Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I thought Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others and just be loving everyone. So why are we deciding what is a sin and what is not? That's is God's role, not ours. If someone wants to take pride in being gay, and God doesn't like that, then God will deal with that. We shouldn't be doing anything about it. We should just be loving everyone.

You are misinterpreting Jesus’ love as a blank check for sinful acts.

Jesus loved everyone but didn’t condone their sinful acts. He saved the prostitute but that didn’t mean he condoned prostitution.
We can love homosexuals as human beings without condoning homosexuality.

We live in a society and we as a society decide what is right and wrong.
Should we just let criminals run around because it’s not our responsibility to judge them or do something about it?
Stealing and killing are sins. We love criminals as human beings but we asking them to repent and stop their sinful acts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I thought Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others and just be loving everyone. So why are we deciding what is a sin and what is not? That's is God's role, not ours. If someone wants to take pride in being gay, and God doesn't like that, then God will deal with that. We shouldn't be doing anything about it. We should just be loving everyone.

You are misinterpreting Jesus’ love as a blank check for sinful acts.

Jesus loved everyone but didn’t condone their sinful acts. He saved the prostitute but that didn’t mean he condoned prostitution.
We can love homosexuals as human beings without condoning homosexuality.

We live in a society and we as a society decide what is right and wrong.
Should we just let criminals run around because it’s not our responsibility to judge them or do something about it?
Stealing and killing are sins. We love criminals as human beings but we asking them to repent and stop their sinful acts.

DP. You're claiming homosexuality is a "sinful act" and at least implicitly you're comparing it to stealing and killing. Stealing and killing, yes, the Bible clearly says they're sinful, starting with the 10 commandments. What many here, including me, have been arguing is that the Bible, at least the New Testament, does not clearly establish homosexuality as sinful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

I have a difficult time with interpreting what compassionate looks like with regard to sin.
Because he loved everyone, spent time with, invited everyone,…to “go and sin no more”
—which we know is an impossible task. But we strive not to sin, fail, and ask forgiveness.

My issue with this is not in being compassionate toward others who are “in sin” as we ALL are. But it’s in the “pride” part of it. IF it is a sin—which many now claim it is not, then—as Christians—we can accept and live the sinner, but we can’t be celebrating ithe state of sin and refusal to repent from it with pride parades because if I acting on an attraction to same sex is sinful, God does not want us doing that.
And since God does not want us having sexual relationships outside of the marriage covenant, and has defined Biblical marriage as a covenant between man, woman, and God, it is difficult to reconcile affirming same sex relations in the context of what Jesus teaches is necessary for salvation (confession of sin and repentance).

On the other hand— one can probably argue that many many many (most?)heterosexual Christians have sex prior to marriage and then eventually stop doing that when they get married (“go and sin no more”) and churches don’t make a huge case out of whether they are or are not a “casual sex for 20-something singles” affirming church! There’s no flag for that outside the more liberal denominations.
It’s just sort of a non issue. The church accepts that we fall short of that expectation.
But there’s also not a casual sex parade for heterosexual that insists that we celebrate our lustful nature as part of our “identity” so it’s difficult to be consistent on this.

If “the church” can’t agreee on what behaviors are sinful, then one can’t acknowledge sin to repent from it. Simple as that.

I thought Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others and just be loving everyone. So why are we deciding what is a sin and what is not? That's is God's role, not ours. If someone wants to take pride in being gay, and God doesn't like that, then God will deal with that. We shouldn't be doing anything about it. We should just be loving everyone.

After saving her from execution, he told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more. Why did he do that?

DP. Jesus was definitely against promiscuity, against sex outside of marriage. But what would he say now that we've (finallly) legalized gay marriage? We don't know, and to pretend otherwise is to put words in Jesus' mouth... obviously not something anybody should do.

The Bible is clear that marriage is an institution created and ordained by God. It is the joining of one man and one woman. That we have “finally” legalized gay marriage does not change that.

Jesus was responding to a question about divorce, and his response is that remarrying is equivalent to committing adultery. Jesus quoted Genesis in this passage from Matthew: "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Nothing in there either for or against gay marriage. Also, Jesus was talking within the legal framework of his time. Gays couldn't marry 2000 years ago. They can now.

The point is male and female together (not male and male or female and female) reflect the image of God, and God's glory is what the whole Bible is about. By definition that's against gay marriage.

+1. God created the institution of marriage; man did not. Therefore there is no such thing as “gay” marriage, just as there is no such thing as marriage between groups of people, marriage to an animal or anything else that is sure to come along at some point. Legal unions, sure. But they are not marriages.

You're trolling, trying to get a hot response. Sorry pal. Gotta do better.

Not trolling at all. That is my belief and I stand by it. Really don’t care if you disagree

Clearly god didn’t create marriage since the 1st didn’t even happen until 2000ish BC

HAHA

DP. I'm pro-inclusion and anti-homophobia, but this is so dumb it needs a correction. the Bible is older than 2000 BC. The earliest text is from 2700 BC.

[Anonymous]

Pause

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I thought Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others and just be loving everyone. So why are we deciding what is a sin and what is not? That's is God's role, not ours. If someone wants to take pride in being gay, and God doesn't like that, then God will deal with that. We shouldn't be doing anything about it. We should just be loving everyone.

You are misinterpreting Jesus’ love as a blank check for sinful acts.

Jesus loved everyone but didn’t condone their sinful acts. He saved the prostitute but that didn’t mean he condoned prostitution.
We can love homosexuals as human beings without condoning homosexuality.

We live in a society and we as a society decide what is right and wrong.
Should we just let criminals run around because it’s not our responsibility to judge them or do something about it?
Stealing and killing are sins. We love criminals as human beings but we asking them to repent and stop their sinful acts.

DP. You're claiming homosexuality is a "sinful act" and at least implicitly you're comparing it to stealing and killing. Stealing and killing, yes, the Bible clearly says they're sinful, starting with the 10 commandments. What many here, including me, have been arguing is that the Bible, at least the New Testament, does not clearly establish homosexuality as sinful.

The fact that Jesus or the New Testament doesn’t explicitly mention homosexuality as sinful shouldn’t be interpreted as an allowance for homosexuality.

The New Testament also nowhere mentions bestiality by name as a sin. Should it be interpreted as an allowance for bestiality?

You can’t use the absence of explicit statements in the New Testament to weaken Jesus’ moral standards and justify immoral behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I thought Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others and just be loving everyone. So why are we deciding what is a sin and what is not? That's is God's role, not ours. If someone wants to take pride in being gay, and God doesn't like that, then God will deal with that. We shouldn't be doing anything about it. We should just be loving everyone.

You are misinterpreting Jesus’ love as a blank check for sinful acts.

Jesus loved everyone but didn’t condone their sinful acts. He saved the prostitute but that didn’t mean he condoned prostitution.
We can love homosexuals as human beings without condoning homosexuality.

We live in a society and we as a society decide what is right and wrong.
Should we just let criminals run around because it’s not our responsibility to judge them or do something about it?
Stealing and killing are sins. We love criminals as human beings but we asking them to repent and stop their sinful acts.

DP. You're claiming homosexuality is a "sinful act" and at least implicitly you're comparing it to stealing and killing. Stealing and killing, yes, the Bible clearly says they're sinful, starting with the 10 commandments. What many here, including me, have been arguing is that the Bible, at least the New Testament, does not clearly establish homosexuality as sinful.

The fact that Jesus or the New Testament doesn’t explicitly mention homosexuality as sinful shouldn’t be interpreted as an allowance for homosexuality.

The New Testament also nowhere mentions bestiality by name as a sin. Should it be interpreted as an allowance for bestiality?

You can’t use the absence of explicit statements in the New Testament to weaken Jesus’ moral standards and justify immoral behaviors.

This is poor logic and bestiality is a straw man. By your logic, the absence of explicit condemnation in the Bible should mean Jesus supports homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Matthew 5:17 (“Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”)

Jesus didn’t come to love everyone and tell everyone he loves them even if they sin.

He came to offer salvation to sinners- all of us.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Matthew 5:17 (“Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”)

Jesus didn’t come to love everyone and tell everyone he loves them even if they sin.

He came to offer salvation to sinners- all of us.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This.

Jesus offers all of us redemption from our sin. We all sin, every day, sometimes intentionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew 5:17 (“Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”)

Jesus didn’t come to love everyone and tell everyone he loves them even if they sin.

He came to offer salvation to sinners- all of us.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This.

Jesus offers all of us redemption from our sin. We all sin, every day, sometimes intentionally.

Like the people who judge others over who they love?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew 5:17 (“Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”)

Jesus didn’t come to love everyone and tell everyone he loves them even if they sin.

He came to offer salvation to sinners- all of us.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This.

Jesus offers all of us redemption from our sin. We all sin, every day, sometimes intentionally.

Like the people who judge others over who they love?

Sexual immorality isn’t love, it’s sin.

[Anonymous]

1 Corinthians 6:18 ESV

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

Hebrews 13:4 ESV

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Proverbs 6:32 ESV

He who commits adultery lacks sense; he who does it destroys himself.

Colossians 3:5 ESV

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry

1 Peter 2:11 ESV

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew 5:17 (“Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”)

Jesus didn’t come to love everyone and tell everyone he loves them even if they sin.

He came to offer salvation to sinners- all of us.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This.

Jesus offers all of us redemption from our sin. We all sin, every day, sometimes intentionally.

Like the people who judge others over who they love?

We are not judging. We are holding to Biblical beliefs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew 5:17 (“Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”)

Jesus didn’t come to love everyone and tell everyone he loves them even if they sin.

He came to offer salvation to sinners- all of us.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This.

Jesus offers all of us redemption from our sin. We all sin, every day, sometimes intentionally.

Like the people who judge others over who they love?

We are not judging. We are holding to Biblical beliefs

+1

I am not going to commit adultery and then be mad because people point at out it is sexual immorality according to God’s word. I understand that adultery is very common, and a percentage of married people commit adultery. Are people going to be judged for committing adultery and tell God: “but I loved him/her?” That’s going to make it ok? No.

Each person can read the Bible and comprehend what it says. They can make their choices about their life, but they aren’t going to be able to call what’s wrong right, when judged by God.

If adulterers want to pretend they are right, they can do so. But we can read that God calls adultery sexual immorality and that’s just how He sees it.

If you are a Christian, you have to understand that you don’t do what you want to do, or what makes you happy, but what makes God happy.

We all sin and fall short of the grace of God, no question. But pretending that it’s ok for our own reasons isn’t what we should do as Christians. I am not a Christian because I want to do whatever I want and be forgiven. I want to try, sometimes unsuccessfully, to do what is right according to the word of God. My fellow sinners, I am not going to tell them to sin. That’s not helpful to them as Christians and not how Christians should act. We help each other, we don’t encourage each other to sin.

[Anonymous]

So what happened to love the sinner? Why is christian "love" so toxic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what happened to love the sinner? Why is christian "love" so toxic?

Telling someone they are sinning isn’t toxic nor does it mean you don’t love someone. How is it toxic to want your fellow Christian be saved?

What makes sexual sin such a big deal?

Modern culture has tried to redefine sexuality as a personal right to be exercised any way an individual wishes. Sexual behavior is considered a personal choice, akin to the decision of whether to buy a house or rent a condo. At the same time, popular opinion has all but removed the word sin from our culture’s vocabulary. The only sexual expression considered “wrong” is what is deemed distasteful to the definer. However, social acceptability varies so greatly that even the vilest of acts would be considered justified by many. So, before we can determine why sexual sin is such a big deal, we have to define sexual sin.

Fortunately, man has never been given the privilege of defining sin. The One who created sexuality also has the right to set the boundaries for it, and the Bible is clear about the guidelines. When God created the first man, Adam, and brought to him the first woman, Eve, He joined them together in marriage and pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31; 2:18, 24). At that time, God introduced sexuality and set the boundaries for its expression. God created a union between a husband and wife that He called “becoming one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:8; Ephesians 5:31). He then defined any sexual activity outside of the husband-wife relationship as a violation of His gift. Fornication, homosexuality, pornography, and lust are all violations of God’s intent when He created the sexual act (1 Corinthians 6:9,18; Galatians 5:19-20; Jude 1:7; Matthew 5:28; Hebrews 13:4).

Romans 13:13–14 outlines the life God desires us to live: “Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.” Sexual sin is one more way people gratify the flesh rather than walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). Jesus said that the “pure in heart” will “see God” (Matthew 5:8). Unrepentant sexual sin defiles the heart, making it impossible to experience the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If we wish to be pure in heart, we cannot engage in sexual sin.

https://www.gotquestions.org/sexual-sin.html

All Christians struggle with sin. All of us do. None of us are able to live and not sin. No one has the distinction of being the “sinner” while the rest of us float around with halos on beaming with happiness because we finally figured out how not to sin.

The answer is not to say ah screw it, imma do what I want and the blood of Jesus has me covered. I do know some very religious people who have that exact outlook on sin. They believe they are saved and covered by the Blood of Jesus and can do whatever they want and will be saved. I do not think they are correct. I don’t think the people posting here think that people can be baptized and call themselves Christians and commit adultery, steal, lie, etc. and be saved.

I don’t think people who commit sexual immorality are covered by the Blood of Jesus, if they don’t call their sin, sin, confess it to God, and make their best, genuine effort to avoid sexual immorality.

There is no hatred for my fellow sinners from me, a sinner, but there’s no way I can give my “permission” and support to someone who purposefully sins and demands I accept their sin. I don’t want to be part of that; I have enough problems with my own sin. I don’t ask anyone to tell me my sin is ok. I know it’s not. I am not going to lie to myself and ask you to lie to me to make me feel better.