such things must be done in order to be saved. Not even those passages declare it. So then, nothing is made irrelevant outside of the place from which it was put.

"If salvation is the most important thing, then why are the things that are relevant to salvation only a tiny part of the Bible? "

I do not hold the position that the things that are relevant to salvation are only a tiny part of the Bible. Perhaps you have assumed this of me. The entire Bible is chalk full of describing itself as salvation-related. That does not mean anything was added unto salvation doctrine than simply believing Romans 10:9. Even the Bible itself does not add unto salvation doctrine anything more than this...in all of its scriptures.

You claim that the only thing relevant to salvation is believing that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead, and that "repentance, good works, continuous sinning, traditions, rituals" are irreverent to salvation. The passages that exhort people to believe that only make up a tiny percentage of the Bible, while the parts relating to " repentance, good works, continuous sinning, traditions, rituals" are much larger. And of course not everyone agrees with you interpretation on what is necessary to be saved. This is not surprising since 2 Corinthians 7:10 says the repentance leads to salvation and John 3:5 says no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit, contrary to your claim that repentance and ritual are irrelevant to salvation.

"What are your proofs that Romans 10:9 should supersede Matthew 7:21?"

I have not argued that Romans 10:9 should supersede Matthew 7:21. I do not believe Romans 10:9 supersedes Matthew 7:21, nor do I believe that Matthew 7:21 supersedes Romans 10:9. I believe they work together without contradiction. Perhaps the heart of your doctrinal question is that you feel Romans 10:9 and Matthew 7:21 contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive? This, then, means you believe scripture contradicts itself. But I do not believe there is a contradiction here.

Please note:

Matthew 7:21 does not say "Not everyone who believes in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

And Romans 10: 9 does not say "Everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into heaven."

So, I think you have made an assumption that I do not make. Namely, you have made the assumption that "Everyone who says Lord, Lord" is somehow a statement that is equivocal to "Believe in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead."

Okay, maybe they are not equivalent, but the verse is clearly contrasting those who merely say "Lord, Lord" with those who do will of the Father, it is not contrasting those who say "Lord, Lord" with those who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead. It says that those who do the will of the Father enter His Kingdom, which contradicts your claim that believing in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead is the only thing that is relevant to salvation.

I do not make that equivocation. But it appears that you do.

Thus, in my doctrinal position, I find no contradiction which requires one scripture to supersede the other.

"Why do you think confessing your mouth is sufficient for salvation when according to Matthew Jesus says that not everyone who says "Lord Lord" will be saved?"

Because Romans 10:9 declares that it is sufficient, and Matthew 7:21 does not say "belief in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead" is not sufficient.

I disagree with you there because the bible indicates that there is a lot more to doing the will of the Father than "belief in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead".

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 26 by help3434]

"Is it a choice if you can't believe even if you tried, or if you never heard of such a concept because you live in a time and place where Christianity is not prevalent?"

This is a two part question, so I will answer it in two parts:

The former part: Yes...it is still a choice even if you can't believe even if you tried. In the end, your choice is the only thing that ultimately causes your ultimate decision. In the end, it is your will which hinders or promotes your belief.

The latter part: If a person has never heard of the concept due to time and place where it cannot/could not be heard...then Romans 5:13 *may* apply, depending on the heart of the individual. But do not be fooled into thinking its an easy way out, for if a man has never heard of the Gospel, but is aware that he sinned (say, he murdered an enemy or something) and does not seek God for forgiveness...then it is irrelevant whether he knows the Gospel. For his lack of seeking forgiveness from the one and only God in light of knowing his sin of murder...is more than sufficient grounds that he does not qualify for Romans 5:13. See, the truth is this: A person does not need to know of Jesus in order to be guilty. He only need to know he sinned and committed wrong, for Romans 5:13 to no longer hold him unimputable (that is to say...it is still imputed). At that point, if he has not sought the one true God for forgiveness and ransom with language that would utter similar to "God if there be any way that you can save me that I cannot save myself...whatever this unknown manner may be...please, include me in it"...then he is not saved. But if he said such language, and was true to his heart, then it is possible that his ignorance shall be sufficient to apply Romans 5:13.

The point is...there is no copout. On judgment day, it will be their heart in light of the knowledge which they had at their time...which will determine the imputation. No man can know the pure perspective of others, in the light of the knowledge of what that individual knows. So it is impossible for any man to say with sureness whether the judgment would go one way or the other. But if you are hoping for universalism...it certainly will not be a salvation of "universal" aspect. Yet there is truly room for pure ignorance.

"I have to disagree with you there. Most people in the world are not Christians, much less Christian fundamentalists, so most people don't have the same concept of what "sin" is that you do."

I have to say you deceive yourself. I do not apply the meaning of sin to be anything greater than what the rest of the people in the world think of it. Namely, I know it is wrong to murder just as others know it is wrong to murder. I know it is wrong to steal, just as others know it is wrong to steal. And perhaps not everyone knows it is wrong to be homosexual (as an example)...but there is no man who is a homosexual where that is the only sin he ever committed. There is no man who does not have a multitude of sin which they commit on a daily basis, myself included. I do my best and still fail and sin a thousand times a day. All men know they sin a thousand times a day. But they choose to deceive themselves and claim that they do not sin a thousand times a day. You would be surprised how deceptive the heart of a man is even to his own self. Its fairly straight forward: If a man thinks he is not a sinner....he is bound to end up in hell because he will not seek for God to save him. He will find himself sufficient for his own salvation, and have no need for God to do it. That alone is the heart that determines who is and is not saved, in terms of demeanor of the heart.

"With your access to the internet all of the world's holy books are in plain sight in a sense."

If any man has no access to internet nor any holy books, but truly desires God, then God will send his angels to that man and make it available. You seem to have a need to create counterpoints out of some sort of need in your heart. You doubt God's ability to discern man's heart. I do not doubt God's ability and resulting command to save *exactly and precisely every single individual* that He intends to save. To you, it is about hypothesizing a scenario that would somehow counter-ject the surity of the Gospel, perhaps in an attempt to make it appear unfair. But there is no unfairness in it. For where there *could possibly be* unfairness...God will interject supernaturally, automatically. And He has plenty of times. All of those poor individuals that you are constructing in your hypotheses...if they did not receive a supernatural event...it is because they did not seek God for salvation from their sin, and thus it is all fair. There is no copout. There is only hope to search for a copout. I do not know if the intent is to make the Gospel appear unfair, or if the intent is to have pity for a group of people who do not ask for Jesus. But I assure you, those who you have in mind...God has already fairly determined their salvation or lack thereof.

"When was the last time you studied the Guru Granth Sahib?"

I have not heard of this person. My studies involve some knowledge of Vedic scriptures (though not much), of new age material, of Islam, of Mormonism, of Judaism, somewhat of Buddhism, somewhat of Hinduism. The primary reason Christianity is the most of my research is that, when I was young and blind, it was the only religion which had its origin in "love thy enemy, and thy neighbor as thy self" of which later religions would copy. But in addition to that, I have met the angels, I have met the Spirit of God face to face, and I have swum in His Holy Spirit of Life in a way that was spiritually tangeable in the 5 senses. So, I am far more convinced than just by logic alone...but by the evidence of the senses in addition to the logic, in addition to my experience. But since you mentioned a name, I will take time to research that man's thoughts.

"You should on the other hand worry about the implication of your beliefs. People are damned even if they can't help not not believing?"

This is a claim attempting to assert that a person does not have responsibility for their own decisions and their own beliefs, as if they do not have free will to control and decide their beliefs. All people always do. Exceptions occur only for those who are children, mentally handicapped, or of pure ignorance of the heart...in which all 3 examples Romans 5:13 is fully sufficient. You really do not have any excuse for making the claims you are making about my beliefs, regarding implications. Create whatever specific examples you desire to create to test me on the bounds of what I speak. I am willing to reveal.

"Doesn't sound very fair to me. Do you believe that God is not a perfect and just judge?"

God is perfect and just, and Romans 5:13 provides more than ample space to maintain that perfection and justice for the ignorant. You have yet to prove that you can show otherwise.

"You claim that the only thing relevant to salvation is believing that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead, and that "repentance, good works, continuous sinning, traditions, rituals" are irreverent to salvation. The passages that exhort people to believe that only make up a tiny percentage of the Bible, while the parts relating to " repentance, good works, continuous sinning, traditions, rituals" are much larger."

And none of the passages that talk about repentance, good works, sinning, traditions, and rituals....none of them say that they are required to obtain salvation. None of them. So if your argument is to say "there are so few passages which claim the only thing relevant to salvation is believing that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead" then please recognize that a few passages declaring that....are up against 0 passages which claim otherwise. You literally have *ZERO* scripture to argue that repentance, good works, remission of sin, or upholding traditions are required for salvation. So there are a few which define the salvation plan explicitly and succinctly. And there are none which contend with those few.

Do not attempt to argue that because there are only about 20 scriptures which define salvation as free...that it somehow is counterpointed by other scriptures. There are no scriptures which declare that salvation is not free. There are no scriptures which state repentance is required for salvation. There are no scriptures which declare good works are required for salvation. There are no scriptures which declare tradition is required for salvation. None.

Your argument is weak because you *ASSUME* that because scripture talks about repentance, good works, and tradition in a positive light as commands and things we should do...that it somehow means they are required to obtain salvation. But those scriptures do not say that. You say that. That is called making a doctrine of men. You use those scriptures uphold doctrines that the scriptures do not declare. That is a mistake, and misinterpretation.

"And of course not everyone agrees with you interpretation on what is necessary to be saved."

You bear false witness against me. For I have not given an interpretation at all. I cited the scripture. I believe the scripture for what it says, with no interpretation.

If Matthew 12:31 says:

"31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

Then that is exactly my doctrine. I did not write Matthew 12:31. But you would argue that I have interpreted Matthew 12:31 to mean what Matthew 12:31 says in and of itself. You are trying to convince yourself that I somehow am interpreting Matthew 12:31 to mean what it says as if I wrote it. But I did not write it. I just believe exactly what it says.

If Romans 11:6 says:

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Then that is exactly my doctrine. I did not write Romans 11:6. But you would argue that I have interpreted Romans 11:6 to mean what Romans 11:6 says in and of itself. You are trying to convince yourself that I somehow am interpreting Romans 11:6 to mean what it says as if I wrote it. But I did not write it. I just believe exactly what it says.

If John 12:44-48 says:

44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Then that is exactly my doctrine. I did not write John 12:44-48. But you would argue that I interpreted John 12:44-48 to mean what it says in and of itself. You are trying to convince yourself that I am somehow interpreting John 12:44-48 to mean exactly what it says as if I wrote it. But I did not write it. I just believe exactly what it says.

What you fail to recognize is that you are relying on your ability to strawman me, accusing me of interpreting what is already explicitly written. You hate what is written, so you wish to say I am interpreting it to mean exactly as it is written...so that you can say I am misinterpreting. But I am doing absolutely no interpreting. I am reading it as it states. How am I to convince you you are wrong if you reject exactly what it states? How am I to convince you that its not me misinterpreting, but you refusing to believe that it means what it actually states?

"This is not surprising since 2 Corinthians 7:10 says the repentance leads to salvation"

"Leads to" is not equivalent to "a requirement to obtain." You have misinterpreted, as a result, by equating the two in your own mind. Thus, you have not proven a point. You have no scripture which says "repentance is a requirement to obtain salvation" and you have no scripture which says "we are saved by repentance"...so you rely on scriptures which do not declare those things, and argue that they somehow mean those things when they do not say those things.

I can just as equally point out the verse which *explicitly* disproves your belief that repentance is a requirement of salvation...but will you heed it?

Romans 11

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

What is the topic of the entire context of Romans 11? Salvation. What is salvation called? It is called the gift and calling of God. What is verse 28 discussing? The gospel message. What is verse 29 stating is given WITHOUT repentance?

Its right there in black and white. Will you deny it? Or will you accept it for what it says?

" and John 3:5 says no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit"

A totally irrelevant passage to supporting your point. I believe no man can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. It does not run counter to anything I have stated thus far. A man is born of water when he is born of the womb of a woman. A man is born of the Spirit when he accepts Jesus as his Savior, for that is when the Holy Spirit comes upon a man and enters into him. Please notice how the word "repentance" is totally and utterly void in John 3:5. This discussion is about repentance, not about the Holy Spirit coming upon a person. Perhaps you are confused about what you think it means to have scripture that supports your point of view in contention with another point of view.

"Okay, maybe they are not equivalent, but the verse is clearly contrasting those who merely say "Lord, Lord" with those who do will of the Father"

Nowhere does scripture say a person must become obedient to God in order to obtain salvation. John 12:44-48, infact, says the explicit exact opposite. There is a scripture which declares no man can enter into heaven without obeying God...but that is not the same thing as saying a man cannot be saved without obeying God. Perhaps you think they are the same, but they are not. For one refers to the condition of a heart of a man in order to receive salvation. But the other refers to the actual day when souls enter into heaven, and of the nature of the Holy Spirit keeping and holding a person willfully in obedience with God...something that doesn't occur until it is already absolutely sure that a person is saved. Thus, again, obedience is not a requirement to obtain salvation. It is an effect. Not a cause.

"It says that those who do the will of the Father enter His Kingdom, which contradicts your claim that believing in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead is the only thing that is relevant to salvation. "

Its not my claim. Its the claim of Romans 10:9. And I just explained that above. You should examine how you are getting your causes and effects messed up. If a man never obeys God for his entire life, but believes in Jesus....he will still be saved and go to heaven. And when he is resurrected from the grave and ascends into heaven...he will, from that day forward, always be obedient to God. Thus, there is no contradiction. You wish for there to be a contradiction because your doctrine runs contrary to it and needs the contradiction to exist so that you can feel justified in your position. But that causes you to avoid John 12:44-48 like the plague, for you do not wish for John 12:44-48 to be true. Yet it is written. So it must be true. I did not write John 12:44-48. God wrote John 12:44-48.

"I disagree with you there because the bible indicates that there is a lot more to doing the will of the Father than "belief in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead"."

Never once did I ever argue that believing in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead is all there ever was to doing the will of the Father. That is a false accusation that you are making against me because you wish to believe that is what I am trying to say. But that is not what I am trying to say, and it runs completely contrary to my beliefs. There is a *LOT MORE* involved in doing the will of the Father. But should a man never do any of the will of the Father except to believe Romans 10:9....he shall still be saved. John 12:44-48 is the proof of this. Not my doctrine. Not my interpretation. Just the straight words of John 12:44-48.

I urge you to notice that your doctrine is in contradiction with the scriptures I have posted. And I urge you to notice that you yourself have not provided a single scripture which actually declares your doctrinal belief that repentance is a requirement to obtain salvation, or any other thing for that matter.

So please, if you are going to continue to contend that repentance or any other thing is a requirement to obtain salvation...then please cite the scripture which explicitly says so. Please do not cite scriptures just because they have the word "repent" in them, that talk about repentance. There seems to be a hard line issue where people are not able to understand what it means to cite a scripture which declares their doctrine explicitly. When I ask you to cite the explicit scripture...I mean to cite the explicit scripture. So again:

Please cite scripture that says: 1) "Repentance is a requirement to obtain salvation" or 2) "You are saved by repentance."

If you cannot, then please do the honest thing and formally announce that you do not have any scripture from the Bible which declares said doctrine.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 26 by help3434]

I took some time today to research Sikhism, as that is what you pointed me towards earlier. Obviously my knowledge is very limited, but based on that limited knowledge I can give you a few comments about where you might find Sikhism lacking sufficiency for salvation, that you may consider and ponder upon it.

Please note, I find Sikhs to be quite passive, peaceful, and loving. I do not hate men of any religion, and infact I do not even hate murderers, thieves, rapists, or any other person. I say this so that you understand that when I say "lacking sufficiency for salvation" that it is not a matter of hatred of the heart towards your religion...but a matter of true logical and legal lack in the spiritual courts of God.

I find it intriguing, first of all, that Sikhism seeks to find the one true God, Creator of all things. This is a good base point from which I will work.

I also find it intriguing that, in Sikhism, the focus is on serving others and serving God for good and right reasons, expecting nothing in return.

Both of these things are good.

My question to you, which I want you to ponder as you read the rest of this, is:

Do you know much about the scales of Justice by which all men are judged at the end of days, when this world comes to an end, and a new world without sin is established?

It is commonly taught in just about all of the major religions that one day God will judge man by his deeds. He will do so with a scale of justice, placing all his good deeds on one side, and all his evil deeds on the other.

The assumption that all of mankind, and all of our religions, make is that if the good outweighs the bad...then we go into heaven. And that is a misunderstanding of how the scales work. For that is not how the scales work.

In truth, there are two lines in heaven. One line leads to the scales. The other line leads to the mercy seat for all those who readily and wantoningly admit that they will not be able to beat the scales, and cry out for a ransom, that they be ransomed from it.

The line that leads to the scales is full of individuals who think they have a chance of beating the scales. But they do not know one very important fact about the scales of justice: The weights are not determined by the quantity nor the quality of the deeds. If a man commits just one evil deed, it shall act as a gravitational force upon the scale to such a degree that even if that man only had one evil deed, and a billion good deeds...the scale shall be weighed down against him.

And this might seem unfair to the people in that line, and they will scream that God is unJust. But is that the truth? For heaven cannot receive anything that has committed sin, unless that sin has been truly atoned for. And if a man has an evil deed on that scale, then his sin is not atoned for, but instead weighed. Thus, though it seems unfair, the sanctity of heaven is at stake, and he may not enter.

But in the other line are individuals who did not desire for their good deeds to be weighed against their evil deeds, thinking that their deeds could atone for their evil deeds. Instead, this line holds individuals who knew their good deeds could not atone for their evil deeds (and yet they did good deeds anyways, out of love of others, not out of love for self...to atone). These people are a people who knew that though they could never atone...God could atone *for them.* The atonement requires a perfect sacrifice from a perfect priest. Both the priest and his sacrifice must be perfect in order for the atonement to be successful. And if successful, the atonement would create a veil around those who for who the sacrifice was made for. The veil would keep them from tainting heaven. And thus, they would be allowed to enter into heaven for heaven's sanctity would not be tarnished by their presence. That priest...is Jesus, God Himself who came into the flesh. And His sacrifice...was Himself. For how else could God create a veil within His own heaven except to sacrifice a portion of Himself as a veil that we all might exist in His Presence?

Thus, all those who recognize this second line, which bypasses the scales of justice, are saved by the atoning sacrifice which creates their veil. This is why wedding ceremonies have veils covering the bride's face. It is a symbolism of how those who God marries into His family are veiled from His presence.

For no man is perfect, and all fall short of being able to beat the scales. But through this process of atonement through an especially prepared path by God Himself, men can be redeemed.

God came into this world to do what men could not do. He put on a flesh suit, became a man, and showed us what would have been required in order to meet the demands of the scales of Justice, that we might all see how far short we all fail of meeting those demands, and thus seek an alternate path to heaven than that which we obviously cannot meet.

So my final point and question for you to ponder is this:

Does Sikhism have any such man who can do such a thing for his followers?

Or does its Gurus, although they teach good principles, lack any ability or power which are convincing enough for you to trust your salvation to them or their teachings?

Do you trust your own works to be sufficient for your salvation, even if and when you do them selflessly?

Are you sure they will apply as powerfully in your favor as you hoped?

Or are you going to make a plea towards God that your actions are weak and *might* be insufficient, and ask Him to come to your rescue instead?

And consider even furthermore:

If you are doing good deeds selflessly for others, that it might atone your evil deeds on the scale...then is that not selfish in nature? Could Satan, the devil, not argue and accuse you of doing it to atone for yourself?

Thus, the only one who can ever atone for another...is one who needs no atonement themselves. This is why we need Jesus, to do it for us.

And you might want to ask yourself the following: If Christians don't need to do good works to atone for their sin...then why are they doing good works?

An evil person would argue that it means a Christian won't do good works, for they see no selfish need any longer.

Yet Christians still do good works.

So, the question is: Why?

The answer is:

Because if you were a person who knew in your heart of hearts that you had found the true path to Salvation, and you truly loved your brethren, and you were so sure of the finding of that path...would you not try to convince them of it by helping them selflessly?

If you really found a path where you did not need to atone for yourself, but that your atonement was paid in full, and you saw others trying to atone for themselves and you knew they would fail....wouldn't you try to good deeds towards them that they might see it also?

This, then, makes the Christian's good deeds true and selfless, whereas all other religions, even when they do them selflessly...are still selfish, for they desire to *use it* for their own atonement.

This is also why no amount of them can ever outweigh the sin on the opposite side of the balance. For they are selfish in nature, even when done selflessly. Therefore, they cannot add weight to their side of the balance.

[help3434]

[Replying to HumbleDisciple]

I am not a Sikh, I brought up Sikhism as an example. You are a Christian and you have not bothered to read the holy books of all the other religions despite having access to them online, so why do you think it would be fair for God to condemn people of other religions who don't bother to read the Bible?

Honestly, I don't know much about Sikhism, but from what I understand they don't share the Christian/Islamic concept of Heaven and Hell. They believe that souls are reincarnated until they are pure enough to become one with God. Asking a Sikh if he believes his religion is sufficient to obtaining the Christian concept of salvation is missing the mark. It would be like asking you if Christianity will help you have a good reincarnation.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 29 by help3434]

"You are a Christian and you have not bothered to read the holy books of all the other religions despite having access to them online"

How many times are you going to claim that I believe things that you think I believe...even though I do not believe the things that you think I believe?

How many times are you going to facilitate your prejudice against me?

1) I have read the holy books of other major religions. Sikhism is not a major religion. But I have read the Vedic scriptures and I have read the Quran. I was not born and raised Christian. I was born and raised secularist, and taught to believe in evolution at a very young age.

I converted into Christianity at approximately the age of 20, and somewhat blindly so.

2) The reason I do not read all other religions is 2 fold: a) There is not enough time in the world to do so, so I must be selective. and b) Although I became a Christian at the age of 20 and somewhat blindly...I am now 33 years old and my faith is no longer blind, for I have seen God with my own eyes, heard him with my own ears, and felt him with my own heart. Not metaphorically. Literally. He revealed himself to me. I know him. He knows me. It is personal. No other religion or other book has ever been able to make that possible.

"so why do you think it would be fair for God to condemn people of other religions who don't bother to read the Bible?"

Please quote where I have stated that God condemns people for not reading the Bible. If you cannot quote me, then please be honest enough to formally announce that you have prejudiced me with that statement.

I do not believe God sends people to Hell for not reading the Bible. He sends people to Hell for the sins which they were forgiven of...because Hell is the place where dead souls go. He has offered a free gift that people may receive a resurrection of their soul through Jesus so that they do not end up in Hell for the sins which were forgiven of them already by God. He cannot force people to accept his gift. So if they refuse the gift of resurrection through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus...then how can you blame God for where they go? It was their choice.

If a person believes in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead, but never reads a Bible...they are saved. Therefore you are incorrect to prejudice me by saying that I believe God sends people to Hell for not reading the Bible. That is your prejudice, and it would do you well to formally recognize your behavior and heart on this matter.

"Asking a Sikh if he believes his religion is sufficient to obtaining the Christian concept of salvation is missing the mark. It would be like asking you if Christianity will help you have a good reincarnation."

According to the perspective of Sikhism, being a Christian would help you have a good reincarnation. So..it is not missing the mark at all. And the simple translation, if one were to translate salvation into Sikhism would be thus: Without Jesus...a Sikh will forever become more and more separated from God, and will never get closer to the Divine.

So no...it doesn't miss the mark at all. I have to wonder if you are trying to construct your arguments around the basis that you hate God and think He is unjust. For you are certainly making every effort to justify yourself in having that belief.

Please notice that I do not believe in the God which you think that I believe in. And that is your greatest mistake of assumption. You have yet to prove that my God fits into any of the accusations that you make against Him. You have yet to prove that I believe in a God who is unjust. You are simply throwing out accusations that you believe about me in your own head and your own heart....and you have been wrong 100% of the time.

At what point are you going to stop attaching your prejudices towards me and instead ask me if I believe your prejudices before you say that I believe your prejudices?

You did not ask me if I believed people had to read the Bible to avoid condemnation to Hell.

I did not *ever* declare nor even REMOTELY hint at believing people have to read the Bible in order to avoid condemnation to Hell.

Yet you wrote the question "so why do you think it would be fair for God to condemn people of other religions who don't bother to read the Bible?"

Furthermore:

I believe Muslims who believe that Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe Sikhs who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe Buddhists who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe Hindus who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe evolutionists (Those of the religion of evolution) who believe that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are saved.

I believe Mystics, and Shamans, and Animalists, and any other tribal type religionist who believes that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead are all saved.

And the reason why I believe all of these people are saved regardless of their additional religious titles...is because of Matthew 12:31. Simply put, God's Grace abounds greatly. It forgives even the greatest of blasphemies and false beliefs, except the one and only: Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (which is to say they reject Jesus, and refuse His Holy Spirit...and thus the resurrection that it provides).

A dead man cannot live without a resurrection. And if a dead man chooses to reject a resurrection that is offered to him...then all the fault and blame, ignorant or otherwise, falls on him.

You cannot blame God for that man's rejection of a resurrection.

You cannot blame God for that man's own choice.

But you would love to, wouldn't you?

So you don't really have any excuse for the statement you made against me.

You did not ask before making that declaration against me.

Do you know what that is called?

That is called prejudice.

Do you understand that it is called prejudice?