Is it possible for gays to go to heaven?

[baydoll]

So in an acceptable show of then Asiatic cultural belief that hospitality dictates that a stranger under Lot's roof would be afforded protection, even at the peril of his life or his daughter's virtue relates to levels of sexual immorality how?

Again turning to the good folks at GotQuestion.org which say:

To our modern sensibilities, it’s hard to understand why God would allow these two (the first one covered in previous post) terrible incidents to occur. We are told in 1st Corinthians 10:11 that the record of the Old Testament is for an “example” to us. In other words, God gives us the whole truth about biblical characters, their sin, their failures, their victories and good deeds, and we are to learn from their example, what to do and what not to do. In fact, this is one of the ways God teaches us what we need to know in order to make good choices as believers. We can learn the easy way by knowing and obeying God’s Word, we can learn the hard way by suffering the consequences of our mistakes, or we can learn by watching others and “taking heed” from their experiences.

Scripture does not reveal Lot's reasoning for offering up his daughters. Whatever his thought process was, it was wrong and indefensible. Based on what is revealed about Lot's life one might wonder if he was righteous. However, there is no doubt that God had declared him to be positionally righteous, even during his time in Sodom. "And if God rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds)" (2 Peter 2:7-8). At some point Lot had believed in the coming Messiah, and that faith resulted in a righteous standing before God. It is likely that Lot's uncle, Abraham, had passed this truth down to him.

What we have in the story of Lot is an illustration of a man who once lived close to his godly relatives and had backslidden and was living according to his sin nature. Lot had moved to Sodom, even though he knew what it was, and he “sat in the gate” (Genesis 19:1). That sounds quite simple but in fact sitting in the gate meant that Lot had so entered into the society of Sodom that he was a judge there (Genesis 19:9). In spite of his position, the men of Sodom had no respect for him because they knew he was a hypocrite.

We may sit in judgment of the culture of that day, but protecting one’s guests required great sacrifice. Was Lot right to offer his own daughters in place of the ones that the men of Sodom wanted? No. We can see in the story that the Lord’s messengers protected Lot and his daughters in spite of Lot’s lack of character and worldly viewpoint. Lot meant to appease the men of Sodom so that the hospitality of his house would not be damaged, but he makes the wrong choice in offering his own daughters, and God’s messengers overruled him.

Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be gang raped? Why did God allow Lot's daughters to later have sex with their father?

 

[MDSupremacist]

Oh a new forum quack!!

I'm five years old and this hurt my widdle feewing real bad. Back to the topic? I'm not interested in jr high arguments[sic].

 

[MDSupremacist]

ONCE AGAIN (sigh) the Bible never ever whitewash the dirty little secret of men's sins (including the OT Prophets), meaning it tells the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth so help us God, warts and all. Lot sinned (OMG!!!!!).

AGAIN this points out the fact that none of us (including the OT prophets) were/are (here's that dirty word again) perfect.

According to GotQuestion.org (which does a better job explaining this than I can) Genesis 19:31-32 tells us that "Lot’s daughters believed there would be no man for them and no children. This may be because they saw the destruction of Sodom and believed they were the only people left on earth. They were trying to preserve the family line. Why did Lot have sex with his own daughters? He got drunk. Yes, his daughters conspired to get him drunk, but Lot willingly drank and when he was drunk, he lost what little control and common sense he had (Genesis 19:30-38), and this is the final step in Lot’s backsliding. The lesson can we learn from this is when a person has too much to drink they do not make good choices and lose control of their morals and operate out of the sinful, carnal nature. As a result of the incest, two children were born and those two children are the fathers of two nations that have been at odds with and the source of much suffering to Israel down through history. "

I've been blocked because I suppose she wants to peddle he version of the Bible without resistance. Lot's daughters got him drunk, he was too drunk to know he was fornicating. Try reading things in context. The daughters literally thought they were the last people on earth and had to repopulate the planet. Nowhere does the Bible say any of this is right or holy. Try reading it in context.

If cheezgrits really thinks that the story of Lot and the angels is about being kind to visitors then she isn't worth arguing with. Such people have made up their minds to believe the absurd and you can't reason people out of a position they didn't use reason to believe.

 

[cheezgrits]

baydoll, not disagreeing with anything you posted. I understand that there were sins committed by mankind since the supposed apple thing. We are indeed all imperfect humans.

My point was to show the other poster that cherry picking verses of the bible to try and prove a point can be dangerous when someone pulls up the rest of the scripture and puts it all in perspective.

I assume the other poster was trying to conject that Lot was trying to offer up his daughters, assuming that the men who meant his visitors harm wanted to butt rape them or something..not the case. And in the light of trying to prove that God was showing differing levels of sexual immorality by this verse was confusing to me.

Bottom line, MDsupremeist made it clear that to him or her, rape is less than sodomy. My point is that MDS has shown over and over to have a judgmental and assumptive attitude. Much like other "christians" on this forum.

 

[MDSupremacist]

My point was to show the other poster that cherry picking verses of the bible to try and prove a point can be dangerous when someone pulls up the rest of the scripture and puts it all in perspective.

I don't understand how you cherry picking proves that I'm cherry picking. You need to reconsider your technique.

I assume the other poster was trying to conject that Lot was trying to offer up his daughters, assuming that the men who meant his visitors harm wanted to butt rape them or something..not the case.

Not the case? The word they used was "yada." That we may know(yada) them. Yada can mean to have intercourse or be intimate with and in this context it is clear that is what it means.

And in the light of trying to prove that God was showing differing levels of sexual immorality by this verse was confusing to me.

So then we'll understand it your way, to is better to rape and kill virgins than to be rude to a visitor. That makes sense(eye roll).

Bottom line, MDsupremeist made it clear that to him or her, rape is less than sodomy.

I'm not making anything clear, the Bible says it plain as day.

Lot even says:
Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil.

Then offers his daughters. If being rude was the sin, they had already committed it. He is begging them to not commit some other grave sin.

Then there is always Judges 19:22
[21] And he brought him into his house, and gave provender to his asses: and after they had washed their feet, he entertained them with a feast. [22] While they were making merry, and refreshing their bodies with meat and drink, after the labour of the journey, the men of that city, sons of Belial, (that is, without yoke,) came and beset the old man's house, and began to knock at the door, calling to the master of the house, and saying: Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may abuse him. [23] And the old man went out to them, and said: Do not so, my brethren, do not so wickedly: because this man is come into my lodging, and cease I pray you from this folly. [24] I have a maiden daughter, and this man hath a concubine, I will bring them out to you, and you may humble them, and satisfy your lust: only, I beseech you, commit not this crime against nature on the man. [25] They would not be satisfied with his words; which the man seeing, brought out his concubine to them, and abandoned her to their wickedness: and when they had abused her all the night, they let her go in the morning.

And yada is used the above verse as well.

My point is that MDS has shown over and over to have a judgmental and assumptive attitude. Much like other "christians" on this forum.

Of course I have judged. You haven't? How did you draw such conclusions without judging? Did you flip a coin?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Yes. Doesn't matter what the sin is, all one has to do is ask for forgiveness and be saved before they die.

I almost agree entirely. Man's free will to accept or reject the salvation grace of God expires upon his death.

Those who have made themselves their own God(Atheists?) I have some bad news for you.The day you die ,your God dies with you!. Guess who is left to save your soul?-No One!
Maybe that is why the Bible says "the fool hath said in his heart , [There is] no God" Psa:14:1
Picking a God that dies the day you die certainly qualifies as a foolish decision.

1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel , Look not on his countenance , or on the height of his stature ; because I have refused him: for [the LORD seeth] not as man seeth ; for man looketh on the outward appearance , but the LORD looketh on the heart.



"the Lord , the righteous judge" IITim4:8


A righteous judge looking upon the heart sounds like a righteous judgement to me.

"Doesn't matter what the sin"
There is one sin that is unforgiveable and it is NOT what the churches teach.
Marks 3:22-30
Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;

SMH

What is it about "a" = without and "theist" = belief in god(s) don't people understand? "Atheist" = without belief in God(s).

No God, not yours, not a new made-up one, not one that dies or is dead, not a nicer one, not that there is one but it bad or mean.

 

[thurley42]

I'm five years old and this hurt my widdle feewing real bad. Back to the topic? I'm not interested in jr high arguments[sic].

I wasn't arguing, I think most would agree you're a nut.

 

[tom88]

OK.... we've beat the Hurricane Sandy question to death ....

Let's go on to a new question..... k?


In your opinion.....
Is it possible for homosexuals to go to heaven?

Yes.

 

[hotcoffee]

So then we'll understand it your way, to is better to rape and kill virgins than to be rude to a visitor. That makes sense(eye roll). I'm not making anything clear, the Bible says it plain as day.

Of course I have judged. You haven't? How did you draw such conclusions without judging? Did you flip a coin?

For those of you who may miss the depravity of the whole story here.... I found a link with a commentary. This is a particulary nasty portion of the Old Testament....

For those of you who kept up with my thread "The Bible" you'll remember that I talked about how little women were valued in the Old Testament.

So.... There's adultry, immorality, murder and just plain nasty behavior on the part of all the men in this story....

Here's the link

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

WRT the conversation concerning Lot. Where in Genesis does it say that Lot was wrong in offering his daughters to the men of the city in order to protect the visitors? Where does it say that he or his daughters were wrong to have sex? Where does it say that his daughters thought they were the last people on earth? Wasn't Lot considered to be a good man since he was warned and allowed to escape the destruction?

I know I can read and find the answers for myself, I already have. Just curious to see what people think.

 

[wxtornado]

I don't understand how you cherry picking proves that I'm cherry picking?

You, and every Christian on this forum cherry pick the verses in you bible, that's painfully obvious.

 

[wxtornado]

If Christianity and Heaven are so great, why does it take the threat of eternal damnation to get people to believe and abide??

Seems kind of immature and petty to have to threaten people to do what you say.. or to do what is right.

This is how all religions are made throughout history. They all seem to leverage a threat of some sort: behave, or else!

 

[wxtornado]

Us bacon eaters like the New Testament much better. There's forgiveness in the New Testament.

Matthew 5:17-18 says quite clearly that Jesus demands Christians follow Old Testament law completely, to the smallest possible point, ergo, you should quietly and quickly get rid of that bacon. Or cherry-pick......

 

[wxtornado]

Eating shellfish isn't a sin and ideally hell would be empty, but people choose to go there. Again, you have given yourself a nice comfort here in talking yourself out of believing in hell but it will be little comfort to you if you find yourself there.

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the lord. Oh, and gays too. But why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

 

[cheezgrits]

You, and every Christian on this forum cherry pick the verses in you bible, that's painfully obvious.

I would have responded to MDS, but apparently the concept of them being on my ignore list is lost on them. Only say their response because you quoted it.

The cherry picking here is incredible. They twist the scriptures to prove every single point.

 

[hotcoffee]

Matthew 5:17-18 says quite clearly that Jesus demands Christians follow Old Testament law completely, to the smallest possible point, ergo, you should quietly and quickly get rid of that bacon. Or cherry-pick......

Actually.... when Jesus allowed Himself to be sacrificed on the Cross and rose again 3 days later... He ended sacrificial rituals which is a major part of those laws. And in the letters, there was a lot of talk about the eating habits of the disciples and gentiles.

I have to get rid of the bacon due to the cholesterol test results from my doctor anyway. Bummer... love the bacon...

 

[cheezgrits]

I have to get rid of the bacon due to the cholesterol test results from my doctor anyway. Bummer... love the bacon...

Totally off topic, but try turkey bacon. I have same medical directions, but it's pretty good.

 

[Radiant1]

The cherry picking here is incredible. They twist the scriptures to prove every single point.

Everyone has their own interpretation of scripture and accuses the other of "twisting". The need for an authority is apparent and Jesus did leave us with one; however, most don't want to accept it. They will "twist" in order to deny that authority and accuse that authority of "twisting" to justify itself. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Radiant1]

Matthew 5:17-18 says quite clearly that Jesus demands Christians follow Old Testament law completely, to the smallest possible point, ergo, you should quietly and quickly get rid of that bacon. Or cherry-pick......

Don't take my pork from me! I love "The Other White Meat".

 

[MDSupremacist]

You, and every Christian on this forum cherry pick the verses in you bible, that's painfully obvious.

I see your word for it. Not too much better than cheezgrits showing me that I do it by doing it herself.

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the lord. Oh, and gays too. But why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Acts Of Apostles 11:9
And the voice answered again from heaven: What God hath made clean, do not thou call common.

Not eating shellfish was discipline. Disciplines can change. And the OT commands not to eat unclean things, well, these things are no longer unclean. Funny how you go on about cherry picking- typical of the worst offenders.

WRT the conversation concerning Lot. Where in Genesis does it say that Lot was wrong in offering his daughters to the men of the city in order to protect the visitors? Where does it say that he or his daughters were wrong to have sex? Where does it say that his daughters thought they were the last people on earth? Wasn't Lot considered to be a good man since he was warned and allowed to escape the destruction?

It doesn't say his daughters were the last people on earth, nor were they. I said the daughters THOUGHT they were the last people on earth. The just say pure destruction and thought it was worldwide.
What is wrong, goes without saying, the point of the passage is to record an event. Where does it say these things were right? That stupid knife cuts both ways.