Tom mentioned in another thread (that I don't want to derail) that 1 Corinthians 6.9 might be understood as a condemnation of promiscuity. For reference, let's cite a few different translations of v9-10: KJV 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. NIV 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ESV 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. NRSV 9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. Paul gives us a list of wrongdoers (which I wouldn't take as exhaustive): v9 - Fornicators/sexually immoral - Idolaters - Adulterers - Men who practice homosexuality/male prostitutes/sodomites (implied: women who practice homosexuality/female prostitutes) v10 - Thieves - The covetous/greedy - Drunkards - Revilers/slanderers - Robbers/swindlers/extortioners If we ignore v10 (which I don't think we should), our first question would be: why does Paul list sexuality immorality separately from homosexual practice, if both love-based homosexual and heterosexual relationships are permissible? Wouldn't they both fall under 'sexual immorality'? Our second question would be, what do we mean by promiscuity as it relates to sexual immorality, and is all sexual immorality promiscuous? Third, idolators is an interesting inclusion, why is it there? What do we think?
Just a thought jumped in my head.... does this mean unrepentant fornicators, idolaters, adulterers etc... or repentant ones who are trying to stop such activities?
I may be off a little but it appears to me that everything (or rather, everyone is referred to in the present tense. "While ye were yet sinners". In sin.
If memory serves, Corinth had the temple of Aphrodite and a significant catamite/man/boy paedophilia contingent, thus the division in vs 9 to include both heterosexual and homosexual sexual immorality Ajrodite worship n the temple of,Aphrodite...idolaters
And they're referred to as unrighteousness. Meaning they are carnal and have yet to come to Christ. " The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Repentant ones, or Christians struggling with sin, don't suddenly lose their inheritance because of backsliding. They're out of fellowship, but certainly not condemned to hell.
If you don’t believe that attending a wedding is an implicit acceptance of that marriage, then, what do you believe it is? I mean, if you aren’t in agreement with the wedding, why would you be there? People don’t typically attend events or gatherings if they aren’t in some sort of agreement with it. For instance, as a Christian, you AREN’T going to find me hanging out a satanic church during their services...
I believe you can struggle with a homosexual orientation, and be a Christian. Just like you can be a straight man who struggles with being attracted to women other than your wife and still be a Christian. But, no, I don’t think you can intentionally and continually give in to that gay orientation and act on it and be a Christian any more than you can give into lustful feelings for other women and commit adultery and be a Christian.
Think of it another way: I attend the marriage of a family member whose choice of spouse is suspect and divorce is very likely. Is my attendance an implicit acceptance/celebration of that marriage, or is my attendance bcause of it's a familial or social expectation, or a general obligation, or out of love or respect for the family member themselves, etc.? It would be the same thing here. It's not as if same-sex marriages are the only kinds of marriages we disagree with.
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Following Christ, I find myself commending my own love for my daughter, in that, while she was yet a sinner, I made myself to be there for her.
David committed adultery and murder and was saved/didn't lose his salvation. Why would you be worse off than him?
I’m not talking about something that happened once. I’m talking about somebody who intentionally, willfully, knowingly continuously, unrepentantly engages in sin. That’s NOT what Christians do. Jesus told us to “go and sin no more.” He didn’t say “stop sinning...if you feel like it.” It wasn’t a “suggestion.” It was an “order.” There’s a difference between somebody who wants to not commit a particular sin, struggles not to, occasionally slips up and commits the sin, feels horrible about it all and somebody who says, “Nah, I’m going to do this. It’s not wrong (for me, at least) to do this,” continues to commit the sin, despite being shown from God’s Word that it’s wrong, and keeps doing it anyway, with no guilt or shame.
Did you cheat more than once? If not, you've done it once, just as David did, who did it "intentionally, willfully, knowingly continuously, unrepentantly [engaged] in sin". The sin I struggle with most currently? I don't engage it in "intentionally, willfully, knowingly continuously" until I do, and then I do, and I don't make any delusions about it being okay. But, God isn't the one giving up; if someone did, it would be me, or you, or David. Did you reject God, or tell Him to go away, or...? Even then, I still don't see why you would have lost/given up your salvation while sinning.
It's not about what you do after receiving salvation. It's what God does. Something about "never leave, nor forsake you" ring a bell?
Ok, but you appear to gloss over the fact that we are told to “go and sin no more.” God doesn’t like when we sin. He’s a holy God and He hates sin. So much so that DEATH is required for sin to be paid off in His scale of justice. We should be taking seriously His heed to repent and turn from sin. We’re NOT supposed to take lightly Christ’s death on the cross to provide salvation and rescuing from hell. We have an obligation to OBEY Him. His mercy does NOT give us license to sin.
(Prefix: Let's pretend slavery wasn't outlawed in your society/country) -- Would you refuse support to a known slave owner based on "biblical standards"? Why or why not? A lot of the moral arguments that people cite Bible for, in the end, are very highly influenced by what's accepted/legal in current societies, having to do with Zeitgeist (whether religious or not, matters not) more than anything. Paul's instructions were to the believers in Corinth, a society that was given to sexually-driven worship of the Greek pantheon, with temples everywhere. Paul was also Jewish so of course the levitical laws still guided his morality, and why wouldn't they? He used to be a Pharisee and so it was deeply ingrained in him. We think it's all so straightforward, but then we dig a little deeper and it turns out, it's really not all that straightforward. We can usually agree on the "Big 10" (commandments, that is) when it comes to "is this actually sinful?", but then after that things kind of become more muddled, controversial, what-have-you. Which is fine. Because we all stand and fall to our own Master (master?), and so unless someone is obviously being hurt/damaged and truly sinned against, I'm of a "live and let live" persuasion, personally. Your mileage may vary on that, of course.