Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: To Be or Not to Be a ****sexual

  1. #1
    TruthSeeker
    Guest

    Default To Be or Not to Be

    ****sexuality continues to be a hot topic in many forms of media. How is it viewed in the Christian sect? Some people say that they are born as a ****sexual. Do you agree with this view? Or, is it a choice? Many churches are welcoming and accepting ****sexuals. According to the Bible, ****sexuals will not enter into heaven. It seems God is casting judgment on them, even though they cannot help it. Do you agree or disagree?

    TruthSeeker
    Last edited by TruthSeeker; 10-10-2008 at 09:18 AM.

  2. #2
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    ****sexuality continues to be a hot topic in many forms of media. How is it viewed in the Christian sect? Some people say that they are born as a ****sexual. Do you agree with this view? Or, is it a choice? Many churches are welcoming and accepting ****sexuals. According to the Bible, ****sexuals will not enter into heaven. It seems God is casting judgment on them, even though they cannot help it. Do you agree or disagree?
    Because of the golden rule we have no permission to mock them, to hurt them, or to make jokes about this condition. The day the churches will preach against the adulterers into their crowds, these churches would become less hypocritical in giving their sermons against the ****sexuals. For me, focussing to only one aspect of the immorality, is very hypocritical. Because half of the people into the churches, are divorced people, the preach against adultery is silenced to not displease the adulterers among us.

    Honestly, I cannot answer the questions because I do not know what a ****sexual is experiencing. Also, I am not a psychologist, a neurologist, or a specialist of the brain. I do not know if this is only behavioral or if there is also a metabolical component (chemical of the brain or some variations in the brain).

    If stoning an adulterer woman was not the first choice of Jesus, I understand by his behavior, that stoning a ****sexual is not appropriate also. I give them respect as human beings and creatures of God. It is a sin, to do otherwise.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 10-10-2008 at 02:32 PM.

  3. #3
    Bob Carabbio
    Guest

    Default This and that -

    ****sexuality continues to be a hot topic in many forms of media. How is it viewed in the Christian sect?

    Depends of the particular "sect" of the "Christian sect". The range of views in the "visible church" is all the way from Total rejection to total acceptance including leadership, and every shade of understanding in between.

    Some people say that they are born as a ****sexual. Do you agree with this view?

    My personal opinion is that some folks ARE born with defective gender iden***y, or as in the case of Kleinfelter syndrome (for example) NO gender iden***y without hormonal treatments.

    Or, is it a choice?


    My personal opinion is that it is often ALSO a choice. My daughter was in "Drama" in High school - we got the chance to spend time with/talk to with many "professing ****sexuals" of both sexes.

    Many churches are welcoming and accepting ****sexuals.

    True

    According to the Bible, ****sexuals will not enter into heaven.


    Maybe not so true - NOBODY enters heaven unless he's drawn by Father and places His faith in the Shed Blood of Jesus for his salvation. Engaging in ****sexual conduct is Biblically sinful. SO is sleeping with your neighbor's wife, stealing his stuff, lying about him, killing him, or envying him. BEING of ****sexual orientation isn't necessarily "Sin" if the lusts are not acted upon - any more than recognizing that your neighbor's wife is good look'in and not doing as a result of that observation. As Ockengae once said -"You can't keep the birds from flying overhead, but you CAN keep them from building a nest in your hair".

    It seems God is casting judgment on them, even though they cannot help it. Do you agree or disagree?

    I disagree with the way the statement is made. YOU see God as ****ing them for BEING ****sexual regardless of any other consideration, so YOU are casting "judgment" upon them.

    I see God as ****ing them IF they DIDN'T Trust Jesus as their Savior, along with gluttons, over-libidinous HETERO-sexual folks who practice adultery/fornication/lasciviousness, murder, robbery, lying, seditionists - i.e. they didn't become "saved".

    ANd I'm NOT "Judging" (****ing) before the time.
    Last edited by Bob Carabbio; 10-11-2008 at 02:26 PM.

  4. #4
    Leslie
    Guest

    Default

    I think that ****sexuality is a spirit sent forth by the devil to confuse and destroy certain individuals. I believe fully that a person who is battling this can be fully delivered from what they are experiencing and can live a perfectly heterosexual life. My God is that big.

  5. #5
    lovelifehelen
    Guest

    Default

    I am new at this and just registered - don't understand all the threads etc. However, I absolutely love what Trinity said about ****sexuality - i have never heard it put so well.
    What a wonderful world if we could all have the same at***ude and try to reach out to one another.

  6. #6
    johnd
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    ****sexuality continues to be a hot topic in many forms of media.
    Because the media is not as impartial as they feign.

    How is it viewed in the Christian sect?
    Christianity is not a sect.

    Some people say that they are born as a ****sexual. Do you agree with this view?
    As is the case from humblest beginnings, from potty training to curbing appe***es that range from alcoholism to rage and even murderous desires, our higher calling is to strive to rise above the way we were born. Anything less is hedonistic regression.

    And it does not make it right by who or how many agree with a view.

    The Creator of all things (including sexuality) decides right from wrong. And he spelled it out in his Manufacturer's Manual the Bible. Thumbs down on ****sexuality, adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality...

    Or, is it a choice?
    In some cases it is a choice. In others, it's the result of being on a path of many bad choices leading to impotency through desensitization. In other cases its the sociopathic thing to do. Still in other cases it is seeking love in the only place love is offered (since the opposite sex rejects them, or one of their parents was over bearing or they were molested). In some cases it's identification with the gender that wants sex as often and the same way they do, ironically.

    None of which makes it right.

    Many churches are welcoming and accepting ****sexuals.
    The Church is supposed to accept sinners of all types but not embrace sin.

    According to the Bible, ****sexuals will not enter into heaven. It seems God is casting judgment on them, even though they cannot help it. Do you agree or disagree?

    TruthSeeker
    There is a very long list of sins (including ****sexuality) in the Bible.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-20
    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.
    11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
    12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
    13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
    14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
    15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
    16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
    17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
    18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
    19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
    20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

  7. #7
    johnd
    Guest

    Default

    I don't buy the argument they cannot help themselves. We can all help it, and we can all avoid compromising situations... when we get caught up in it 99 times out of 100, we did not take precautions and ignored our consciences when they stung us even before we were in over our heads.

    So huh uh, I ain't buying what you're (the OP) trying to sell.

  8. #8
    Elizabeth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnd View Post
    I don't buy the argument they cannot help themselves. We can all help it, and we can all avoid compromising situations... when we get caught up in it 99 times out of 100, we did not take precautions and ignored our consciences when they stung us even before we were in over our heads.

    So huh uh, I ain't buying what you're (the OP) trying to sell.
    Is thinking about it just as bad as doing it?

  9. #9
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elizabeth View Post
    Is thinking about it just as bad as doing it?
    Hello Elizabeth,

    The answer is no.

    Very rare are those who can master their mind in the jungle of their thoughts. Thoughts are just like involuntary spasms from your body.The discipline for your mind is something you can acquire by the prayer (a grace), meditation and spiritual experience.

    Even if someone can have explicit, bad thoughts, God still loves him. We all resist to all sorts of temptations. Someone should not feel guilty for his thoughts but just forget them. The perturbation or the discomfort comes when we give too much attention to those thoughts.

    Welcome among us Elizabeth.

    Trinity

  10. #10
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    I disapprove the ****sexual life style but,...

    ...I do not mix religion with politics. This is a dangerous mixture.

    For now, the ****sexuality is in the agenda of all churches. And the political road is becoming the instrument to ostracize those people from our society. If those persons are seen like citizens of second cl***, tell me what will happen, after, with the Muslims or the Hindus who are living among us.

    Just because they are not living according to our christian norms (standards), we will chase them like the poor women in the Middle Ages who were accused of witchcraft. In that time it was more easy for clergymen to burn the daughters of Eve than the sons of Adam. Anyway, that was Eve who was closer to the snake.

    Are we intransigeant? As Charlin Chaplin who was chased from America by the Senator McCarthy. Are we seeing communists everywhere? What kind of love is this?

    Often, my church (catholic) was accused because of his close relationship with the temporal power, but in our days, the christians evangelical are not doing better. They want to be involved into the presidency as the Catholic church wanted to be involved through a king. Where are the lessons of the history?

    A christian government, with an unlimited power, in America, is the most dangerous thing in the hands of imperfect elected men. May that God protects us against this possibility.

    Remember what Hitler has done to the Jews, but also to the ****sexuals, to the Jehovah Witnesses, and to the disabled people. This is the kind of society we want? And all those blacks who were hanged on a tree branch just because of the color of their skin.

    A lot of Christians are harsh against the feminists. However, I have never encountered, any evangelical woman decided to give up her very legitimate right to cast a vote. All women are feminists. Even when they want a woman as president or vice-president of the United States. To say otherwise is a hypocrisy.

    “I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.”---Thomas Jefferson.

    This is the guy who wrote your cons***ution.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-06-2008 at 06:17 PM.

  11. #11
    sayso
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    Hello Elizabeth,

    The answer is no.

    Very rare are those who can master their mind in the jungle of their thoughts. Thoughts are just like involuntary spasms from your body.The discipline for your mind is something you can acquire by the prayer (a grace), meditation and spiritual experience.

    Even if someone can have explicit, bad thoughts, God still loves him. We all resist to all sorts of temptations. Someone should not feel guilty for his thoughts but just forget them. The perturbation or the discomfort comes when we give too much attention to those thoughts.


    Trinity
    I think Jesus would disagree with you.

    Matthew 5

    27 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';

    28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Matthew 15

    18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.

    19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

  12. #12
    Leslie
    Guest

    Default

    Keep in mind that it is not a sin to be tempted, unless you're willing to say that Christ sinned. It says that he was tempted in ALL ways, but was without sin.

    I think Martin Luther was right here when he said something to the effect of "I'm not responsible for the birds that fly around my head, but I am if I let them nest in my hair." Or something like that.

    It's not a sin to be tempted, but it is a sin to give heed to that temptation and dwell on those thoughts.

  13. #13
    sayso
    Guest

    Default

    Elizabeth's question was:

    Is thinking about it just as bad as doing it?

    I didn't read her question as asking is it bad to be tempted.

    To say no, (imo) gives the impression that a person is only committing a smaller offense by entertaining sinful thoughts as long as you don't act on them. There are no lesser sins that aren't as bad.

    I agree, it is not a sin to be tempted with a bad thought. But people regularly thinking and getting enjoyment from those thoughts will eventually act on them.

    Philippians 4

    7 And the peace of God, which surp***es all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

    8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

  14. #14
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Hello Sayso,

    Quote Originally Posted by sayso View Post
    I agree, it is not a sin to be tempted with a bad thought. But people regularly thinking and getting enjoyment from those thoughts will eventually act on them.
    Into the normal conditions the length of a temptation (bad thought) can vary between 5 to 7 minutes. To be exposed more than this period of time is definitely a critical zone. Usually, after this length of time our mind is shifted on something else.

    Concerning lust, I am more of the opinion that Jesus was referring to a state of desire as what happened between King David and Bathsheba.

    Welcome into the Trans-Siberian train. I am wishing you a very comfortable travel among us.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-09-2008 at 10:59 AM.

  15. #15
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Disagree. It is a choice. They can help it, by the power of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    ****sexuality continues to be a hot topic in many forms of media. How is it viewed in the Christian sect? Some people say that they are born as a ****sexual. Do you agree with this view? Or, is it a choice? Many churches are welcoming and accepting ****sexuals. According to the Bible, ****sexuals will not enter into heaven. It seems God is casting judgment on them, even though they cannot help it. Do you agree or disagree?

    TruthSeeker
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...unions_en.html

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ersons_en.html

    It seems to me that the Church's stance is one that labels ****sexuality to be a type of disorder. It is much a disorder as perhaps as an alcoholic faces or perhaps obesity. The Church does not accept ****sexual acts, yet may take in the ****sexual in hopes that God will help them turn around. I have a problem with people who would say that God made them ****sexual, James tell us in chapter 1.14 that we are tempted when we are drawn away and trapped by our own evil desires and the verse prior that God tempts nobody. Hence, the ***ertion that a person says they are ****sexual, but are chaste and refrain from ****sexual acts has a certain problem in saying this in a social context. For one thing, if they are saying it like alcoholics at an AA meeting would be one thing... but we don't have much by way of an ****sexual Anonymous. While alcohol is a legal to drink, it is condemned socially to drink in excess and get behind the wheel and drive drunk. Many people can also get jailed for PI, public intoxication. But what of ****sexuality? Certain we have laws against sodomy on the books, but it is hard to enforce when people do it behind closed doors and consent to it. We have gay pride parades, but we don't have an alcoholics parade or an obesity parade. The ***ertion is taken by most to be a symbol of pride at being a ****sexual and not as a disease.

    I therefore would reject any Catholic who says that they are ****sexual, yet are chaste. They can allude to the fact that they have lustful desires, but they should never claim to be "****sexual" as James clearly demonstrates in 1.13-14.

  16. #16
    Leslie
    Guest

    Default

    Exactly, by them saying that over and over they are accepting it as fact. "I think therefore I am." So to speak.

    They need to rebuke the Devil in the name of Jesus Christ and be delivered from the spirit that is plaguing them. ****sexuality is a spirit, and until you get equipt for spiritual warfare you cannot do anything about it. When the devil tells you that you were born that way and can't help, you tell him he's a liar and the father of all lies. You tell him that God made you and that God doesn't make mistakes, and you tell him that HE decieds what you are and what you are not and the Devil has no right to come to you telling you lies.

  17. #17
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Not in danger yet, but the mixture is only a tool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    I disapprove the ****sexual life style but,...

    ...I do not mix religion with politics. This is a dangerous mixture.

    For now, the ****sexuality is in the agenda of all churches. And the political road is becoming the instrument to ostracize those people from our society. If those persons are seen like citizens of second cl***, tell me what will happen, after, with the Muslims or the Hindus who are living among us.
    The political road is not an instrument to ostracize the ****sexuals from our society, it is exactly opposite. The ****sexual interest groups are pushing themselves on our society and seeking to subvert our society. Case in point, the last two elections in California voted against gay marriage. The ****sexuals think this is uncons***utional, so they hope to appeal to the judicial system but find it presently difficult. They have in many local instances had field trips for elementary students for their marriages/civil unions, taught from books to elementary students promoting ****sexuality, and attempt to insert themselves into religion by playing the politics within denominations and exert pressures on the religious communities from politics in government. That is what their lobbyists do. To place the Christian community as the offender is simply an over-the-top ***essment. Let's face it, the media is in bed with ****sexuality as is Hollywood. What they present to the viewers is a skewed representation.

    As Steve Taylor sang in "Meet the Press"

    When the ratings point the camera's eye
    They can state the facts while telling a lie.



    I think the questions raised by you is not yet able to be staged. Going back to the Salem Witch trails is not possible in such a secular society that we live in today. I see more an attack on Christianity than the other way around. Of course, there are bad apples among us. But I do not think any Christian here, worth their salt, would advocate physical harm on the ****sexual. Such a person would be a professing Christian, and if they are unrepentant, certainly not in favor of our Lord. To better demonstrate how bad it is, I offer you this website:
    http://www.gaycatholicforum.org/
    And I want hear you tell me that there is no ***ault on Catholicism internally by such advocates!

  18. #18
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The political road is not an instrument to ostracize the ****sexuals from our society, it is exactly opposite. The ****sexual interest groups are pushing themselves on our society and seeking to subvert our society. Case in point, the last two elections in California voted against gay marriage. The ****sexuals think this is uncons***utional, so they hope to appeal to the judicial system but find it presently difficult. They have in many local instances had field trips for elementary students for their marriages/civil unions, taught from books to elementary students promoting ****sexuality, and attempt to insert themselves into religion by playing the politics within denominations and exert pressures on the religious communities from politics in government. That is what their lobbyists do. To place the Christian community as the offender is simply an over-the-top ***essment. Let's face it, the media is in bed with ****sexuality as is Hollywood. What they present to the viewers is a skewed representation.

    As Steve Taylor sang in "Meet the Press"

    When the ratings point the camera's eye
    They can state the facts while telling a lie.

    I think the questions raised by you is not yet able to be staged. Going back to the Salem Witch trails is not possible in such a secular society that we live in today. I see more an attack on Christianity than the other way around. Of course, there are bad apples among us. But I do not think any Christian here, worth their salt, would advocate physical harm on the ****sexual. Such a person would be a professing Christian, and if they are unrepentant, certainly not in favor of our Lord. To better demonstrate how bad it is, I offer you this website:
    http://www.gaycatholicforum.org/
    And I want hear you tell me that there is no ***ault on Catholicism internally by such advocates!
    I do not understand why they have referendums on this issue first. According to your cons***ution the state and religion should be separate. Also, the verbal violence always precedes the physical violence. This is not a new thing. People who are irritated from the two sides of the fence are immature. They condition their mental to a hatred confrontation, in an unbalanced emotional state. Because someone believes differently, they are irritated and they want to crush him. They are murderer into their heart. This is most of the time dormant in individuals but, this can bust collectively. In a small group (soldiers or policers who are committing atrocities) or a large mob (riot). A democratic society is not a guaranty for peace. Peace begins into the heart first.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-17-2008 at 01:03 PM.

  19. #19
    Bob Carabbio
    Guest

    Default

    The position of the AoG as espoused by the Southwestern ***embly of God University in Waxahachie appears to be that they DO NOT claim that "all ****sexuals are ****sexual by choice", and allow for a natural "flawed gender ***ociation".

    They also state accurately that there are any number of "Natural Heterosexual Behaviors" that persons can (and do) engage in that are sinful.

    IN THAT light, a "Natural ****sexuality" (whether it exists or not) really doesn't cons***ute any sort of argument for justification of ****sexual/lesbian ACTIVITY - which is ALWAYS and without exception represented as "sinful" behavior in the Bible.

    ALL "Sexual sin" is at issue, and ****sexuality isn't a "Super sin" - just another sinful activity that sinful humans fall into - naturally - it's our nature to sin.

    What's fascinating to me is that the Stereotypical "effeminate man" - and the "Masculine Woman" are likely to be the PHYSICAL result of known chromosomal disorders which in extreme cases result in sterility, and A-sexuality - no sexual orientation AT ALL without hormonal treatments.

    And like or not, a significant percentage of live births are "gender ambiguous" to one degree or another - in some cases to the extent that the hospital is simply incapable without chemical testing of determining the sex of a newborn through an examination of the genitalia.

  20. #20
    BrotherBrian
    Guest

    Default If not ****sexual, then?....

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...unions_en.html


    I therefore would reject any Catholic who says that they are ****sexual, yet are chaste. They can allude to the fact that they have lustful desires, but they should never claim to be "****sexual" as James clearly demonstrates in 1.13-14.
    Hi Columcille,

    I'm new here, but wanted to ask you, what term would you find acceptable for someone who was celibate, Christian, and yet never had any sexual attraction to members of the opposite gender, and always have had sexual attraction exclusively to members of the same gender? Thanks for your thoughts!

  21. #21
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrotherBrian View Post
    Hi Columcille,

    I'm new here, but wanted to ask you, what term would you find acceptable for someone who was celibate, Christian, and yet never had any sexual attraction to members of the opposite gender, and always have had sexual attraction exclusively to members of the same gender? Thanks for your thoughts!
    To answer your question, I would not call them anything but what you just described. Celibate and Christian. The deeper aspects of our iden***y is more than just our fleshly bodies. Better the person not reflect on "orientation" and focus more on practicing relational aspects and virtues with and toward the Lord.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm

    I think the above link describes a little about the human and divine virtues. Cardinal and theological virtues. Prudence, Justice, For***ude, and Temperance along with Faith, Hope, and Charity (love of an agape sort).

    Trinity,
    I've seen the video of the lesbians going into a Christian church and throwing out condoms and yelling Jesus is Gay and kissing. There was even one caught on camera of a ****sexual actually hitting a lady who was a Christian. I have not seen the violence you are suggestion by mainstream Christian groups. Even when there are rougue professing Christians, the Christian churches in America will state their condemnation of such acts. I have not condoned any verbal or physical abuse of the ****sexual. I think because my position shows for***ude, that you mistake that to be something of a vice. You stated the following Trinity:
    According to your cons***ution the state and religion should be separate
    There is no cons***utional "seperation of Church and State." The United States Cons***ution does not endorse any religion, but does not say to the politicians who are elected and have in their campaign maintained their religious integrity to keep their moral views as held by their religion to sit at the door when they sit down to vote what is before them or to be silent when they is presenting their case before the rest of the Congress. I think it rather an unfair advantage of the Christian to always have to compromise his integrity when he become a politican, but the other folks to advance their own cause. After so much expecting the conservative to give up so much, there comes a time that the conservative has nothing left, and so they must redefine conservativism. You can replace "conservative" and "conservativism" and replace it with whatever you want... compromise of this nature that seeks to moralize the once immoral is a heresy that God does not take lightly, and I sincerely hope you are not part of the same address to the church of Laodicea or of Sardis.

  22. #22
    BrotherBrian
    Guest

    Default Can you clarify?

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    To answer your question, I would not call them anything but what you just described. Celibate and Christian. The deeper aspects of our iden***y is more than just our fleshly bodies. Better the person not reflect on "orientation" and focus more on practicing relational aspects and virtues with and toward the Lord.
    Thanks for your thoughts. Can I ask, then what if the person is celibate and Christian and attracted exclusively to members of the opposite gender? Would you be opposed to calling them heterosexual? If not, then why do you oppose calling someone who is celibate and Christian and yet attracted exclusively to members of the same gender ****sexual? It seems to be a disconnect in the Church that somehow even identifying oneself as ****sexual is just as grave an error as someone engaged in ****sexual expressions. Yet we don't see that dicotomy when it comes to one who is heterosexual, even those who engage in heterosexual expressions.

    It seems to be a double standard. In other words, the Church seems to treat all sin equally, but to even identify as a sinner in need of grace is only permissable when that person is heterosexual, because to be ****sexual and Christian is viewed as doctrinally impossible, even though the church recognizes there are indeed people in the world who do identify exclusively as ****sexual, not in an effort to identify with a sinful behavior, but to be honest about the nature of their particular nature.

    It seems that the Church would rather ****sexuals be dishonest with members of the ***embly and say they are heterosexual or celibate, and actually inadvertently teach it is better to lie, which is as grievous a sin as any. One of the 10 Commandments is thou shall not lie, but there are no commandments saying, thou shall not be ****sexual, and if you are then thou shall lie about it.

    What's a gay Christian to do when approaching the church for guidance in this manner? Yes, I am gay, and yes I am Christian, and yes I am celibate.

    Not trying to set you up with a trick question here, just really confused as to how a gay person is to navigate Christianity if we cannot even be honest about who we are. Thanks in advance for your time.

  23. #23
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Brother Brian, it should be enough to state one's gender and leave it at that. Genesis 1.27c "Male and female he created them." I find it rather annoying to have to tell people I am white, male, or something rather obvious. There is really no need for people to parade around saying I am a heterosexual or a ****sexual. It serves no purpose except to agitate, or even more annoying still as a means of a frank pick-up line. Anyone have to say "I am a heterosexual" in a normal conversation, I find it a little awkward.

  24. #24
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default A spirit? (I don't believe so.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
    I think that ****sexuality is a spirit sent forth by the devil to confuse and destroy certain individuals.
    That may be "an" explanation which resolves something in certain people, but you can be certain that a guy/gal who has struggled with or accepted ****sexuality since childhood, is not going to likely take that as a viable answer; no more than a 'heterosexual' would.

    Ever heard anyone refer to the spirit of heterosexuality?

    I believe fully that a person who is battling this can be fully delivered from what they are experiencing and can live a perfectly heterosexual life. My God is that big.
    Some people can be relegated to a particular sexual-orientation of choice; but the preponderance of evidence supports the likelihood that most people do not choose their sexual-orientation; and it cannot be struggled out of...etc. At absolute best or as a real option, many can choose to abstain from certain sexual activities (as a heterosexual person surely might).

  25. #25
    oatmeal
    Guest

    Default

    When discussing something as convoluted, politicized, misunderstood, and misrepresented as ****sexuallity, it is best to return to the holy word of
    God for our understanding....

    The bible makes no excuse for sins of the flesh, but in fact declares that all sin and unrighteouness will be destroyed; that includes ****sexuals,
    fornicators, ****sexuallity, and the like...

    The only hope any of us have is through God incarnate, who died that we may live.

    The holy writ is clear: The just shall live by faith.


    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


    Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.


    Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


    Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


    Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


    Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


    Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


    Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


    Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


    Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


    Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


    Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,


    Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,


    Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:


    Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •