Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

[ActRaiser]

However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

Pointing fingers at rival denominations is not quite conductive to good behavior within the Church. The entire Church is to blame, and there are some things that we evidently won't be repentant for even when Jesus receives us in New Zion. That doesn't mean that we will die and be condemned to Hell.

Some of us believe in the Rapture... When Jesus takes us home. Won't it be ashamed, that if when Jesus comes, he finds men in bed together?

They wouldn't go, but they wouldn't go to Hell either. There is a lot of negative consequences from sin. Hell is only one, although it is the worst.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

Pointing fingers at rival denominations is not quite conductive to good behavior within the Church. The entire Church is to blame, and there are some things that we evidently won't be repentant for even when Jesus receives us in New Zion. That doesn't mean that we will die and be condemned to Hell.

Some of us believe in the Rapture... When Jesus takes us home. Won't it be ashamed, that if when Jesus comes, he finds men in bed together?

They wouldn't go, but they wouldn't go to Hell either. There is a lot of negative consequences from sin. Hell is only one, although it is the worst.

ActRaiser, I am only speaking the truth that there are welcoming and affirming churches of the ****sexual lifestyle. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do not affirm it. The ECUSA affirms it, I was once an Episcopalian. It affected me very much, and I still pray for the Anglican crisis. It certainly does not help out the mainstream responsible Protestant, like the Southern Baptists, or the numerous independent churches either. So how is it "bad behavior?" Are we to make the same ***umption of Jesus for calling people names or driving out the money changers? There is a time to call out sin for what it is. I can be sympathetic for ****sexuals that want to find Christ, but don't expect me to affirm the lifestyle. Affiliating with the lifestyle at this present time is a source of "gay pride" and Christians, the repentent former ****sexual, better wise up and stop calling themselves ****sexuals. It is misconstrued by others that God made them such and approves of it. It is a perversion of the flesh, a defect from the sin nature. James states the obvious:

Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1.13-15.

[ActRaiser]

Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1.13-15

This is a good way to prove a ****sexual isn't made gay by God.

But, you could also argue that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to prove his power of good over evil.

The same could be true with Jesus and ****sexuality.

Protestant Churches do tend to support the gay life style. Some clergy in the Vatican don't think Jesus is the Son of God.

The entire Church is weird, bizarre, and a zombified creature compared to what it was centuries ago.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

This is a good way to prove a ****sexual isn't made gay by God.

But, you could also argue that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to prove his power of good over evil.

The same could be true with Jesus and ****sexuality.

Protestant Churches do tend to support the gay life style. Some clergy in the Vatican don't think Jesus is the Son of God.

Clergy are also human and can error big time both morally and doctrinally. It is the Holy Spirit acting in the living Magesterium that is important. It is the Church historically declaring the moral and doctrinal truth in its authoritative manner that is important. I am unaware of any clergy by name in the Vatican that supports your statement. So firstly, be specific in citing whom you are refering.

As far as your first statement, I believe ****sexuality is derived from an injured psyche. No scientist has yet been able to identify a child as ****sexual in the womb. A deformity, as the transgender might have, is rare, but does not affect what I am here talking about. (I bring it up only because it is an obvious distraction that somebody is going to throw in for the red-herring). Test conducted on ****sexuals that was released in the Times magazine a long time ago in the 90s had some confounding variables. It still remains unknown by scientists who test such hypothesis as a baby being born gay is viable.
Your second statement I would not argue from. Firstly, such deformity as blindness or deafness have no moral implications. You might on the transgender, but since these are rare and obvious deformities... it lacks the same catagory as the ****sexual. You could argue what ifs about each and every case involving the transgender, but you would go nowhere in terms of the ****sexual.

[Jet]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The question now is... what is your thoughts on experience in relation to ****sexuality?

I'm sorry I've taken so long to answer your question. Here I go. I'll relate my own experiences in relation to ****sexuality.

I grew up as anti-****sexual. My church tradition told me ****sexuality was a sin, and so that's what I believed. Unfortunately for my church, ****sexuality had a stigma of being "weird" and "gross". I inherited this at***ude of gays also. I remember abhorring a certain boy in high school because he was gay.

I grew closer to Christ as I got older and as my commitment to him became stronger, and I gained from him comp***ion enough to treat gays civilly, as humans. Once I was open to friendship with gays, I found that they weren't as gross and weird as I had previously thought. In fact, they were quite like normal humans.

I'll also include that I did not believe ****sexual orientation to be natural. I believed that it was some self-induced perversion (perhaps available to those who were really sinful). But as I began to listen to ****sexuals and their stories, I changed my belief to include room for "being born gay". (By the way, Columcille, you said earlier that "No scientist has yet been able to identify a child as ****sexual in the womb." Can scientists identify children as heterosexual in the womb?)

Anyway, eventually I met gay Christians. And like before, they seemed a lot like normal people. They seemed to be devout and full of spiritual fruit. In fact, I talked to one gay about his relationship with God, and how God speaks to him, and he described God's voice and spoken content suspiciously similar to my own experiences with God's communication with me.

In any case, my intuition did not present "red flags" concerning the character of this particular gay person. Often with other lifestyles of sin, bad fruit manifests after a period of time. Eventually I began to question the beliefs I had been brought up with.

---------

Now, on to the pillar of Reason.

Often it's easy to ascertain why the Bible forbids certain actions. It is easy to see the damage that unforgiveness deals to relationships, for instance. Living a life of unforgiveness undermines the ability one has to effectively live as a blessing as a member of the kingdom of God.

It is not so clear why the Bible would forbid practicing ****sexuality. If two gays lived in union with one another in a monogamous, emotionally-healthy, mutually-lifting, committed, respectful relationship, what (logically) will keep them from being united to God, able to be used for his purposes?

--------

Originally Posted by Columcille

Jet, a foundation that is laid does not need balancing-out. We need to fix our reasoning and experiences to the foundation. Consistency is a hallmark of truth. It is easy to point to Scripture and we can point to Tradition, though it can be more difficult finding those ecumenical canon laws and solid ex cathedra statements or looking through the numerous Church father writings, papal encyclicals, and writings of the doctors of the Church.

Columcille, I don't understand what you've said. I don't know what you were referring to in my post (if you were referring to something), or what your point is. Will you clarify? Since you directed this at me, I thought I might ask for clarification. However, I understand that the conversation has moved beyond this, so it's alright with me if you refuse.

Originally Posted by Columcille

I partly agree with your ***essment, so far as Trinity has already mentioned. However, you have failed to tie this in with the subject of ****sexuality.

Ah, forgive me if it seemed completely off topic. I suppose I was merely defining terms, laying some groundwork for communicating different forms of thought...

Originally Posted by Columcille

Please provide the text proof.
...
I was hoping for a pro-God position for ****sexuality, not a negation.
...
It is the Church historically declaring the moral and doctrinal truth in its authoritative manner that is important. I am unaware of any clergy by name in the Vatican that supports your statement.

Forgive me if I'm reading into things, but I pick up from your posture, Columcille, that you expect a pro-gay thesis to be made on your terms, within your ruleset, one that fits into your perspective.

This is partly why I had my tangent on bias. There exists other ways of seeing the world than yours. But you seem to expect that other ways are not as valid.

On another note, Columcille, I admire that you're trying to keep the thread on original topic, even if I do feel like I'm treading on eggshells.

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using.

Again, I don't think I understand. It would help if you used proper grammar and readable sentence structure. Do you mean that Tradition, according to Wesley's Quadrilateral, consists of doctrinal statements only? If so, I urge you to reconsider your criteria.

[Columcille]

Jet, there were certain things that you said which I think Trinity did not pick up. The Catholic position is quite comp***ionate, but does not affirm the lifestyle as authentically Christian. Perhaps Trinity's eyes are open now that you have stated your position.

But let us make clear by Scripture what is its purpose... 2 Tim. 3.16 states the following:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for trainin in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Now, if you hold to a quadrilateral support of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience to determine what God has to say on the subject of ****sexuality... then by all means... use the Scripture for its purpose to teach what you say is true. So far, it seems only experience and reasoning are your true source of affirming ****sexual acts for Christians. What ever you use for "Tradition," please start citing these sources. You haven't once used Scripture to support your position, neither have you quoted any works of your "Tradition."