Why does 1 Corinthians 6:9 say that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

[TheNeutral]

But that is not what the Bible says. It says that “men who lie with men” (and do not repent) will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

homosexuality isn’t particularly a state of being that one can “identify” as. There exists a difference between having homosexual temptations and embracing/indulging in them.

One who has homosexual temptations but rejects them and repents is not a “homosexual”, but rather is tempted as we all are tempted–however the one who embraces these temptations and indulges in them could then, be considered a homosexual. In a way, it’s similar to lust, only much more immoral in nature (or out of nature, one could say).

With that established. “Homosexuals” will not be entering into Heaven.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

homosexuality isn’t particularly a state of being that one can “identify” as. There exists a difference between having homosexual temptations and embracing/indulging in them.

One who has homosexual temptations but rejects them and repents is not a homosexual, but rather is tempted as we all are tempted–however the one who embraces these temptations and indulges in them could then, be considered a homosexual. In a way, it’s similar to lust, only much more immoral in nature (or out of nature, one could say).

With that established. “Homosexuals” will not be entering into Heaven.

You may use terms however you like, but saying that “homosexuals go to hell” is not a good witness to unbelievers, so I will tell you in no uncertain terms to stop doing it. You may pastorally recommend that people not identify as homosexual, but that is a far cry from saying something that is false and indeed scandalous according to the majority usage of the terms “gay” or “homosexual”. “Homosexual” does not mean “actively having sex with other people of the same sex” in common parlance, and you have to speak in ways people can understand.

 

[Muzhik]

Sleeping with a brother’s wife contravenes Lev 18:16.

No, it doesn’t.

Dude, you really have NO idea what you’re talking about. The rules you’re quoting are from the laws defining incest in a culture where entire family units share sleeping space (a tent). Sleeping with your brother’s wife while the brother is alive is adultery, not incest. Basically, the Scripture you’re quoting says that if you have sex with someone that your father or your son or your mother or daughter have had sex with, that would be incest, and the bloodline of the offspring would be cursed (will not prosper) for 10 generations.

Tamar inherited Er’s property – sheep, camels, cattle, everything. What Onan was doing with Tamar was a levirate marriage, under the rules of Levi. When Onan’s marriage with Tamar would produce a son, that son, legally and in the genealogies, would be considered a son of Er and would inherit all the property after Tamar’s death. However, if Tamar never produced a son, then the property would all go to Onan upon Tamar’s death. Onan’s sin wasn’t masturbation. Onan’s sin was birth control – he was doing what today we would call “pull and pray”, ejaculating (spilling your seed) on the ground. By actively working to prevent Tamar from getting pregnant, Onan was actively working against G_D’s plan. Because of this, Onan had to die for G_D’s plan to advance.

Judah (Onan’s father) had one more son to give to Tamar in order to fulfill the obligations under the law, but Judah apparently “forgot” about that. So Tamar took matters into her own hands. Disguised as a prostitute, she got Judah to have sex with her and thus impregnate her. In doing so, she committed incest and so the line of Judah was cursed for 10 generations. The 11th generation, though, produced David.

G_D had plans for the offspring of Judah’s son and Tamar. In practicing contraception (Onan) and not following the law (Judah), both did not trust G_D and both were punished for it. (Read the papal encyclical Casti connubii (1930) for more information on the evils of contraception.)

Yes, definitely a troll.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Also incest was acceptable in Genesis because we all descended from Adam and Eve so there were no other humans on Earth to procreate when they were created. Correct?

 

[TheNeutral]

You may use terms however you like, but saying that “homosexuals go to hell” is not a good witness to unbelievers, so I will tell you in no uncertain terms to stop doing it. You may pastorally recommend that people not identify as homosexual, but that is a far cry from saying something that is false and indeed scandalous according to the majority usage of the terms “gay” or “homosexual”. “Homosexual” does not mean “actively having sex with other people of the same sex” in common parlance, and you have to speak in ways people can understand.

Alright, I’ll speak in “ways people can understand”: Homosexuals are going to hell.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Homosexuals are going to hell.

Are you referring to only the ones that commit homosexual acts?

 

[TheNeutral]

Are you referring to only the ones that commit homosexual acts?

This is the explanation I gave in an earlier post of mine.

homosexuality isn’t particularly a state of being that one can “identify” as. There exists a difference between having homosexual temptations and embracing/indulging in them.

One who has homosexual temptations but rejects them and repents is not a “homosexual”, but rather is tempted as we all are tempted–however the one who embraces these temptations and indulges in them could then, be considered a homosexual. In a way, it’s similar to lust, only much more immoral in nature (or out of nature, one could say).

With that established. “Homosexuals” will not be entering into Heaven.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

People with red glasses are going to hell.

By “people with red glasses” I am only indicating those people with red glasses who mortally sin and fail to repent.

Hope this clarifies things!

 

[daverod]

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι Θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν μὴ πλανᾶσθε οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται .

ἀρσενοκοῖται 733. arsenokoites (commonly known as ‘homosexual(s)’)

1. arsenokoites
   From arrhen and koite
2. arrén http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/730.htm
   male, man.
   Arsen (ar’-sane) probably from airo; male (as stronger for lifting) – male, man.

see GREEK airo

1. airó to take up, take away
   A primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. Weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare nasa’) to expiate sin – away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up).

see HEBREW nasa’

1. koité bed, chambering, cohabitation http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/2845.htm
   From keimai; a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the male sperm – bed, chambering, X conceive.
2. keimai

be appointed, lay, lie.
Middle voice of a primary verb; to lie outstretched (literally or figuratively) – be (appointed, laid up, made, set), lay, lie.

1 Corinthians 6:9 “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,”

abusers of mankind: 733 [e] arsenokoitai ἀρσενοκοῖται

Jesus said to love one another… Not to hate your brother and always pick fights with him…

Could modern day cyber bullying and school bullying and bullying in general be able to fall under the category of ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’??

Also keep in mind to whom this Epistle, or Letter, was being addressed to. Corinth was a city/province of Greece. It was a port for merchant ships and many traders used Corinth as a main stopping point from which to carry out their merchandising business. Corinth was known to have temples every 200-300 yards or so in certain areas and this is why The Apostle Paul advises the Corinthians to not ask what they are buying at the food markets. Each food stand was usually located very near or next to one of these many temples. Do not ask if they, the food, was offered to their ‘gods’ but rather just buy and eat… Asking might have meant going out of that area to find a food market which was not next to a temple…

So with Corinth being a ship, business, port, many traders and sailors would arrive and depart from Corinth. And with sailors, there is usually a high rate of heavy drinkers of alcohol.

Proverbs 20:1
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”

I cannot be too sure if Corinth allowed such practices of ‘homosexuality’. I mean, what male person, a sailor, who has pleasures in being drunk on strong drink and offering up salutations to the deity ‘Bacchus’ would view a male lying with a male as NOT a sport to make fun of???

 

[daverod]

In such highly male dominated ‘Pirate’ business males, the same gender, male to male, intercourse, might have had to have occurred in secrecy to avoid the mockings and insults that the males of that city may have been inclined to do…

And why no mention of any direct male to male sexual intercourse in any of the other Epistles? Rome may have or may have not restructured itself to not have the male to boy courtship so prevalent when The Apostle Paul wrote this letter to The Church at Corinth. And another question…

How in God’s Name would The Apostle Paul have known of such ‘private sexual matters’ of individuals???

The only ‘Public’ displays and knowledge of male to male sexual intercourse would have come from the ‘male Shrine/Temple prostitutes’ which were publicly known to all that they offered those types of services.

In fact, it is rumored that Herod, the king who killed all the boys under the age of 2, was a bi sexual male. Even in Israel, Herod was entertaining and being entertained by the courtiers. The account of the festivity he threw for himself at his palace grounds for his birthday and him being entertained by the daughter of Herodias shows that debauchery was occurring even within the King’s Courts…

 

[daverod]

[No message]

 

[Prodigal_Son]

daverod, I’m very puzzled. It is well known among scholars that adult male sexual relationships were common in this period, as well as pederastic relationships between adults and teenage boys. No doubt, sailors were among those that practiced homosexual sex, and it was not considered unmanly as it is in our society. Being the PASSIVE partner in such intercourse was considered effeminate, but being the active partner (especially in a pederastic relationship) was not.

Also, there was mention of direct homosexual intercourse in other epistles. And it is quite certain that Paul knew plenty of males who had had sex with males – and indeed, who bragged about it. One couldn’t spend time in Rome or Corinth without meeting plenty of such men.

 

[MonteRCMS]

By the Blood of the Lamb, we resist the devil.

We do it out loud.

Confront the devil out loud with our voices.

 

[vsedriver]

One of the revelations in Revelation is that John actually wrote the Pauline epistles

this is not a revelation and John did not write the Pauline epistles. If John had written those epistles he could easily have claimed authorship. To not claim authorship and to hide the fact that he was the author would make John a liar.

 

[vsedriver]

Many straight women can’t have children and know. Many straight men can’t have children and know. They are still God’s Creation and have sex. Are you therefore depriving them of sex? They too close the act of life… They have sex for pleasure. Where is the difference?

it makes no difference if straight men and women in the covenant of marriage have sex when they are physically unable to have children. Their sexual act is still ordered toward life. Only a biological error prevents life not the act itself. Homosexual acts are closed to life because the act itself is closed to life and not an accident of nature. In other words, heterosexual act is always ordered toward life regardless of fertility but homosexual act is never ordered toward life even if both partners are healthy and fertile.

 

[vsedriver]

You’re the one that introduced multiple books and Paul.

apparently you have a bit of difficulty following a dialogue. You said that there should be a book put out by the Catholic Church to explain Revelation. You must have missed all the discussion that stated there are many books explaining Catholic understanding of Revelation, just as there are many books that explain the epistles of St. Paul.

If you wish to understand Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church I’d be happy to recommend some books. You can start with The Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn.

 

[Cruciferi]

According to the news the only homosexual not entering the kingdom will be Kevin Spacey.