Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

[ActRaiser]

Originally Posted by Columcille

You are going to have to do more than just give an unrepentant sinner cloak in Christian clothing, singing Christian jargoon the benefit of the doubt that they are Christian when it flies in the face of Scripture and Tradition. Please present your case in like manner rather than ***uming the possibility that you can be Christain and a ****sexual at the same time.

You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.

How can a ****sexual be a Christian, unless they deny themselves via repentence and practice chasity and encouraging other ****sexuals to leave the lifestyle... in short, no longer being ****sexuals.

I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.



I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell

So are you saying Solomon was a ****sexual, bisexual? Please provide the text proof. Daniel commited adultery, but I do not see evidence of Solomon doing the same. At any rate, David repented and faced the temporal punishments and consequences of his sin. I do not know if Solomon was "saved" at any rate when he started committing idol worship for his wives" sake. He seems to have forgotten the God of his youth. 3 Kings 11.40 states "Solomon therefore sought to kill Jeroboam: but he arose, and fled into Egypt to Sesac the king of Egypt, and was in Egypt till the death of Solomon." Solomon commited idolatry and forsake God. He apostasized. I am not sure how far you want to go in attempting to say Solomon is a Christian? Much less say he made it to heaven. At least David repented from his gross sin, it does not mention that Solomon did the same.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.

I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell

I greatly appreciate your perspective, ActRaiser. Columcille has earlier quoted 1 Cor 6.9-10: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy pros***utes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I'll discuss my interpretation of these verses at a later time, but for now I'd like to support what you say by pointing out that even if the words translated here as "boy pros***utes" and "sodomites" could be taken to refer to a modern-day gay person in a committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship, Paul here puts these categories of "sinners" all on the same level.

That is, "adulterers", "boy pros***utes" and "sodomites" are no more in danger of exclusion from the kingdom of God than the greedy and slanderers. If we're going to especially pick out gay and lesbian people, we'd better be similarly prepared to condemn consumerism and gluttony. (These things strike me personally much closer to home than the list of sexual sins, and in my estimation they're much more widespread...)

[ActRaiser]

::Nods to asdf::

Then to Columcille:
I'm not saying Solomon was a gay or bi man. I'm saying that sexual sins are all sexual sins. He very clearly lived a hypersexualized life with many professional *****s.

Furthermore, Solomon has seemed to lay down Prophets for God, and he blessed Israel extremely deeply during his life time. Given God's pleasure towards people who treat the Jews well, it is scripturally possible, if not very probable that Solomon was saved.

In fact, many Jews were saved by Jesus before he was ever born in a Stable. Moses, Abraham, and the others were saved by Jesus by looking towards a Messiah. They just didn't know it would be a carpenter from Nazareth.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

::Nods to asdf::

Then to Columcille:
I'm not saying Solomon was a gay or bi man. I'm saying that sexual sins are all sexual sins. He very clearly lived a hypersexualized life with many professional *****s.

Furthermore, Solomon has seemed to lay down Prophets for God, and he blessed Israel extremely deeply during his life time. Given God's pleasure towards people who treat the Jews well, it is scripturally possible, if not very probable that Solomon was saved.

In fact, many Jews were saved by Jesus before he was ever born in a Stable. Moses, Abraham, and the others were saved by Jesus by looking towards a Messiah. They just didn't know it would be a carpenter from Nazareth.

I quoted 3 Kings 11. I guess that is 1 Kings 11. I was using my Douay-Rheims when I quoted it. He was in the end into idolatry. Your lack references to Solomon's apostasy. He may have built the temple, he may have done a lot of good, but in the end... I am uncertain as to the state of his soul. Since he wanted to kill a prophet of God, Jeraboam, I do not think he was repentent. I would be very weary to quote him as an example. Christians are called to a life of repentance. Hence, you cannot be a practicing ****sexual and a practicing Christian. The law in Leviticus does not give distinction to a loving ****sexual relationship or an abusive manipulative one. It states it without condition to kill them both in the theocracy. As far as Moses, Abraham, or the so-called others, you need to demonstrate that they were ****sexuals, unrepentant in that, and God calls them righteous. You are not going to get that with the patriarchs in the O.T. nor the Prophets. Dig deeper. I was hoping for a pro-God position for ****sexuality, not a negation.

[ActRaiser]

Who says ****sexuals need to be an example? Like A pointed out, a rampant womanizer is no better.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

Who says ****sexuals need to be an example? Like A pointed out, a rampant womanizer is no better.

It is not a point to compare apples to oranges. The subject is a call for a quadrilateral support of a pro-God defense of the ****sexual lifestyle. Behavioral sins do affect the mentality of the people to the point that they justify their behavior. The alcoholic blames their loved ones for driving them to drink. The slanderer seeks to elivate themselves by cutting others down, the glutton seeks to feed their appe***e. It is the state of mind where there is no repentant desire to end the behavior. The glutton, knowing he is fat should not desire to stay that way. The same goes for ****sexuality, and all the behavioral mortal sins. What is worse is that you have professing Christians supporting the lifestyle as the Bishop Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church USA. You have just recently a Lutheran faction now embracing it. Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle? It is not a defense, it is an an***hesis. If God if for ****sexual marriages, is allowable for Christians to participate in it... then present a thesis, not an an***hesis. Use your quadrilateral.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

It is not a point to compare apples to oranges. The subject is a call for a quadrilateral support of a pro-God defense of the ****sexual lifestyle. Behavioral sins do affect the mentality of the people to the point that they justify their behavior. The alcoholic blames their loved ones for driving them to drink. The slanderer seeks to elivate themselves by cutting others down, the glutton seeks to feed their appe***e. It is the state of mind where there is no repentant desire to end the behavior. The glutton, knowing he is fat should not desire to stay that way. The same goes for ****sexuality, and all the behavioral mortal sins. What is worse is that you have professing Christians supporting the lifestyle as the Bishop Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church USA. You have just recently a Lutheran faction now embracing it. Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle?

I think you're still not getting ActRaiser's point. What he/she (sorry, haven't met you yet ) is saying is precisely to compare apples to apples. You yourself cited Paul in putting "****sexuality" on the very same terms as greed and slander.

So if you're denying that "salvation" is achievable for an unrepentant ****sexual person, you'd better be ready to bar the kingdom of heaven to an unrepentant greedy person.

(Quotes on "salvation" because I think you're needlessly conflating "salvation" with "going to heaven after you die". I don't take that to be a necessary Christian view, but that's a topic for another day.)

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

I think you're still not getting ActRaiser's point. What he/she (sorry, haven't met you yet ) is saying is precisely to compare apples to apples. You yourself cited Paul in putting "****sexuality" on the very same terms as greed and slander.

So if you're denying that "salvation" is achievable for an unrepentant ****sexual person, you'd better be ready to bar the kingdom of heaven to an unrepentant greedy person.

(Quotes on "salvation" because I think you're needlessly conflating "salvation" with "going to heaven after you die". I don't take that to be a necessary Christian view, but that's a topic for another day.)

Rightly so. If unrepentant, with no desire to change... you bet, I'd bar them also. However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

[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."

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Rightly so. If unrepentant, with no desire to change... you bet, I'd bar them also. However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

I'm glad I don't have to live in fear of Columcille as my judge, then - for I'm certain there are areas of my life about which I will be ashamed when I stand before my Maker.

Thankfully, I'm not afraid that [he] would deny me [his] presence based on the things I don't see about myself.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

I'm glad I don't have to live in fear of Columcille as my judge, then - for I'm certain there are areas of my life about which I will be ashamed when I stand before my Maker.

Thankfully, I'm not afraid that [he] would deny me [his] presence based on the things I don't see about myself.

People choose their lifestyle. I am only presenting what the Scripture has to say. Your reinterpretation of it has yet to be made to the rest of us. Scripture is suppose to be one of your quadrilaterals... I suggest you use it.

[ActRaiser]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle? It is not a defense, it is an an***hesis. If God if for ****sexual marriages, is allowable for Christians to participate in it... then present a thesis, not an an***hesis. Use your quadrilateral.

God is not for gay marriage. I do not justify the gay life style. I justify people who identify themselves as gay. It may seem contradictory, but I have read from the scriptures certain talking points which seem to point out that even murderers and tyrants go there. (See Nebuchednezzar) Nebuchadnezzar might not have been gay, but he was much worse than that. He even persecuted God's people, the Israelites, and demanded idolatry.

That somewhat answers your question regarding Solomon, since Nebuchedezzar was infinitely worse.

[Trinity]

"****sexuality is a sustained condition or adaptation in which erotic fantasy, attraction and arousal is predominately directed toward one’s own sex. The term ‘‘sustained’’ is used because confusion about one’s sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Although the Catholic Church recognizes that ****sexual attraction is not chosen, and therefore the orientation in itself is not a sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358), it has been the constant tradition in Church teaching, based on Scripture and natural law, that ****sexual activity is morally wrong. This article expounds the basis for this judgment in terms of the Church’s teaching on marriage, and its proper, virtuous expression of sexuality.

Scripture. Traditionally, six texts in Scripture have been accepted in Christian Churches as condemnations of ****sexual behavior. Genesis (19.1–29) contains the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by God for wickedness which included ****sexual demands on Lot’s guests. Leviticus forbids practices such as adultery and bestiality, and includes the prohibition: ‘‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination’’ (18.20–23), a condemnation repeated in Lv 20.13. In the New Testament, St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans cites indulgence in same-sex lust and the perverse actions of men with men, women with women, as deserving penalty (1.26ff). In the First Letter to the Corinthians Paul includes ****sexual activity as one of the sins that bars inheritance of God’s kingdom (6.9-11). The First Letter to Timothy also lists ****sexual activity as an offense of the wicked and godless (1.8,11). Finally, the author of the Letter of Jude refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding towns which indulged in unnatural vice, with the admonition that their punishment is meant to dissuade us (1.6-8).

Beginning with Anglican author D. Sherwin Baily’s 1955 book ****sexuality and Western Christian Tradition, a number of scholars and pro-gay apologists have reinterpreted the standard scriptural texts, thereby encouraging a revisionist theology which accepts ****sexual activity as morally acceptable for ****sexual persons. This interpretation stands against the constant teaching of the Church, dating from the Fathers of the early Christian centuries, affirmed by the major theological Doctors of the Middle Ages, and reaffirmed in current Catholic magisterial pronouncements.

These revisionist views take various forms, generally proposing that the scriptural texts were written in the setting of a different culture, and in times when the notion of differing sexual orientations was not known. Some maintain that the sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality rather than ****sexual activity, or, while admitting that the Genesis story concerns ****sexual activity, see its condemnation aimed at the violence of threatened ****sexual rape. Others maintain that the text in Romans refers to ****sexual actions by heterosexual persons, and that the strictures were against ****sexual pros***ution in a setting of orgiastic idolatry.

A simple reply to these views would be to note that nowhere in Scripture is ****sexual genital behavior mentioned in a positive manner. More striking, in both Testaments one finds the over-arching affirmation of heterosexual marriage as a symbol of God’s covenant relationship with his people and of the union of Christ with his spouse, the Church. The 1986 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of ****sexual Persons, notes that God fashions mankind male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings therefore are nothing less than the work of God Himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with Him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of self to the other (6).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, does not see ambiguity in the Scripture references to ****sexual behavior. Citing four of the cl***ic texts, it states: ‘‘Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ . . . contrary to the natural law . . . (and) under no circumstances can they be approved’’ (2357). The first chapter of Genesis contains the nucleus of the theology of marriage. ‘‘God created man in his image . . . male and female he created them, and blessed them saying ‘be fertile and multiply’’’ (1.27). ‘‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one’’ (2.24)."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition
Thompson and Gale,
2003, vol. 7, [pages 66-67]
http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/...pe=1&id=113827

Trinity