A Small Response To "Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink"

[stev0]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this before but I heard a sermon this summer that made me think about homosexuality in regards to Christianity.

As Walter Wink stated "Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion."
While looking into Greek definition of the word natural in this context I see something different about this passage than Walter does.

He concluded that the word natural was talking about what we are naturally inclined to do.(psychologically) & and assumed that Paul did not understand what was normal.

Paul wrote that homosexuality is not "normal." If you look up the specific Greek word used for normal here, you would find psuchikos. This Greek word means natural, but what I found interesting here is the specificness of this Greek word. Psuchikos' root word is phusis, which means physical. So the full meaning of the word psuchikos is physically natural; and it's not that Paul said they were psychologically unnatural but specifically stated that it was physiologically unnatural.

Lastly, it means that its just basically not natural for our bodies to work like that and we all know how it fits together "naturally."(psuchikos)

Well I know my words will offend some, but I'm not trying to be arrogant in my words. I pray that if I'm wrong in my words someone will be able to convince me otherwise. I post this out of my love for fellow believers. I pray you'll consider my words.

Gimme some feedback I wanna know how everyone here feels about this.
thanx for letting me voice my heart on this one.

[tdogg]

Stevo

First, a very warm welcome to the SF forums to you.

Second, you want us to consider your words. Which words would that be? Why do you so strongly want us to 'consider' them? In other words, what is your true motivator for posting?

Lastly but certainly not least, you will find a myriad of posts to answer your questions if you just take the time to read through the forum threads. They have been answered and re-answered, explained and explained again and again. All you gotta do is take the time to read them. Then perhaps you can come back to this thread and let us know what you have learned, and give us some new questions. We've all put down our thoughts, experiences and explanations all throughout the forum threads. There are also numerous posts regarding Biblical translations in respect to the scriptures you quote and others. I think you'll find the information quite useful.


Happy reading. :reading::rainbow::)

Tdogg

[u-dog]

Welcome Steve,

Before long our resident Greek Scholar, Andrew Little (another straight guy) will be along to engage you around your parsing of the Greek. that is not my area of expertise particularly.

My analysis of the Romans passage is Rhetorical in nature. Paul is making a subtle and complex argument that begins in Romans chapter one and concludes in Chapter two.

The first thing to realize is that Paul is not really addressing the immorality of the gentiles. He's setting them up as bait in order to catch a different quarry. Paul is addressing a mixed population of Jewish and Gentile Christians who undoubtedly already agree with him that a lot of the stuff thats going on in the surrounding culture is gross (including but not limited to certain undefined homoerotic acts). Paul makes the point that the SOURCE of these outrageous behavior is IDOLATRY. They do these things because they have worshipped the creature rather than the creator.

Once Paul has got the Roman Christians (especially the Jewish ones) sufficiently enraged over the nastiness of their Roman Pagan neighbors and has made the connection between Idolatry and these behaviors, Paul does an interesting thing. He turns the tables on them. In the beginning of Chapter two he warns them not to judge their neighbors because "you are doing the same thing"

Homoerotic sex acts? no. Idolatry. Only THEIR idolatry is an idolatry of the Law. they are worshipping the law rather than the God of Grace and are trading the truth for a lie.

Paul's REAL targets are the Jewish Christians who can't quite escape from a reliance on the law and wish to impose it upon their gentile brothers and sisters.

Kind of Ironic don't you think? That fundamentalist Christians with a pharisaical love of the law use this argument to bludgeon gay Christians? Its amusing to me that whenever right wing Christians lift up the Romans passage they ALWAYS stop reading before Chapter two (where the Apostle is waiting to drop a brick on their heads)

I hope you don't find THIS offensive.

[stev0]

lol
Thanks for the post

[scott snedeker]

being true to one's nature requires love of one's self. I can't imagine God wanting me to live any other way. Making love to men connects me to my basic primaeval heart of innocence, Innocence of judgement by myself or others when my natural capacity to love passionately was a beautiful thrill of discovering the joy of sex. This is God's design. Innate feeling followed by laughing and joy and sharing something wonderful.:love::love:

Lucky for me I'm a Pagan. We not only see sex as spiritual wholeness but not having sex as disconnection from God. So far this repeatedly rings true to my soul. How can joy be wrong?

[stev0]

"Kind of Ironic don't you think? That fundamentalist Christians with a pharisaical love of the law use this argument to bludgeon gay Christians? Its amusing to me that whenever right wing Christians lift up the Romans passage they ALWAYS stop reading before Chapter two (where the Apostle is waiting to drop a brick on their heads)"

Well, I suppose I would consider myself fundamentalist
I don't so much prescribe to a legalistic view of the law. My only point is that it is considered sinful or to my knowledge it is. Being gay doesn't mean your not saved or (going to hell). Not trusting in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, and turning our lives over to him is what leaves God no choice but to justly punish us.

I don't seek to bludgeon anyone for being gay. I've had inclinations of the same myself and I would hope that if anyone genuinely thought I was going against what God would have for my life He/She would attempt to direct me as best they could as part of God's sanctification of my life (and the life of any other believer {to become more Christ-like as we grow in our faith})

We won't be judged by any of our sins if we are truly saved (ie. faith/repentance/perseverance of faith)

I am most deserving of God's wrath and yes, Paul does through the Holy Spirit does drop a brick on our heads and convicts us through the Word and by fellow believers such as yourselves.

[Daniel]

Well, I suppose I would consider myself fundamentalist
I don't so much prescribe to a legalistic view of the law. My only point is that it is considered sinful or to my knowledge it is. Being gay doesn't mean your not saved or (going to hell). Not trusting in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, and turning our lives over to him is what leaves God no choice but to justly punish us.

Hi Stevo- you lost me here. What is the 'it' referring to in the second sentence? The fact of being gay?

I don't seek to bludgeon anyone for being gay. I've had inclinations of the same myself and I would hope that if anyone genuinely thought I was going against what God would have for my life He/She would attempt to direct me as best they could as part of God's sanctification of my life (and the life of any other believer {to become more Christ-like as we grow in our faith.]

Inclinations of what? That you are gay yourself?

I am most deserving of God's wrath and yes, Paul does through the Holy Spirit does drop a brick on our heads and convicts us through the Word and by fellow believers such as yourselves.

And because you fear you might be gay you think you deserve God's wrath?

Well...you've come to the right place if you to discuss these matters, but you won't find anyone here telling you that you deserve of God's wrath because of your sexuality, whatever it is.

Which begs the question: what you you hope to get out of your interaction here? What's your goal my friend?

Oh.....I grew up Pentacostal....as did quite a few other people around here. We 'get' the whole thing re fundamentalism, if you know what I mean.

[Steven E. Webster]

Steve,

I'm another Steve---common name.

What do you make of Paul's other uses of the same word (phusikos--or however you spelled it). Later in Romans Paul says that God has grafted the Gentile Christians into the Jewish people "contrary to nature," just like someone would graft a wild olive tree onto a domestic olive tree "contrary to nature."

Paul also describes short hair on women and long hair on men as "contrary to nature." Seems to me that if you let it, hair just naturally grows.

I think your analysis of the word Paul uses is a little too simplistic.

Further, if Paul claims that homosexuality is unnatural, then Paul is just simply mistaken. Homosexuality is natural. It would not be the only time that the Bible has been shown to be mistaken about some factual matter relating to the natural world. The Bible isn't, after all, a book about science--it was never intended to be that.

Many of us here believe that our road to sanctification, to maturity in Christ, is not hindered by our acceptance of our homosexual orientation and our commitment to our same-gender spouses. Quite the contrary, we have found that we cannot "go on to perfection" (sanctification) without embracing our sexual orientation and our love of our spouses.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Many of us here believe that our road to sanctification, to maturity in Christ, is not hindered by our acceptance of our homosexual orientation and our commitment to our same-gender spouses. Quite the contrary, we have found that we cannot "go on to perfection" (sanctification) without embracing our sexual orientation and our love of our spouses.


I resemble that remark!

[stev0]

to: Daniel

"Hi Stevo- you lost me here. What is the 'it' referring to in the second sentence? The fact of being gay? "

Yes.

"Inclinations of what? That you are gay yourself?"

When I was younger I explored the idea of pursuing a gay lifestyle, but I no longer pursue that lifestyle or want to.

"And because you fear you might be gay you think you deserve God's wrath? "
No. Not that I "fear" being gay. That sounds kinda silly. But I feel that everyone on the face of the planet including myself deserve God's wrath because we have sinned against Him in numerous ways (lieing, lusting, killing, stealing, etc.)

"Which begs the question: what you you hope to get out of your interaction here? What's your goal my friend?"

I've never had any real conversation on this topic with anyone who considers themselves to be Christian and homosexual. I wanna know what people think. Also, I obviously believe my perspective is a correct from what I've gleamed from scriptures and my pastors. So, if my perspective on these things is wrong in relation to the Christian God and His revealed Word...I'd like to be corrected...along with all that mumbo jumbo I just want to hear varied responses (thus the forum here).
----------------------------------------------
To: Steve

"I think your analysis of the word Paul uses is a little too simplistic."

You may very well be right. thank-you for your thoughtful response.
But I still think the words used in that passage are very specific and your response to it does not take away from my first post's point... or I'm mistaken and haven't understood you correctly.


thanx again to everyone who's replied

[keltic63]

Steve,

I'm another Steve---common name.


Many of us here believe that our road to sanctification, to maturity in Christ, is not hindered by our acceptance of our homosexual orientation and our commitment to our same-gender spouses. Quite the contrary, we have found that we cannot "go on to perfection" (sanctification) without embracing our sexual orientation and our love of our spouses.

Steven Webster

alas, it is oh so common. I called BrentRichards last night and used my full real name to identify myself. It turns out that he knows someone else by that same name and was surprised that I didn't sound like the guy he knew....well, I wasn't the guy he knew.

It is very clear to me that my living out the natural orientation that God has gifted me with is extremely important on my spiritual journey. I was most hindered by attempting live as a straight man. I see the blessings of God on a daily basis, and soon my partner and I will be married! It will be our chance to declare our love for each other before God and our friends and family.

I resemble that remark!

soon, I will too! although, I must say that in so many ways, we feel that bound together as one already.



I don't seek to bludgeon anyone for being gay. I've had inclinations of the same myself and I would hope that if anyone genuinely thought I was going against what God would have for my life He/She would attempt to direct me as best they could as part of God's sanctification of my life (and the life of any other believer {to become more Christ-like as we grow in our faith})



Sweetie, closets are for clothes, not people. ;)

[stev0]

Hehe, thanks keltic
but it looks like i'll have to live life in the closet till I die or my wife does.
since i got married last dec. ;) woot

[stev0]

Stevo

First, a very warm welcome to the SF forums to you.

Second, you want us to consider your words. Which words would that be? Why do you so strongly want us to 'consider' them? In other words, what is your true motivator for posting?

Lastly but certainly not least, you will find a myriad of posts to answer your questions if you just take the time to read through the forum threads. They have been answered and re-answered, explained and explained again and again. All you gotta do is take the time to read them. Then perhaps you can come back to this thread and let us know what you have learned, and give us some new questions. We've all put down our thoughts, experiences and explanations all throughout the forum threads. There are also numerous posts regarding Biblical translations in respect to the scriptures you quote and others. I think you'll find the information quite useful.


Happy reading. :reading::rainbow::)

Tdogg
To: tdogg

thanks for the welcome and I hope by the other posts i've answered most of your questions, but as for my questions already having been answered...

I know they have and I'm sure the information is hear and all over the internet for me to dig through, but it's much simpler and more interesting to get live up to date responses and is a spark for conversation with real people rather than quietly drudging through search engines....that's my reason for posting something i'm sure is an out dated question, but my curiosity beg that i ask it again.

[Daniel]

Stevo- You will want to learn how to quote another poster. This will help you keep your own from being confusing, that is, who is saying what when. You can learn how to do that here:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=325

So you explored the idea of a gay lifestyle?

You may have heard that gay persons don't exactly have a lifestyle. We have lives. This word 'lifestyle' is most often used by those who endeavor to make a distinction between their seemingly holy lives and those of others which is deemed sinful. In that sense, the word is used pregoratively. While you may not have intended this distinction, you nevertheless invoked it.

So you flirted with being openly gay and are now married? To be frank: are you having second thoughts?

I'm married to a man (Oh Canada!), and I don't have any second thoughts.

[Alecto]

I've mostly stayed out of this thread for the simple reason that I don't identify as Christian, and as such I don't have much to contribute to what you propose. One thing I will say, though, is that if you're looking for someone to tell you that you're perspective is "incorrect", or to tell you what the "correct" perspective is, I think that's kind of not the point. If you'd truly like to understand (and respect) a different perspective, whether or not you end up fully believing it yourself, that sounds a little more on target.

::recedes back to shadowy corner::

[stev0]

Stevo- You will want to learn how to quote another poster. This will help you keep your own from being confusing, that is, who is saying what when. You can learn how to do that here:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=325

So you explored the idea of a gay lifestyle?

You may have heard that gay persons don't exactly have a lifestyle. We have lives. This word 'lifestyle' is most often used by those who endeavor to make a distinction between their seemingly holy lives and those of others which is deemed sinful. In that sense, the word is used pregoratively. While you may not have intended this distinction, you nevertheless invoked it.

So you flirted with being openly gay and are now married? To be frank: are you having second thoughts?

I'm married to a man (Oh Canada!), and I don't have any second thoughts.

sorry, I didn't realize that it was an incorrect way to address being homosexual or ingaging in homosexual acts I'll try to be a little more choosy with my words. I was just making the distinction that if you do decide you are homosexual and that is okay for your life it will influence many aspects of your life. Which is why i used the term lifestyle.

Well, I don't believe I am "holier than thou" for any reason.

and to clarify I wasn't flirting with being "openly gay" I was struggling with whether or not that was an option for me. (sorry if this too is unclear it's the best way i can describe it)

No, I'm not having second thoughts in my marriage - in relation to sexual identity. I'm very content with my wife.

[Daniel]

sorry, I didn't realize that it was an incorrect way to address being homosexual or ingaging in homosexual acts I'll try to be a little more choosy with my words. I was just making the distinction that if you do decide you are homosexual and that is okay for your life it will influence many aspects of your life. Which is why i used the term lifestyle.

Decide you are homosexual?

If would say that for the vast majority of gay folks that I know, including myself, the self-knowledge of our sexuality, in this case same-sex sexuality, came, not as a 'decision', but rather, as an awareness, a discovery, an unfolding of inner truth, a recognition of an essential part of who we are as living beings.

It's not an arbitrary matter, like figuring out which brand of yogurt to take off the shelf. Nor is it a matter of picking out the most colorful attire when can find just to get attention, as if the attention one got was favorable, especially from religious conservatives who deem being gay a sin worth than death.

The choice is this: one either accepts one's same-sex attraction or not.

One either accepts to be happy as God made one or not.

One lives in truth and wholeness or not.

Of course, if one can't bring oneself to even contemplate these matters or face one's feelings for whatever reason, there aren't any 'options'. One then simply decides to push the whole matter away and go with the flow- the flow being what others want- what others think- what others believe.

I think they call that herd mentality.

Moo.....

Affect many aspects of your life

Well....I certainly hope so. Accepting I was gay has led me to have 15 really wonderful years with the man I call my husband.

[keltic63]

sorry, I didn't realize that it was an incorrect way to address being homosexual or ingaging in homosexual acts I'll try to be a little more choosy with my words. I was just making the distinction that if you do decide you are homosexual and that is okay for your life it will influence many aspects of your life. Which is why i used the term lifestyle.

I like to cook. I like to go to Art exhibits. I like to sit in the sun and read books that are collections of humorous short stories. I like to sing and dance, and go antiquing and joke around with my dad, and listen to my kids make music, and watch movies from netflix, and the list goes on and on. This is my LIFESTYLE. Some of these things are influenced by my orientation, and many are not.

I never decided that I am a homosexual. It just is as it is. However, I did try to decide that I was straight. It was a disaster. Trying to live life as a straight man did damage to me, a woman, and left some scars on my 3 kids, although, they are doing very well.

Well, I don't believe I am "holier than thou" for any reason.

hmm. glad to hear that. So what's your motivation for visiting us here? I'm a gay christian. or maybe I'm a christian who happens to be gay. God certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with me. Do you?

and to clarify I wasn't flirting with being "openly gay" I was struggling with whether or not that was an option for me. (sorry if this too is unclear it's the best way i can describe it)


It's very clear to those of us who have wrestled with this issue that being gay or straight is not an option. Is there some reason you felt that you had to make some sort of decision? Maybe your attraction is to men, but you feel the need to conform to society, or family pressures, or religious pressures and therefor you "chose" to be straight. If that's the case, I'm really worried about you. I did the same thing. It nearly killed me.
Maybe your attraction is to women, and you really thought that you had to make a choice. For most straight people, there is never a need to even think about their orientation. It's accepted and even celebrated.

there are variations of orientation, and a few here claim "bisexual" as their gift. Maybe that is where you lie along the orientation curve.

No, I'm not having second thoughts in my marriage - in relation to sexual identity. I'm very content with my wife.

wow. that's a ringing endorsement of marriage! I hope that when I marry my bf next summer that I'll be more than content.

[u-dog]

Stev0 said: So the full meaning of the word psuchikos is physically natural; and it's not that Paul said they were psychologically unnatural but specifically stated that it was physiologically unnatural.

Lastly, it means that its just basically not natural for our bodies to work like that and we all know how it fits together "naturally."(psuchikos)

What do you mean by "work like that"? are you talking about the complementarity of male and female plumbing and the lack of complimentarity of m/m or f/f sexual congress? Or are you talking about the physical/sexual/emotional attraction of one male person to another male person (and one female person to another female person)

What, exactly to you think that "natural" means? Does "unnatural" mean "never seen in nature"? or does it mean "counter to God's plan"?

As Steven points out below, If Paul means that same sex attraction and sexual activity is "not seen in nature" then he is simply mistaken. same sex attraction (and in more than a few cases, even same sex life partners) are attested in over 1500 higher order species (mostly but not exclusively birds and mammals). it is especially common among those species most closely related to humans (primates in general and "great apes" in particular).

You seem to be saying that you think Wink has gone wrong by translating the greek word "Psuchikos" to mean "psychologically unnatural" and that it ought to be translated "physiologically unnatural" instead. Is that even a meaningful distinction? Is the body REALLY neatly divided between the "physiological" and the "psychological"? I have struggled with depression all of my adult life and I can tell you... there is no clear boundary between the two. If the physiology of my hormones and neurochemicals is off... so is my psychological outlook. the two are really one.

from what I understand, Daniel and his husband are emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically "complimentary" with each other and their bodies echo and amplify that complimentarity very nicely. In what sense do they "not work" together?


Steven said: What do you make of Paul's other uses of the same word (phusikos--or however you spelled it). Later in Romans Paul says that God has grafted the Gentile Christians into the Jewish people "contrary to nature," just like someone would graft a wild olive tree onto a domestic olive tree "contrary to nature."

Paul also describes short hair on women and long hair on men as "contrary to nature." Seems to me that if you let it, hair just naturally grows.

Below you suggest that what Steven says above doesn't "take away" from you original point. but I think it does. Clearly, short hair is not "natural" to men and long hair is not "natural" to women. The Nazarites (like John the Baptist and Samson) did not cut their hair and it grew long. they were men and Samson, at least, was a hetero-sexual (and look where it got him!) If "Psuchikos" means "physiologically natural" then why would Paul use it to describe what is clearly a cultural norm (hairstyles)? And if doing something "physiologically unnatural" is such a terrible thing... why would Paul use it as a metaphor for how God is building the Church?


Stev0 said: To: Steve

"I think your analysis of the word Paul uses is a little too simplistic."

You may very well be right. thank-you for your thoughtful response.
But I still think the words used in that passage are very specific and your response to it does not take away from my first post's point... or I'm mistaken and haven't understood you correctly.

Finally, is it possible for Paul to be mistaken about a fact of "nature" without invalidating the truth of scripture? Even if Paul thinks that ALL homosexual behavior is unnatural and therefore immoral and is MISTAKEN about that... does it invalidate the argument that he is making to the Roman Christians in Chapters one and two of his letter?

[RedneckDyke]

My lifestyle is this: I pet mules' noses, scratch hogs' back with a stick, hug sheep (not THAT way, I know I'm a redneck...but :p). I love crosswords and hate sudoko. I read lots of books about history. I love food way too much. I love my neighbors and they love me and my partner.

I too didn't want to be gay because I thought I was bad. I didn't decide to go gay, I decided to accept myself. My old Korean War vet neighbor talked about how they punished left-handed kids in school and made them write right-handed. SChools don't do that anymore. there's nothing wrong with being a leftie, it's the way people come out ( hee hee a pun :D)
Just the same with my orientation. Why fight it?
As for being a Christian.... I am much more christian now in a lifetime monogomous marriage to a woman than when I was getting high and having one-night stands with dudes because I was trying not be gay.

[Daniel]

from what I understand, Daniel and his husband are emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically "complimentary" with each other and their bodies echo and amplify that complimentarity very nicely. In what sense do they "not work" together?

I'll have to get back to you on this one.....:rolleyes:

Research may be required.....

:D

:lol:

[scott snedeker]

Words have power "Be impeccable with your word" is the first of the Four Agreements by Don Rene' Ruiz

Impeccable means choosing your words to convey a meaning, a spirit, an emotion, a vision that casts love, affirmation, truth from you so as to activate those things in the person to whom you are speaking. This is a challenging agreement to make. Below is an example of how I try to be impeccable with my word.

Stev0, you are not alone. The part of your nature that is attracted to men is as beautiful as the rest of your being. Here is a sanctuary to express it. By doing so, you need not fear that it will create a catastrophe. There is no need for any part of your belief paradigm to struggle with this beautiful delicate part of your nature. Capacity to love in varied ways is no threat.

Can you feel the genuine love, affirmation and truth in the words?

Phrases like "commit homosexual acts" carry heavy negative judgemental criminalizing intonation and are laced with spiritual poison. The challenge to describe lovemaking between two people in a way that conveys affirmation, joy and light may take some creativity. This is a wonderful exercise! How do I make my words convey these things that I want activated in the one receiving them? First you must genuinely feel what you are trying to communicate.

Perhaps "passionate male bonding" might be an improvement (kind gets me hot actually sounds a little kinky). Or passionate masculine lovemaking (kinda tweaks curiosity) or masculine love expression. Hmmmmm Ok Girls how about "passionate feminine bonding" ? Passionate femine lovemaking? or female love expression? I feel like a Satyr among nymphs in the mountain forest of Arcadia!

Ok! sorry folks! I went of the deep end into Faerie lore once again! :lol:

Any way, My point is to explore breaking down barriers to love within and then putting that in your words. Doing this rather than allowing negative feelings to come through (either by using terms that perpetuate status quo of our present homophobic society or by wordcraft) will make the world a kinder place for everyone.:love:

[Zerbie]

I feel like a Satyr among nymphs in the mountain forest of Arcadia!

Ok! sorry folks! I went of the deep end into Faerie lore once again! :lol:

Any way, My point is to explore breaking down barriers to love within and then putting that in your words. Doing this rather than allowing negative feelings to come through (either by using terms that perpetuate status quo of our present homophobic society or by wordcraft) will make the world a kinder place for everyone.:love:

:lol:
Oh Scotty! :love::love::love:
You are adorable.

And you bear a universal message - one too rarely heard.

Words have immeasurable power. Human society tends to wayyyyyy underestimate the impact of words.

[tdogg]

Stevo

You are hearing from real live people, some who were once in the same shoes as you - is it ok to be gay?? We struggle with this our whole lives until we finally accept ourselves and learn to love ourselves.

I was told my entire life that 'homosexuals go straight to hell'. By family, friends and pastors. It was shoved down my throat and I felt an incredible sense to conform - conform to that which was expected of me. I've had relationship with men, one especially with my ex-husband for 17 years. While sometimes the sex was good (not too often but sometimes), I never connected emotionally or spiritually, and the physical connections were not that strong and more often than not almost 'painful.' But I did 'my duty' to conform.

Finally I reached a place in my life where I could no longer conform. I exlored my true self. I accepted and learned to love my true self. I got past all the crap I was told by others who thought they knew better than my true self or my God. Guess what Stevo??? I found a wonderful person inside myself, true and honest, loving and fun. I discovered that God loves me just as I am, no excuses, no other person in charge of dictating what God is to me.

Best of all? I found a wonderful, incredible miracle of a partner who thinks of me the same way. I connect mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually, and if you want more than 'content' that's what it takes. I will never settle for 'content' as the best option again. I have it all now, I won't ever accept less. Yes, we are two women, but we fit together in all ways perfectly, like puzzle pieces made for each other. And, I have never felt anything as natural as when I am with my love.

Finally finding and accepting myself is all the proof I need to know this is natural, fulfilling, God's plan for me, and nothing less than amazing every single second. I would not change a thing!!

[scott snedeker]

:lol:
Oh Scotty! :love::love::love:
You are adorable.




Yes I Know! :lol:

And so are you my little Syrinx! :D

[paul]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this before but I heard a sermon this summer that made me think about homosexuality in regards to Christianity.

As Walter Wink stated "Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion."
While looking into Greek definition of the word natural in this context I see something different about this passage than Walter does.

He concluded that the word natural was talking about what we are naturally inclined to do.(psychologically) & and assumed that Paul did not understand what was normal.

Paul wrote that homosexuality is not "normal." If you look up the specific Greek word used for normal here, you would find psuchikos. This Greek word means natural, but what I found interesting here is the specificness of this Greek word. Psuchikos' root word is phusis, which means physical. So the full meaning of the word psuchikos is physically natural; and it's not that Paul said they were psychologically unnatural but specifically stated that it was physiologically unnatural.

Lastly, it means that its just basically not natural for our bodies to work like that and we all know how it fits together "naturally."(psuchikos)

Well I know my words will offend some, but I'm not trying to be arrogant in my words. I pray that if I'm wrong in my words someone will be able to convince me otherwise. I post this out of my love for fellow believers. I pray you'll consider my words.

Gimme some feedback I wanna know how everyone here feels about this.
thanx for letting me voice my heart on this one.

Hiya Stev0,
And welcome:wave:

Since you identify as a "fundamentalist" that means you believe in the "inerrancy" of the bible? I really like u-dogs answers to you because they address this part of fundamentalism.

If you are gay (I don't know), you will know sooner or later that it is not a choice. At that point you will have to come to terms with that reality and the faith you espouse. I do wonder, I certainly don't know, why you are here? I wonder if, in part, it is because you are not quite certain of your conclusions.
You say:
" So, if my perspective on these things is wrong in relation to the Christian God and His revealed Word...I'd like to be corrected"

I think we can and should dig into the original language. Beyond that, if we believe the bible to be God's word (a fundamental tenet), by what method do Christians discern what God is saying? I see you looking at a portion of scripture and coming up with one interpretation, and I see Steven and U-dog coming up with another. Why is that? It is clear, even in Paul's time, that Christians disagreed. If the bible is the "word of God" and the "natural man" (there's that word again) cannot know it because it is "spiritually discerned," do you think it's possible to actually know from God what God means? Using a method, beyond reason, that all Christians can agree on and therefore can all see the same thing?

[tymejumper]

So you flirted with being openly gay and are now married? To be frank: are you having second thoughts?

I'm married to a man (Oh Canada!), and I don't have any second thoughts.[/QUOTE]




I flirted with being openly "straight", married to a TG man! Now I am married to a woman and openly lesbian. I am not having second thoughts either! LOL LOL:lol::lol::lol:

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I perceive that some here may be speculating about SteveO's sexual orientation. My speculation is that SteveO may be bisexual--at least to the extent that he has reported to us that he has had "inclinations" towards homosexuality in the past.

What I want to caution SteveO and others of similar experience and persuasion is that they not interpret their own apparent ability to "choose" heterosexuality over other "inclinations" that they have or have had as justifying a conclusion that such a "choice" exists for everyone. Some of us have no heterosexual inclinations at all.

SteveO may have "chosen" a spouse of the other sex over possible same sex partners. A bisexual could do that, and might want to, especially if their heterosexual inclinations were stronger. Many of us here don't have that kind of choice having very little or no heterosexual "inclinations."

Still, I challenge the term "choice." Most of us do not experience our love for our partners/spouses as a "choice" so much as a blessing. Something that "just happened." Hopefully that is true also of SteveO--that his marriage is a blessing and not something chosen because of cultural pressures or prejudices. I would not wish that on anyone.

I feel no obligation to convince SteveO of anything, and I hope he doesn't feel obligated to convince us of anything either. I only hope for mutual respect and understanding.

Steven Webster

[stev0]

What do you mean by "work like that"? are you talking about the complementarity of male and female plumbing and the lack of complimentarity of m/m or f/f sexual congress? Or are you talking about the physical/sexual/emotional attraction of one male person to another male person (and one female person to another female person)

Well yes I was talking about the lack of proper "plumbing"


As Steven points out below, If Paul means that same sex attraction and sexual activity is "not seen in nature" then he is simply mistaken. same sex attraction (and in more than a few cases, even same sex life partners) are attested in over 1500 higher order species (mostly but not exclusively birds and mammals). it is especially common among those species most closely related to humans (primates in general and "great apes" in particular).

Well, this will sound totally offensive, but here goes. I've understood that we live in a "fallen world" and I agree this same-sex sexual activity is seen in nature in animals and in humans; but we are also a sinful people and by natural we are attracted to what is unnatural what is sinful. We most find it natural to lash out in anger when someone does us wrong or lie to get out of trouble. By our sinful nature we tend towards usurping God and what He deems as holy and righteous. This is not to say that I am righteous and everyone else is dirt. This is to say that everyone (myself included) is inclined to naturally turn from what God would have us do. I sense this is true throughout my life. Like Paul Christians find themselves battling themselves


Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;


Romans chapter 7 14-19
"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin. What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want."

[stev0]

Friends,

I perceive that some here may be speculating about SteveO's sexual orientation. My speculation is that SteveO may be bisexual--at least to the extent that he has reported to us that he has had "inclinations" towards homosexuality in the past.

What I want to caution SteveO and others of similar experience and persuasion is that they not interpret their own apparent ability to "choose" heterosexuality over other "inclinations" that they have or have had as justifying a conclusion that such a "choice" exists for everyone. Some of us have no heterosexual inclinations at all.

SteveO may have "chosen" a spouse of the other sex over possible same sex partners. A bisexual could do that, and might want to, especially if their heterosexual inclinations were stronger. Many of us here don't have that kind of choice having very little or no heterosexual "inclinations."

Still, I challenge the term "choice." Most of us do not experience our love for our partners/spouses as a "choice" so much as a blessing. Something that "just happened." Hopefully that is true also of SteveO--that his marriage is a blessing and not something chosen because of cultural pressures or prejudices. I would not wish that on anyone.

I feel no obligation to convince SteveO of anything, and I hope he doesn't feel obligated to convince us of anything either. I only hope for mutual respect and understanding.

Steven Webster
Thanx Steven Webster
for your awesome replies.

No I don't think I'll convince anyone that I'm right. Just feel the need to talk it out I guess.
I suppose my reasoning for saying that we have a choice, is that several "heterosexual" people I've talked to who are completely happy with their sexual preference say they can relate when I talk about everyone has likely at some point considered homosexuality or it atleast seemed inviting to them.

[stev0]

Words have power "Be impeccable with your word" is the first of the Four Agreements by Don Rene' Ruiz

Impeccable means choosing your words to convey a meaning, a spirit, an emotion, a vision that casts love, affirmation, truth from you so as to activate those things in the person to whom you are speaking. This is a challenging agreement to make. Below is an example of how I try to be impeccable with my word.

Stev0, you are not alone. The part of your nature that is attracted to men is as beautiful as the rest of your being. Here is a sanctuary to express it. By doing so, you need not fear that it will create a catastrophe. There is no need for any part of your belief paradigm to struggle with this beautiful delicate part of your nature. Capacity to love in varied ways is no threat.

Can you feel the genuine love, affirmation and truth in the words?

Phrases like "commit homosexual acts" carry heavy negative judgemental criminalizing intonation and are laced with spiritual poison. The challenge to describe lovemaking between two people in a way that conveys affirmation, joy and light may take some creativity. This is a wonderful exercise! How do I make my words convey these things that I want activated in the one receiving them? First you must genuinely feel what you are trying to communicate.

Perhaps "passionate male bonding" might be an improvement (kind gets me hot actually sounds a little kinky). Or passionate masculine lovemaking (kinda tweaks curiosity) or masculine love expression. Hmmmmm Ok Girls how about "passionate feminine bonding" ? Passionate femine lovemaking? or female love expression? I feel like a Satyr among nymphs in the mountain forest of Arcadia!

Ok! sorry folks! I went of the deep end into Faerie lore once again! :lol:

Any way, My point is to explore breaking down barriers to love within and then putting that in your words. Doing this rather than allowing negative feelings to come through (either by using terms that perpetuate status quo of our present homophobic society or by wordcraft) will make the world a kinder place for everyone.:love:
I'd like to talk about it but i don't think i should have to be confined to making everyone think i'm okay with it by using comfortable language... I can be cordial ...i think and still convey my opinion without doing that

Just because I have a firm stand on a position that may offend some doesn't mean i should change it because it is offensive. Honestly, the only reason I would come to anyone about this subject and to talk about it without ranting and raving that I'm right and cursing everyone who didn't agree is because I would seek to show them love because God has given me that grace.
I don't claim that I'm perfectly loving or even able to show it well here on this forum, i'm sure i've stepped my bounds somewhere or been harsh with my words in one my posts and for that I apologize because in that I don't represent Christ in the light He should be.

[tdogg]

Well yes I was talking about the lack of proper "plumbing"

Well, this will sound totally offensive, but here goes. I've understood that we live in a "fallen world" and I agree this same-sex sexual activity is seen in nature in animals and in humans; but we are also a sinful people and by natural we are attracted to what is unnatural what is sinful. We most find it natural to lash out in anger when someone does us wrong or lie to get out of trouble. By our sinful nature we tend towards usurping God and what He deems as holy and righteous. This is not to say that I am righteous and everyone else is dirt. This is to say that everyone (myself included) is inclined to naturally turn from what God would have us do. I sense this is true throughout my life. Like Paul Christians find themselves battling themselves


But Stevo, many/most of us here are at a point where we know God loves us and has created us very special, GLBT people. We do not feel that we are fallen or sinning. That's the point many are trying to get across. I know personally that by being a lesbian, being in a relationship with a person of the same sex that I love, cherish, admire and respect, is not carnal or sinful. I know it is blessed by God. God is in our lives and we are blessed by being together. The only battle waging inside me was trying to conform to what others thought I should be or do. Not God, but other people. Once I got over that, the battle waged no more inside me.

Jesus said the truth will set us free. The truth that love triumphs law, that love triumphs evil, that love triumphs hate.

By the way, the 'plumbing' in my relationship is a completely natural perfect fit. Much more natural and perfect than other plumbing I tried to live with. No words can begin to speak the truth as someone's heart and life journey. Please continue sharing yours as we are sharing ours with you.

Blessings,

Tdogg

[Daniel]

I suppose my reasoning for saying that we have a choice, is that several "heterosexual" people I've talked to who are completely happy with their sexual preference say they can relate when I talk about everyone has likely at some point considered homosexuality or it at least seemed inviting to them.

Personally speaking: I never found sex with a woman to be inviting in the least- no offense to the ladies among us. And my own discussions with my straight identified colleagues tell me that what people talk about and what they actually will do when push comes to shove are two different things.

By-the-way: I've known quite a few straight men in the course of my life who LOVE to be flirted with by gay men. Seems they have a need to bask in the attention of others, not matter their sex.

Stevo- I wonder if you're making the assumption that everyone is straight and is tempted into doing something naughty- that is- same-sex sexuality.

Sure. Anyone can perform any sexual act under the sun, but that doesn't mean you love the person you are doing it with. And for me, love and sexual desire go together. As Christopher Isherwood said:


“It seems to me that the real clue to your sex-orientation lies in your romantic feelings rather than in your sexual feelings. If you are really gay, you are able to fall in love with a man, not just enjoy having sex with him.”

I can imagine those who might be enticed by the thought of homosexuality. And that would be straight men who fantasize two women together. :D

[tdogg]

Christopher Isherwood is exactly correct! Loving someone is so much more than sex. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or yes, even heterosexual is so much more than sex. When those who might not understand us begin to see past that, then how and who we love makes much more sense.

Until I found a person to connect with on all levels of my being, especially as that connection works both ways, I never knew what true love really was like. It's more than my words could describe. To really connect and love someone that way, a person must first have learned to love themselves just as they are. IMO anyway.

[NathanATX]

You agreed to be in compliance with the Soulforce rules when you registered for the Forums.

I believe you have been possibly violating the rule about posting inappropriate conduct.

Please reread the rules and make sure all of your posts are in compliance in the future.

Here is the text of the rule, and here is a link to the rules (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1).


Anti-Gay comments
We welcome people who are on the journey to understanding and accepting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people. However obvious anti-gay comments will not be allowed in the public forums. Such comments are not merely opinions, but rather a way to demean and oppress GLBT people. Any posts deemed by the Soulforce staff or moderator team to be anti-gay will be responded to with a warning and, in most instances, the removal of the offending post. Members who continue to post anti-gay comments will lose their right to post messages on any of the Soulforce Public Forums and also their right to send private messages to other members.

Materials promoting "ex-gay ministries" or "reparative therapy"
Some homosexual persons claim to have experienced a change in their sexual orientation. Their stories are their stories and we should not try to change them if they are sincerely happy. With that said, however, the vast majority of these brothers and sisters entered "ex-gay ministries" or "reparative therapy" under the belief of a homosexual orientation being morally inferior and a heterosexual orientation being morally superior. Such a belief is a falsehood that is used by many to deny GLBT people equality in society and full membership in our churches. Thus the promotion of "ex-gay ministries" or "reparative therapy" is not permitted on the forums and will be handled as anti-gay comments.

If the Moderator team feels you are consistently posting with disregard for our community's rules, your posting privileges will be removed.

Thanks for your help,
Nate

[scott snedeker]

I'd like to talk about it but i don't think i should have to be confined to making everyone think i'm okay with it by using comfortable language... I can be cordial ...i think and still convey my opinion without doing that

Just because I have a firm stand on a position that may offend some doesn't mean i should change it because it is offensive. Honestly, the only reason I would come to anyone about this subject and to talk about it without ranting and raving that I'm right and cursing everyone who didn't agree is because I would seek to show them love because God has given me that grace.
I don't claim that I'm perfectly loving or even able to show it well here on this forum, i'm sure i've stepped my bounds somewhere or been harsh with my words in one my posts and for that I apologize because in that I don't represent Christ in the light He should be.

I would be privileged indeed if something I can say will help you feel love for the part of yourself that your interpretation of biblical verse tells you is not lovable. All of you is lovable. Keep working to let it in. You will succeed one day!:love:

[paul]

Hiya Stev0,
And welcome:wave:

Since you identify as a "fundamentalist" that means you believe in the "inerrancy" of the bible? I really like u-dogs answers to you because they address this part of fundamentalism.

If you are gay (I don't know), you will know sooner or later that it is not a choice. At that point you will have to come to terms with that reality and the faith you espouse. I do wonder, I certainly don't know, why you are here? I wonder if, in part, it is because you are not quite certain of your conclusions.
You say:
" So, if my perspective on these things is wrong in relation to the Christian God and His revealed Word...I'd like to be corrected"


I think we can and should dig into the original language. Beyond that, if we believe the bible to be God's word (a fundamental tenet), by what method do Christians discern what God is saying? I see you looking at a portion of scripture and coming up with one interpretation, and I see Steven and U-dog coming up with another. Why is that? It is clear, even in Paul's time, that Christians disagreed. If the bible is the "word of God" and the "natural man" (there's that word again) cannot know it because it is "spiritually discerned," do you think it's possible to actually know from God what God means? Using a method, beyond reason, that all Christians can agree on and therefore can all see the same thing?

Okay, Here's a simple example of my point. What am I saying in the following sentence: The boy is blue.

Off the cuff, I can think of three interpretations:
1. The boy is sad or depressed.
2. The boy needs oxygen.
3. The boy is an art object.

Again I ask, what method do you use, that anyone could use, to truly know what "God" is saying? How do you assure your self that you have no bias that effects that interpretation? If you don't have that confidence, where does that really leave you?

[u-dog]

Stev0 said:Well, this will sound totally offensive, but here goes. I've understood that we live in a "fallen world" and I agree this same-sex sexual activity is seen in nature in animals and in humans; but we are also a sinful people and by natural we are attracted to what is unnatural what is sinful. We most find it natural to lash out in anger when someone does us wrong or lie to get out of trouble. By our sinful nature we tend towards usurping God and what He deems as holy and righteous. This is not to say that I am righteous and everyone else is dirt. This is to say that everyone (myself included) is inclined to naturally turn from what God would have us do. I sense this is true throughout my life. Like Paul Christians find themselves battling themselves


Stev0,

The doctrine of "the Fall" is Paul's solution to the problem, "If God is good and the creation is good why do we suck so bad" I don't by any means reject Paul's formulation but it is problematic. How do we KNOW which of our behaviors are part of our "created nature" (what God intended for us to be/do) and which are part of our "fallen nature" (those things in ourselves and in nature which have been distorted by our idolatrous disobedience)?

Your example above (which I have bolded) is a good case in point. Is our tendency to respond in anger a result of our Fallen nature? or is it part of what biologists call "the fight or flight" response? When any creature in nature is threatened it must decide "shall I flee or shall I fight?" The same mother creature will decide differently when young are present than when they are not. Even a normally timid creature will fight when injured if it is unable to escape or percieves that it is unable to flee. When I am surprised by an attack (even a verbal or emotional one) I come out swinging hoping to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible to the one who "injured" me. Is this because I am sinful by fallen nature? or because God created my ancestors this way in order that they might survive in a dangerous world? What is "lying" other than an attempt to flee emotionally from a truth that I percieve as a threat?

I look around the creation and I see that MOST creatures that are sexually dichotomous are attracted to the opposite sex, but that SOME in MANY species are NOT. Is this because original sin has warped God's intention for the world? Or do these behaviors serve some purpose of God's that we have yet to fully understand? how do we tell the difference. In dolphins, for instance, adolecent male homosexuality seems to create and cement emotional bonds between groups of males who form defensive pods that live and fight and 'fornicate' together for life. these pods also work together to defend females and young. created order? or fallen nature? Among mice, male homosexuality is part of a complex mechanism for controlling population in the warren. When overcrowding occurs it triggers a hormonal change in females who begin to give birth to higher percentages of "gay" male pups. When over-crowding eases, the percentage returns to normal (near zero) Does homosexuality in humans serve a biological purpose? I dunno. It seems to be universal across cultures and it seems to have physical/physiological roots (rather than merely psychological/emotional ones) Identical twins are BOTH gay more often than would be expected statistically even when they are raised apart by different families (but NOT as often as you would expect if it were a strictly genetic phenomenon).


My point here is simply this: It is NOT always easy to know WHAT is a result of my (or your) sinful fallen nature and what is simply a part of what God made (which is therefore "Good" along with everything else that God does.)


To complicate matters further, the fact that a thing is "natural" and therefore "good" doesn't mean that I ought to continue to act on it. Again, your example is a good case in point. My tendency to "lash out" iss probably natural and good but I am more faithful to God when I redirect into more constructive behaviors. The bible contains at least TWO DIFFERENT modifications to this behavior. "Eye for an Eye" was a VERY enlightened principal that served to limit endlessly escalating clan vendettas (you kill my brother, I kill all your siblings, you kill everyone in my family, I kill everyone in your family and pee on their bodies ... ad infinitum). Jesus introduced an even MORE RADICAL modification to "fight or flight". He commended "turn the other cheek" to us. If I absorb the initial blow and return kindness the opportunity for true reconciliation is created. In this case, doing the "naturally good" thing... creates evil in the form of escalating emnity. Jesus recommends that we substitute a different behavior. In an age of nuclear weapons we can see the sense in this eh?

Now, lets assume that I am homosexual by nature and that, for reasons of His own, God created male human homosexuality to serve a purpose. Does this AUTOMATICALLY mean that I should behave homosexually? I don't think so. Perhaps, homosexuality served a godly purpose in the past (like fight or flight did) but no longer does. Perhaps it now creates evil side effects (like nuclear annihilation in the other example) and should be repressed. what would those be? What purpose does it serve to resist our God-created homosexual nature? To make squeemish hetero-sexuals more comfortable? Frankly, thats not a compelling enough reason.

I'll stop now --- almost nobody is still reading this anyway. My point is: The doctrine of the Fall is not helpful in untying this moral knot because we cannot KNOW what aspects of our nature are "created" and which are "fallen". So... try another tack.

[u-dog]

Okay, Here's a simple example of my point. What am I saying in the following sentence: The boy is blue.

Off the cuff, I can think of three interpretations:
1. The boy is sad or depressed.
2. The boy needs oxygen.
3. The boy is an art object.

Again I ask, what method do you use, that anyone could use, to truly know what "God" is saying? How do you assure your self that you have no bias that effects that interpretation? If you don't have that confidence, where does that really leave you?


and further, how do you know that there are ONLY three answers?

4. the boy is a member of an internationally famous mime troupe

(this is a serious response to Paul's post. What do you do with the possibility that you have failed to even CONSIDER what God would truly have you know?)

[Steven E. Webster]

Thanx Steven Webster
for your awesome replies.

No I don't think I'll convince anyone that I'm write. Just feel the need to talk it out I guess.
I suppose my reasoning for saying that we have a choice, is that several "heterosexual" people I've talked to who are completely happy with their sexual preference say they can relate when I talk about everyone has likely at some point considered homosexuality or it atleast seemed inviting to them.

SteveO,

I think my point still stands. The fact that the heterosexuals that you know have had fleeting inclinations towards same-sex attractions does not mean that they "chose" to be heterosexuals over some EQUALLY ATTRACTIVE CHOICE. The majority of people I know feel pretty definitely that they are either predominantly heterosexual or homosexual.

Also PLEASE keep in mind that most of us aren't just attracted to just anyone of a particular sex (or both sexes)---we discover ourselves to be especially attracted to ONE PARTICULAR PERSON. That's love!

The "plumbing" argument that has been mentioned here is particularly insulting. Human beings and human love is not a matter of plumbing fixtures. Some of opponents try to elevate this stupid argument by giving it the high-falutin' term "complementarity." My husband and I have "complemented" one another in myriad ways for over a quarter century--and sex is a very small part of it. (Sorry, you young romantics out there--it ain't all sex all the time! As you mature with your spouses over time you'll know what I mean.)

SteveO, I don't think it's your intention to be insulting. I'm just pointing out how such things come across.

Another argument you bring up is the "fallenness of nature." Some folks would like to believe that their heterosexuality belongs to the "perfect world" that God created. Eve ate the apple and BAM--the whole world was corrupted. Therefore homosexuality belongs to the fallen world while heterosexuality belongs to perfection. HOW CONVENIENT! Sorry, I think if you apply some intellectual honesty to this question, you need to admit that Adam, Eve, the Snake and some perfect, all-heterosexual world that existed in the past is nothing but a myth. Homosexuality has existed since BEFORE human beings existed--it's existed at least as long as birds and mammals have existed, and maybe longer. I think there are important spiritual meanings expressed in the first chapters of Genesis. I read and ponder these chapters in my devotions and benefit spiritually from them---but I don't buy the interpretation that this myth establishes the "fact" that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality in any way.

"Fundamentalist" arguments just aren't going to carry much weight with me.

Steven Webster

[u-dog]

Thanx Steven Webster
for your awesome replies.

No I don't think I'll convince anyone that I'm write. Just feel the need to talk it out I guess.
I suppose my reasoning for saying that we have a choice, is that several "heterosexual" people I've talked to who are completely happy with their sexual preference say they can relate when I talk about everyone has likely at some point considered homosexuality or it atleast seemed inviting to them.

REALITY CHECK !!!
Your "heterosexual" friends are either:
1. Liars. or
2. NOT HETEROSEXUALS (bi-sexuals perhaps?)

There are no other options. Those of us who are HOMOSEXUALS are here to tell you:

1. Some of us can "perform" hetero-sexually and for some of us that can even be a pleasant thing. but for many (if not most) of us it is self-destructive. we know this because we have lived it.

2. Almost all of us have spent months or years or decades (as in my case) trying to "choose" hetero-sexuality.

3. All of us have suffered emotional, pyschological, and spiritual injury in this attempt. Some of us have died from it (among the dead... a lot of beautiful children and young people)

4. Most of us have been alienated from God by this attempt and most of us have experienced reconciliation to God when we STOPPED the attempt.

5. Many of us have injured innocent heterosexuals (in many cases children -- in all cases, people we love!) in this attempt.

6. It is arrogant and criminal for your bi-sexual friends to pass off their bisexual experience as universal. Sorry if this seems harsh... but its true.

[u-dog]

But Stevo, many/most of us here are at a point where we know God loves us and has created us very special, GLBT people. We do not feel that we are fallen or sinning. That's the point many are trying to get across. I know personally that by being a lesbian, being in a relationship with a person of the same sex that I love, cherish, admire and respect, is not carnal or sinful. I know it is blessed by God. God is in our lives and we are blessed by being together. The only battle waging inside me was trying to conform to what others thought I should be or do. Not God, but other people. Once I got over that, the battle waged no more inside me.

Jesus said the truth will set us free. The truth that love triumphs law, that love triumphs evil, that love triumphs hate.

By the way, the 'plumbing' in my relationship is a completely natural perfect fit. Much more natural and perfect than other plumbing I tried to live with. No words can begin to speak the truth as someone's heart and life journey. Please continue sharing yours as we are sharing ours with you.

Blessings,

Tdogg

Tdogg,

If you were a guy... I would SO HAVE A CRUSH ON YOU!! ;):love: You are not only a marvelous human being... you are a subtle and capable theologian. Bless you

[Pablo Rafael]

Just a side thought on the topic of the fall into sin.

I believe that God is love. His "image" is love. All mankind was created in His image. Though we have all been tainted with the stain of sin, we are still in the image of God. When we show that love to others, we are showing forth a little of the image of God. Those of us who have been redeemed from sin by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, show forth that image of love as the Holy Spirit works in our lives.

I never did like the phrase in "Amazing Grace" that said. "Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me." We are not wretches but beloved children, who have gone astray, yes, but who bear the family resemblance of God. I like the Catholic revision of that phrase in "Amazing Grace" that says, "...saved and set me free".

I aslo believe that when we use love and grace as our keys to Biblcal interpretation, the condemming of loving, faithful homosexual relationships based on Paul's writings vanish. Paul writes against those things that prevent us from establishing relationships of love with God and with people around us. Loving homosexual partnerships are a part of the love of God, not a rejection of God's love.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[u-dog]

Just a side thought on the topic of the fall into sin.

I believe that God is love. His "image" is love. All mankind was created in His image. Though we have all been tainted with the stain of sin, we are still in the image of God. When we show that love to others, we are showing forth a little of the image of God. Those of us who have been redeemed from sin by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, show forth that image of love as the Holy Spirit works in our lives.

I never did like the phrase in "Amazing Grace" that said. "Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me." We are not wretches but beloved children, who have gone astray, yes, but who bear the family resemblance of God. I like the Catholic revision of that phrase in "Amazing Grace" that says, "...saved and set me free".

I aslo believe that when we use love and grace as our keys to Biblcal interpretation, the condemming of loving, faithful homosexual relationships based on Paul's writings vanish. Paul writes against those things that prevent us from establishing relationships of love with God and with people around us. Loving homosexual partnerships are a part of the love of God, not a rejection of God's love.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Pablo,

I beleive that the foul stinking heresy that you are espousing here is called "Pelagianism" It is the crazy notion that the divine image is merely "obscured" by the Fall. The Pelagian Biships were all ruthlessly purged :borg: in the 3rd or 4th century by the Augustinian Bishops who maintained (as your Catholic Church does to this day) that the divine image was actually CORRUPTED by the Fall.

don't get me wrong, I'm a card-carrying Pelagian myself. :cool: which is why Paul doesn't think I am a "real" Calvinist.

But Stev0 does NOT go to our church. He is an Augustinian to the core (and a Calvinist if I'm not mistaken) Is that true Stev0?

Personally, I think the time is RIPE for a Pelagian revolution in the Church! Are you with me?

[keltic63]

Well yes I was talking about the lack of proper "plumbing"

proper plumbing??? I'm not sure what "improper plumbing" would be in human beings. It's not about the plumbing, as so many have already stated. It's about the attraction and the love. Without being crass, I can tell you that after having been in a straight marriage and producing 3 children, that most of the sex acts are pretty much the same, and when the lights are out....well, some experiences could be performed by a man or a woman and one couldn't really tell the difference.


Well, this will sound totally offensive, but here goes. you're right, it is offensive
I've understood that we live in a "fallen world" and I agree this same-sex sexual activity is seen in nature in animals and in humans; but we are also a sinful people and by natural we are attracted to what is unnatural what is sinful.
so it's natural to be attracted to the unnatural, which would then be natural??
We most find it natural to lash out in anger when someone does us wrong or lie to get out of trouble. By our sinful nature we tend towards usurping God and what He deems as holy and righteous. This is not to say that I am righteous and everyone else is dirt. This is to say that everyone (myself included) is inclined to naturally turn from what God would have us do. I sense this is true throughout my life. Like Paul Christians find themselves battling themselves
[quote]

[quote=stev0;41607]
No I don't think I'll convince anyone that I'm write. Just feel the need to talk it out I guess.
I suppose my reasoning for saying that we have a choice, is that several "heterosexual" people I've talked to who are completely happy with their sexual preference say they can relate when I talk about everyone has likely at some point considered homosexuality or it atleast seemed inviting to them.

I'm still a bit confused as to your purpose here then. You have no plans to convince anyone that they are wrong or sinful, yet you continue make those kinds of statements. Many have already told you that their relationship to God is stronger now that they are in a homosexual relationship and no longer trying to "choose" a heterosexual orientation. Is it that you think your understanding of God is better, or more highly evolved than those who have not only wrestled with God but also their orientation, and now have reconciled the 2?

SteveO,

I think my point still stands. The fact that the heterosexuals that you know have had fleeting inclinations towards same-sex attractions does not mean that they "chose" to be heterosexuals over some EQUALLY ATTRACTIVE CHOICE. The majority of people I know feel pretty definitely that they are either predominantly heterosexual or homosexual.

Also PLEASE keep in mind that most of us aren't just attracted to just anyone of a particular sex (or both sexes)---we discover ourselves to be especially attracted to ONE PARTICULAR PERSON. That's love!

The "plumbing" argument that has been mentioned here is particularly insulting. Human beings and human love is not a matter of plumbing fixtures. Some of opponents try to elevate this stupid argument by giving it the high-falutin' term "complementarity." My husband and I have "complemented" one another in myriad ways for over a quarter century--and sex is a very small part of it. (Sorry, you young romantics out there--it ain't all sex all the time! As you mature with your spouses over time you'll know what I mean.)

SteveO, I don't think it's your intention to be insulting. I'm just pointing out how such things come across.



stev0, have you made the choice? can you tell us the date you chose heterosexuality? what could have persuaded you to choose homosexuality? was it simply a matter of the plumbing fixtures that won you over?

Love, as Steven points out, is much more than the sex. I've already stated that the sex acts themselves aren't all that different. The difference for me now is that I am in love with the person in my life, I am especially attracted to him, and all of those things work together for greater fulfillment than I ever experienced while trying to be "straight."

[paul]

I suppose my reasoning for saying that we have a choice, is that several "heterosexual" people I've talked to who are completely happy with their sexual preference say they can relate when I talk about everyone has likely at some point considered homosexuality or it atleast seemed inviting to them.

Stev0,

I note that you placed "heterosexual" in quotes...do I detect a note of doubt regarding the veracity of their claims?

I am trying to imagine these conversations with the "several"...

Scene: Church last Sunday

straight one: I sure am happy I married a woman

straight too: yeah, me also, I'm so completely happy...hey, check out the behind on that guy, sigh.

straight one: whew, hot stuff, I think I need to go talk to my wife...see ya.

[scott snedeker]

Fears created by childhood trauma are in my experience the most severe and the most debilitating.

Each of us at one time experienced the trauma of discovering that we all are going to die. As children we have an intensive will to survive.

For many this fear is addressed with belief that after dying we continue a sentient existence in heaven. To strengthen this faith many look to church leaders. Fundamentalist verse interpetation provides strong relief of this fear to many folks

"Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear"
"And in Grace my fear is relieved"

Then many of us discover that we are "worthless deviants" according to church leaders because our attraction to the same sex during our emerging sexual awareness early in adolescence is an aboinmation. I have found this to be fundamentaly absolutely untrue.

Again our survival is threatened at an early age creating another psychological trauma and resultant self-loathing. When we see what we fear or dislike about ourselves in other people, they become the personification of our internal struggle. Our fear now has another target.

Many of us retreat to the sanctuary of celibacy, heterosexual acts despite lack of interest, and heterosexual marriage. And many because of this crippling fear created during childhood. For many of us this retreat was a necessary step to over come our fear of self love and living true to our nature. To emerge from this retreat prematurely potentially could also be traumatic. Staying too long is tragically empty.

Overcoming fear evaporates these barriers to love, joy, and living.

Fundamentalist verse interpretation is not an absolute practice. Otherwise we would be stoning urban rape victims to death. So where does one draw the line? My guess is as with all living things where our sense of self-preservation (punctuated by fear) directs us.

I have a metaphorical mental image of a gay person with fundamentalist belief sliding down an ice precipice. To keep from falling into the bottomless abyss he has driven a spike through his hand into the ice wall. Suffering from the pain yet terrified to remove it. He doesn't fall but neither can he climb out. Only when he gets a secure enough foot hold can he painfully extract the spike, and only after some healing of the wound in his hand will the pain subside. Only then can he climb out of his trap of fear

I only hope That I can reveal footholds that are within reach. Some of which I have used my self.

[Zerbie]

Tdogg,

If you were a guy... I would SO HAVE A CRUSH ON YOU!! ;):love: You are not only a marvelous human being... you are a subtle and capable theologian. Bless you

I can attest to you that Tdogg is a goddess.
:D
Fears created by childhood trauma are in my experience the most severe and the most debilitating.

Scotty! :'(:love:

I have a metaphorical mental image of a gay person with fundamentalist belief sliding down an ice precipice. To keep from falling into the bottomless abyss he has driven a spike through his hand into the ice wall. Suffering from the pain yet terrified to remove it. He doesn't fall but neither can he climb out. Only when he gets a secure enough foot hold can he painfully extract the spike, and only after some healing of the wound in his hand will the pain subside. Only then can he climb out of his trap of fear

I only hope That I can reveal footholds that are within reach. Some of which I have used my self.

&$@! I am cringing at the image. Is *that* what it felt like to you? :'(:'(

[tymejumper]

/quote=u-dog]. we are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Some of us can "perform" hetero-sexually and for some of us that can even be a moderately pleasant thing. but for most of us it is self-destructive. [B]we know this because we have lived it.[/quote]



It is a terrible thing to have to force yourself to have sex with your husband and feel like it is a chore or get up and vomit afterwards. After 17 years of selling myself on the hetero dream, I finally got out and met the love of my life, my true soul mate. I am more secure, happy and well adjusted now that I have accepted me being gay, I don't drink as I did before to numb the pain. Sex is the most complete and wonderful, amazing thing I have ever experienced with her and I don't feel it is a sin nor that I have fallen. I feel that I have been in fact lifted up on Gods love and found the path I was suppost to be on.

I'm sorry, I just can't find it in myself or others that who I love is a sin, God is love right?

[tdogg]

U-dog, Zerbie

Gosh....thanks...:rolleyes::)You are both amazing people as well and have my love. :love: :love:

Nothing much to add at this time, except..Isn't it true, when we love our partner with our minds, hearts and souls as well as our bodies, intimacy is so much more than sex. It can be a spiritual experience. Yeah, Scotty you do have a point here!

Stevo, any thoughts of what everyone has shared here with you? Can you begin to see things through our eyes yet?

[stev0]

Pablo,

I beleive that the foul stinking heresy that you are espousing here is called "Pelagianism" It is the crazy notion that the divine image is merely "obscured" by the Fall. The Pelagian Biships were all ruthlessly purged :borg: in the 3rd or 4th century by the Augustinian Bishops who maintained (as your Catholic Church does to this day) that the divine image was actually CORRUPTED by the Fall.

don't get me wrong, I'm a card-carrying Pelagian myself. :cool: which is why Paul doesn't think I am a "real" Calvinist.

But Stev0 does NOT go to our church. He is an Augustinian to the core (and a Calvinist if I'm not mistaken) Is that true Stev0?

Personally, I think the time is RIPE for a Pelagian revolution in the Church! Are you with me?

Yep...well I'm Reformed doctrinally with a charismatic dimension.
(God's Sovereign over all things/the Bible is inerrant/The "J" man is the only way/the only thing that saves you is belief in God-repentance-and turning your life over to Him/We believe the spiritual gifts are for today)...summary anyhow.

[stev0]

I'm still a bit confused as to your purpose here then. You have no plans to convince anyone that they are wrong or sinful, yet you continue make those kinds of statements. Many have already told you that their relationship to God is stronger now that they are in a homosexual relationship and no longer trying to "choose" a heterosexual orientation. Is it that you think your understanding of God is better, or more highly evolved than those who have not only wrestled with God but also their orientation, and now have reconciled the 2?

I specifically said that I don't think I'll change anyone's ideas...I don't think my poor attempt to explain myself and what I believe the Bible clearly states will be able to change the hearts of anyone in their own write. If my words are convicting it is the Holy Spirit's work not mine. Lol...and no i'm not more highly evolved lol.

[stev0]

Stev0,

I note that you placed "heterosexual" in quotes...do I detect a note of doubt regarding the veracity of their claims?

I am trying to imagine these conversations with the "several"...

Scene: Church last Sunday

straight one: I sure am happy I married a woman

straight too: yeah, me also, I'm so completely happy...hey, check out the behind on that guy, sigh.

straight one: whew, hot stuff, I think I need to go talk to my wife...see ya.
the quotes for ....(well if i'm wrong about me assumptions of sexual orientation being a choice then maybe their homosexuals not quite ready to burst out of their hetero shells)

Hmmm well not really...I draw my conclusions from the years of not being a Christian or even near the Christian church...When I was into Buddhism, Druidism, Taoism and similar beliefs...basically religions all about me. But I did like your speculation. It's funny. But seriously...that's how we talk at church. :) so quit oppressing me. :lol:

[stev0]

"Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear"
"And in Grace my fear is relieved"

That song line is about the when Christians truly receive from Holy Spirit the conviction of their sinfulness (that God's grace's us with...He opens our eyes to it's truth) And knowing that God is infinitely just and must punish sin...We fear him because we see that we truly deserve His wrath. But in the same breathe we can say that it was Grace that relieved our fear...because that same Grace is what gave us the faith to believe in our need for Christ's propitiation(removal of wrath) for our sins....

[stev0]

/quote=u-dog].
I'm sorry, I just can't find it in myself or others that who I love is a sin, God is love right?

no God is not just love...God is Holy (set apart)
perfectly
loving,
just,
good,
wise
so on....

[Daniel]

Freudian that is....


I specifically said that I don't think I'll change anyone's ideas...I don't think my poor attempt to explain myself and what I believe the Bible clearly states will be able to change the hearts of anyone in their own write.


I think you meant 'right' not 'write'.

Our experience is written on our hearts and expressed in our words here, to be read by those who have eyes to see. See it or not, I have the sense that you may not be around here much longer, judging from these lastest posts.

religion's all about me

That's a nice swipe. I would have thought that you might have gleaned something about compassion when you 'studied' Buddhism.

Your slip is showing. That would be a different kind however. You're showing everyone here the same tired old rhetoric and thinking.

Guess what? The compassionate thing for this once Pentacostal Buddhist is to give you a wide berth. For your good as well as his own. You'll be in my thoughts before I go to bed- when I say my prayers:

Buddhist Prayer for Peace

May all beings everywhere plagued
with sufferings of body and mind
quickly be freed from their illnesses.
May those frightened cease to be afraid,
and may those bound be free.
May the powerless find power,
and may people think of befriending
one another.
May those who find themselves in trackless,
fearful wilderness---
the children, the age, the unprotected--
be guarded by beneficial celestials,
and may they swiftly attain Buddhahood.

[stev0]

Freudian that is....



I think you meant 'right' not 'write'.

Our experience is written on our hearts and expressed in our words here, to be read by those who have eyes to see. See it or not, I have the sense that you may not be around here much longer, judging from these lastest posts.



That's a nice swipe. Guess you didn't learn squat about compassion when you 'studied' Buddhism, did ya?

Your slip is showing. That would be a different kind however.

i suppose so. I guess i'm just letting my real feeling about what buddhism was to me. and every other path i took in that realm of things....no i didn't learn much from buddhism to be honest. I was more interested in the duality of life and what i considered to be the neutrality of the universe I was enthralled by it and i chased the peace i found in meditation.

Well, I'll give you that....I am giving the same old same old, but there's truth to it. Now I don't want to come off like I hate homosexuals or that I want to make them feel bad, nor do i agree with all the people on the UT campus yelling at students on the street that their going to hell cause their gay(with t-shirts on saying the same) It's sickening. though I'm surely coming off as an ol' bible thumpin' "fundamentalist" myself.

lastly, all this talk is culminating into bickering, I'd like to get along with ya even if we do disagree. My view offends the most of you and I get a little self righteous in my posts at times, but I'd like relate that I am aware that I'm not mister Bible guru or even mister I have life all figured out. Just like you I feel like I'm on the right path...or we wouldn't be on it.

[Daniel]

I chased the peace I found in meditation.

One learns pretty quickly- if one is meditating with the right kind of motivation and instruction- that chasing states of mind - ie peace & bliss- is counterproductive for the simple reason that in chasing them, one becomes even more blind. Meditation is a tool, and like all tools, need to be used with circumspection and awareness. It's rightful use leads to many things, a peaceful mind being one of many, but that doesn't mean it can be popped like a pill.

Perhaps you didn't know even Christian monks and nuns sit Zazen (a form of Buddhist meditation) these days. It's called it Centering Prayer.

I don't know your reasons for being here, and won't speculate. But if you don't want to get yourself banned you are going to have to start listening to what people are saying here and stop the knee-jerking statements. More curiousity would do wonders. That said, I still have serious doubts about your future here.

You may not be able to help yourself.

[stev0]

One learns pretty quickly- if one is meditating with the right kind of motivation and instruction- that chasing states of mind - ie peace & bliss- is counterproductive for the simple reason that in chasing them, one becomes even more blind. Meditation is a tool, and like all tools, need to be used with circumspection. It's rightful use leads to many things, a peaceful mind being one of them, but that doesn't mean it can be popped like a pill.

Perhaps you didn't know Even Christian monks and nuns sit Zazen (a form of Buddhist meditation) these days. It's called it Centering Prayer.

Well I still do some meditation.. but the center of it has changed. some mediation for centering calming some for reflection on the Word...and most of the time.... I can't find time for anything but working and sleeping...but so it goes.

[Daniel]

Just like you I feel like I'm on the right path...or we wouldn't be on it.

I hear what your are saying, but I don't think our experiences are the same. For starters, I don't consider myself on a 'path'. Why not? Because the word implies that there is somewhere to get to. And at this point in my life, I've put aside the whole idea of getting somewhere. My sense of things is that only the present moment is at hand. There is nowhere to 'go'. Yes. I can look back at the history or story of my life and say that it has taken certain turns, and gone certain ways, but for me to assume that there is a certain 'path' that I must take above all other paths just doesn't do it for me anymore. I've seen too much death, had too much joy, and had too much life experience to posit that any 'path' to be the Only True One and all others False. I'm not saying that all the religions are the same. Surely not. I'd just rather live with some paradox.

But some people are incapable of this. They must live in certainty that they are as right as right can be. Well. That's nice for them. Problem is, they drive the rest of us nuts.

In the end, I'd rather be happy than right. Too much ego in the latter.

My point here is this: is your path making you a more loving person? To your gay brothers and sisters in Christ? Does it allow those same gay persons to love and be loved by other gay persons?

Just how big is your love?

You may have gleaned this from Buddhism, but if you didn't, please allow me to tell you:
The practice or extention of love and compassion starts with one's self, for properly speaking, you can't give what you don't have.

I'm off to bed...and I'll be saying my prayers.

[keltic63]

I specifically said that I don't think I'll change anyone's ideas...I don't think my poor attempt to explain myself and what I believe the Bible clearly states will be able to change the hearts of anyone in their own write. If my words are convicting it is the Holy Spirit's work not mine. Lol...and no i'm not more highly evolved lol.

Nice dodge. what do you say to those of us who have reconciled our orientation with our christianity and now find ourselves in a stronger relationship with our God?

[u-dog]

Yep...well I'm Reformed doctrinally with a charismatic dimension.
(God's Sovereign over all things/the Bible is inerrant/The "J" man is the only way/the only thing that saves you is belief in God-repentance-and turning your life over to Him/We believe the spiritual gifts are for today)...summary anyhow.

I KNEW IT !! Ha! I am so smart! :cool: (;)) But the fly in the ointment is that Biblical inerrancy is NOT a Reformed idea and is really NOT even compatible with Reformed theology. Calvin wanted to remove Revelations from the canon along with the apocrophal books (just like Luther wanted to remove James but for different reasons). Calvin's understanding was that the Scripture becomes the Word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit when interpreted by believers within the community of Faith. Biblical Inerrancy is a 19th century idea that emerged as a fear response to modernity (evolutionary theory among other things)

[Zerbie]

nor do i agree with all the people on the UT campus yelling at students on the street

You go to UT? Austin?

[u-dog]

no God is not just love...God is Holy (set apart)
perfectly
loving,
just,
good,
wise
so on....

Is this in the "fundamentalist primer" or something? Because you are not the first to stumble in here and make this amazing argument. Not to put too fine a point on it... this is just plain wrong.

"love" is not just one characteristic of God in a list of approved adjectives. "Love" is WHO GOD IS. If one does not love one does NOT KNOW GOD. You can be a total fool (all the disciples up until Pentecost?) and still know God. You can be a total rascal and still know God (King David as case in point). As Paul points out, without Love... all the other stuff is ... a noisy clanging cymbal.

Jesus is the "Logos" of God... The "Word Made Flesh" when you look at him you SEE LOVE and you SEE GOD -- you KNOW love and you KNOW God.


Yes, God is just and holy and "LOVING" and wise and good and omnicient and omnipotent and eternal and blond and blue-eyed and left handed and male (just kidding about that last part :lol:) but those are just characteristics. They are not who God IS at the core and essence of God's being. Jesus gives us access to knowledge of God's essential NATURE. That essential nature is LOVE.

I'm sorry Stev0 -- but Fundamentalism is just Phariseism in sheep's clothing.
All the right words are there but ... "the J-man" is missing:(

[stev0]

Is this in the "fundamentalist primer" or something? Because you are not the first to stumble in here and make this amazing argument. Not to put too fine a point on it... this is just plain wrong.

"love" is not just one characteristic of God in a list of approved adjectives. "Love" is WHO GOD IS. If one does not love one does NOT KNOW GOD. You can be a total fool (all the disciples up until Pentecost?) and still know God. You can be a total rascal and still know God (King David as case in point). As Paul points out, without Love... all the other stuff is ... a noisy clanging cymbal.

Jesus is the "Logos" of God... The "Word Made Flesh" when you look at him you SEE LOVE and you SEE GOD -- you KNOW love and you KNOW God.


Yes, God is just and holy and "LOVING" and wise and good and omnicient and omnipotent and eternal and blond and blue-eyed and left handed and male (just kidding about that last part :lol:) but those are just characteristics. They are not who God IS at the core and essence of God's being. Jesus gives us access to knowledge of God's essential NATURE. That essential nature is LOVE.

I'm sorry Stev0 -- but Fundamentalism is just Phariseism in sheep's clothing.
All the right words are there but ... "the J-man" is missing:(

well really i was just responding to tymejumper's comment. I know it's not new... and what your saying...is not new "nothing new under the sun" so your not above it. No one is.

I just don't see how taking sin seriously is "phariseism" "Phariseism" is the belief that our good works and following the law will give us grace with God and that we'll get to heaven on those merits... so I don't ascribe to it.

[stev0]

Nice dodge. what do you say to those of us who have reconciled our orientation with our christianity and now find ourselves in a stronger relationship with our God?

Well I say, to the best of my knowledge. Shortly, your God must be different from my God.

[stev0]

Seems like this thread has reached it's end. The conversations are just becoming aggressive. (I understand I am the big portion of the aggression.) Thanks to everyone who responded and took their time to actually debate with me.. though the subject of the forum has degraded into a some random bickering on such a wide variety of subjects. If anyone really wants to continue to ask me more questions about why I believe the way I do or give me good Biblical sense of why you think Romans 1 does not specifically point out homosexuality as sinful or just any other subject... send a private message to my account and I'd be glad to read it. The forum topic has just become too muddy. Again, I appreciate your time and thoughts.

and yes I realize that I'm a sinner too we're on equal playing field.
no sin is greater than another. so don't think I look down on anyone here and If my words have made you feel that way..I apologize.

[Zerbie]

Seems like this thread has reached it's end. The conversations are just becoming aggressive. (I understand I am the big portion of the aggression.) Thanks to everyone who responded and took their time to actually debate with me.. though the subject of the forum has degraded into a some random bickering on such a wide variety of subjects. If anyone really wants to continue to ask me more questions about why I believe the way I do or give me good Biblical sense of why you think Romans 1 does not specifically point out homosexuality as sinful or just any other subject... send a private message to my account and I'd be glad to read it. The forum topic has just become too muddy. Again, I appreciate your time and thoughts.

and yes I realize that I'm a sinner too we're on equal playing field.
no sin is greater than another. so don't think I look down on anyone here and If my words have made you feel that way..I apologize.

Before you go. . . I believe that many here on the forum will welcome you back if or when you want to come back someday and talk some more.

In the event that someday you should find yourself revising your beliefs and struggling with the idea that maybe you *are* gay, this would be a perfect place to come back to and hash those questions out - since so many people here have BEEN where you are, and wound up coming to a different understanding. So if *you* ever find yourself shifting in your beliefs and needing support and caring from those who have lived through it, come back. If you ever wind up coming out and need support, come here.

Best wishes. :pray:

[scott snedeker]

I have a metaphorical mental image of a gay person with fundamentalist belief sliding down an ice precipice. To keep from falling into the bottomless abyss he has driven a spike through his hand into the ice wall. Suffering from the pain yet terrified to remove it. He doesn't fall but neither can he climb out. Only when he gets a secure enough foot hold can he painfully extract the spike, and only after some healing of the wound in his hand will the pain subside. Only then can he climb out of his trap of fear

.

......Another gay person hears the cry of of this fellow and climbs down to find the victim hanging from his impaled hand. The rescuer shows his palms to the victim. The palms have scars, stigmata of the same impalement from long a time long past.

The rescuer directs the fellow to look for the foothold so as to take some of the weight off his impaled hand. But when the victim looks down, all he sees is the abyss. In a desperate act he grabs another spike and drives it through both his ankles into the wall of ice.

The rescuer reaches his hand out to the victim. The victim grabs another spike and attempts to drive it into the rescuer's hand into the ice wall. His intent driven by desperation to prevent his rescuer from removing his spikes and to "save" the rescuer. "These spikes are gifts of God" tells the victim to the rescuer, "it is engraved with a passage from Romans."

The rescuer takes the spike and examines it. The he pulls one of his own from his pocket and compares the two. "This spike is engraved with the same message as the one I carry, But the translation is not a passage from Romans. It says Forged by Roman slaves by order of Prefect Pilate" And hands it back to the victim.

The Victim looks at the abyss once more swings his remaining free hand and drives the last spike into the ice wall. Then with all his might he impales remaining his hand over the spike.

He and the rescuer share one last look. The feeling of loss of what could have been, palpable in the air. The rescuer ascends up the ice wall into the daylight, fighting the urge to look back.

[u-dog]

well really i was just responding to tymejumper's comment. I know it's not new... and what your saying...is not new "nothing new under the sun" so your not above it. No one is.

I just don't see how taking sin seriously is "phariseism" "Phariseism" is the belief that our good works and following the law will give us grace with God and that we'll get to heaven on those merits... so I don't ascribe to it.


I know Stev0, I wasn't being fair to YOU. I hear the Gospel peeking through what you have to say and I don't think that you are really a pharisee. What I experience from MOST fundamentalists is that they "hear" the Gospel's RADICAL message of grace apart from works and they pay lip service to it and they CLAIM that they are only trusting in Christ for their salvation but if you just scratch the paint off ... they are stilling hoping to impress God with how moral they are.

God doesn't give RIP for our morality unless we offer it up innocently and joyfully in response to his Grace. Our morality is meaningless with regard to our salvation. Salvation is TOTALLY about God's desire to save and not at all about our worthiness for salvation. Most fundamentalists of my aquaintance say they believe it ... but cling to their filthy rags and insist that other people wear them too. Their message -- even though it uses all the right words and phrases is Anti-gospel.

Pharisaism and fundamentalism both focus on righteousness and its conjoined twin -- "sin" -- "takes them seriously" as you say. A Christian -- a real Christian -- focuses on Jesus ... what he was, what he did, who he IS -- and builds a life around that. In learning to ride a bike, a kid will drive toward whatever he looks at. If he stares in fear at the lamp post, he will drive into the lamp post. If he stares intently at the sidewalk ahead of him... he will stay on the sidewalk. If a person stares in fear at their own righteousness/sin (same thing really) they will crash into it. It will devour them. If a person stares into the loving, accepting heart of Jesus ... they will fall into that. THIS IS THE GOSPEL. THE LAW IS DANGEROUS.. IT LEADS TO DEATH. IF YOU STARE AT IT YOU WILL CRASH INTO IT. STARE AT JESUS INSTEAD.

If I was in a loving committed relationship with another man (which I'm not .. and in all liklihood won't be) I would offer that relationship up to God in gratitude for his love and grace. That's what most of the Christians on this forum believe and what they do. I'm a gay man. I'm married (faithfully) to a woman (Polly who posts here also). We've walked a lifetime together (coming up on a quarter century) and we will likely walk the rest of the way together. I offer THAT up to God in thanksgiving. The joy of it ... and the pain of it. The gain... and the loss. I'd divorce her and run off with another guy in a heartbeat... if it wouldn't mean leaving most of my heart behind and a gaping hole in my chest.

Most fundamentalist respond to the amazing grace of God by condemning their GLBT brothers and sisters to the fires of hell. I bet that pleases Jesus don't you? (I know that you don't, Stev0, I really do. I think that you are the genuine article.) but... people judge you by the company you keep. its the risk you take.

[Daniel]

If anyone really wants to continue to ask me more questions about why I believe the way I do or give me good Biblical sense of why you think Romans 1 does not specifically point out homosexuality as sinful or just any other subject... send a private message to my account and I'd be glad to read it. The forum topic has just become too muddy. Again, I appreciate your time and thoughts.

and yes I realize that I'm a sinner too we're on equal playing field.
no sin is greater than another. so don't think I look down on anyone here and If my words have made you feel that way..I apologize.

First off Stevo- the apology is appreciated. Thanks for making it.

There's one thing that has bothered my about your interaction here. And it's this: it seems that you have set yourself up- and the discussion- or whatever you want to call it- to fail with a 'prove-it-to-me' attitude. One thing is certain about this kind of attitude, is keeps one stationary.

Your question about Romans 1 is given fairly comprehensive treatment here on this site if you would only do a little work. And when this was pointed out to you at the very beginning of the thread, you declaimed that this wasn't to your liking, you wanted to have your question answered personally. Ok then. You got what you wanted: a discussion of this text was started by U-dog in the following post.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=41502&postcount=3

Here is your response.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=41511&postcount=6

The sum of your argument in the post above, and one which you do not seem to have wavered from, is the following:

My only point is that it is considered sinful or to my knowledge it is.

As you said subsequently noted, the 'it' in this sentence is the fact of being gay. This stance, as well as your interaction here reveals - to me anyway- the following pattern of thought- one which you hold on to like a dog with a bone:

1) Prove to me that you aren't sinful.

2) I'm open to being corrected about Romans 1, but please don't ask me to give up number 1.

Tapped in a circle which goes round and round. No wonder you want to give up. You have two goals which are at odds with each other. That's enough to make anyone's brain fry a bit. Everyone here as gotten past number 1 one way or another, though the thought arises a with a somewhat different expression:

Does God love me as I am?

Most of us get through this mental thicket with a good deal of introspection, study and courage. This means, perhaps most of all, questioning one's assumptions. It's that simple. If you are questioning us under the guise of questioning yourself, you have your work cut out for you.

We've all been there- as the saying goes. We know what it's like. And for many of us, it wasn't a picnic by any means. Want some perspective on that? All you have to do is ask.

I sincerely and prayfully wish you joy and happiness on your journey.

[stev0]

I appreciate that you point out my subject dodging.

He did respond to me well and I kinda skipped over it and saw the part where he trying to label me as the typical fundamentalist. So, I was quick to pamper my pride and defend myself.

I do believe he has a point about the fact that the scriptures do highlight the fact that Idolatry is the root issue of all sin. That we would put our own desires above God.

It definitely, makes me think over it. But, as I have been, I'll remain stationary with with my beliefs until it's been revealed to me that they are incorrect; and I'll always be questioning my own beliefs (one of the main reasons for me being in the forum) It either reveals new light on the subject or it makes my belief stand more firm.

Thank you for your comments.

[stev0]

......Another gay person hears the cry of of this fellow and climbs down to find the victim hanging from his impaled hand. The rescuer shows his palms to the victim. The palms have scars, stigmata of the same impalement from long a time long past.

The rescuer directs the fellow to look for the foothold so as to take some of the weight off his impaled hand. But when the victim looks down, all he sees is the abyss. In a desperate act he grabs another spike and drives it through both his ankles into the wall of ice.

The rescuer reaches his hand out to the victim. The victim grabs another spike and attempts to drive it into the rescuer's hand into the ice wall. His intent driven by desperation to prevent his rescuer from removing his spikes and to "save" the rescuer. "These spikes are gifts of God" tells the victim to the rescuer, "it is engraved with a passage from Romans."

The rescuer takes the spike and examines it. The he pulls one of his own from his pocket and compares the two. "This spike is engraved with the same message as the one I carry, But the translation is not a passage from Romans. It says Forged by Roman slaves by order of Prefect Pilate" And hands it back to the victim.

The Victim looks at the abyss once more swings his remaining free hand and drives the last spike into the ice wall. Then with all his might he impales remaining his hand over the spike.

He and the rescuer share one last look. The feeling of loss of what could have been, palpable in the air. The rescuer ascends up the ice wall into the daylight, fighting the urge to look back.

...what the heck.

[scott snedeker]

...what the heck.

In dreams we see things invisible to the eye. In waking we are puzzled once more...... and troubled. For what is revealed in dreams may be a door out of the blindness that obscures our sight in our wakefullness. A tether that reaches obscurely where all hope of a connection has failed. Untenable and tanatalizing it draws to it a yearning to know. Hope remains as a delicate flame holding the spirit alive in the comfort of the realization: We are not abandoned to empty darkness if we keep focussed on what we still can't see clearly but the presence of which is undeniably sensed.

[u-dog]

In dreams we see things invisible to the eye. In waking we are puzzled once more...... and troubled. For what is revealed in dreams may be a door out of the blindness that obscures our sight in our wakefullness. A tether that reaches obscurely where all hope of a connection has failed. Untenable and tanatalizing it draws to it a yearning to know. Hope remains as a delicate flame holding the spirit alive in the comfort of the realization: We are not abandoned to empty darkness if we keep focussed on what we still can't see clearly but the presence of which is undeniably sensed.


We don't want to

[Steven E. Webster]

I appreciate that you point out my subject dodging.

He did respond to me well and I kinda skipped over it and saw the part where he trying to label me as the typical fundamentalist. So, I was quick to pamper my pride and defend myself.

I do believe he has a point about the fact that the scriptures do highlight the fact that Idolatry is the root issue of all sin. That we would put our own desires above God.

It definitely, makes me think over it. But, as I have been, I'll remain stationary with with my beliefs until it's been revealed to me that they are incorrect; and I'll always be questioning my own beliefs (one of the main reasons for me being in the forum) It either reveals new light on the subject or it makes my belief stand more firm.

Thank you for your comments.

SteveO,
It's good to see you open to question your own beliefs. I don't think we have any particular obligation to change your beliefs, that's only something that you can do in the end.

I believe that U-dog's analysis does a pretty good job of putting Romans 1 in context. One must read the first two or three chapters as belonging to one piece. One has to begin at the very beginning of chapter 1 and read well into chapter two or three to see how Paul uses the argument about the decadence of the gentile world.

That is what the latter part of chapter 1 is all about--Paul actually borrows heavily from common arguments about the decadence of the Gentiles. Another ancient Jewish book titled "The Wisdom of Solomon" describes the Gentiles in much the same way, including the denunciation of homosexuality.

I was impressed with an argument by one scholar who points out that Paul believes that homosexuality is not so much a sin as it is the bad result of a general disorder that begins with the Gentiles' failure to recognize God as the creator. Everything gets turned upside down and the next thing you know even the women don't know their proper place--under man. Men have sex with each other rather than doing the "natural thing" and sexually dominating women. In this ancient patriarchal view point sex always involves one who is dominant and one who is submissive--that is what is "natural." It is "unnatural" for one man to be sexually submissive to another man. Likewise, it is "unnatural" for one woman to "play the part of a man" and be sexually dominant over another woman.

So Paul was just a man of his times, expressing himself in the culture of his times. We take Paul's sayings out of context when we try to apply them to the relationships of modern same-gender partners.

Not only that, we really miss what was Paul's real point. That the Jews really can't claim to be all that superior to the Gentiles, no matter how "decadent" they thought the Gentiles were.

Steven Webster

[u-dog]

SteveO,
It's good to see you open to question your own beliefs. I don't think we have any particular obligation to change your beliefs, that's only something that you can do in the end.

I believe that U-dog's analysis does a pretty good job of putting Romans 1 in context. One must read the first two or three chapters as belonging to one piece. One has to begin at the very beginning of chapter 1 and read well into chapter two or three to see how Paul uses the argument about the decadence of the gentile world.

That is what the latter part of chapter 1 is all about--Paul actually borrows heavily from common arguments about the decadence of the Gentiles. Another ancient Jewish book titled "The Wisdom of Solomon" describes the Gentiles in much the same way, including the denunciation of homosexuality.

I was impressed with an argument by one scholar who points out that Paul believes that homosexuality is not so much a sin as it is the bad result of a general disorder that begins with the Gentiles' failure to recognize God as the creator. Everything gets turned upside down and the next thing you know even the women don't know their proper place--under man. Men have sex with each other rather than doing the "natural thing" and sexually dominating women. In this ancient patriarchal view point sex always involves one who is dominant and one who is submissive--that is what is "natural." It is "unnatural" for one man to be sexually submissive to another man. Likewise, it is "unnatural" for one woman to "play the part of a man" and be sexually dominant over another woman.

So Paul was just a man of his times, expressing himself in the culture of his times. We take Paul's sayings out of context when we try to apply them to the relationships of modern same-gender partners.

Not only that, we really miss what was Paul's real point. That the Jews really can't claim to be all that superior to the Gentiles, no matter how "decadent" they thought the Gentiles were.

Steven Webster


PRECISELY STEVEN !! THANK YOU. The question that I want to ask is: Is it respectful of Scripture when we take a modern question and pose it to an ancient text when the original purpose of the text was to make a point entirely unrelated to our modern question? Paul is obviously NOT intending to make a point about nasty gentile decadence. He is USING existing attitudes about that to make a point about idolatry of the Law!!!

What is your answer to THIS question Stev0?

[stev0]

In dreams we see things invisible to the eye. In waking we are puzzled once more...... and troubled. For what is revealed in dreams may be a door out of the blindness that obscures our sight in our wakefullness. A tether that reaches obscurely where all hope of a connection has failed. Untenable and tanatalizing it draws to it a yearning to know. Hope remains as a delicate flame holding the spirit alive in the comfort of the realization: We are not abandoned to empty darkness if we keep focussed on what we still can't see clearly but the presence of which is undeniably sensed.
scott... well I believe that some dreams do have some meaning to be interpreted but if you can't pull any tangible wisdom from them or enlighten us with the profoundity of their insight that I'm obviously not picking up on... there best left on the pillow.
PRECISELY STEVEN !! THANK YOU. The question that I want to ask is: Is it respectful of Scripture when we take a modern question and pose it to an ancient text when the original purpose of the text was to make a point entirely unrelated to our modern question? Paul is obviously NOT intending to make a point about nasty gentile decadence. He is USING existing attitudes about that to make a point about idolatry of the Law!!!

What is your answer to THIS question Stev0?
Well it is respectful of Scripture to consult it for wisdom. I think it's clear now that I believe Scripture is divine in nature. I think there are some subjects that are not clearly defined in the Bible which God has left up to good discernment; but I'm confident that though the situations were different in that time the wisdom that is taught in the Bible (and specifically here with Paul) is timeless and is direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Just because it's old doesn't disprove it's validity. I know you guys said there's all the studies out now by psychologist and such that say your born with a homosexual or bisexual orientation. I'd like to see how they determine that and how can I be sure of it's findings. send me a link to something. But as it stands with my orientation of believing whole heartedly that the Bible is inerrant, I don't believe just because Paul was not in the 21st century, that his assumptions what was natural is wrong.

Webster also mentions that their view of sex is ancient, old, and dusty and I take it that he thinks that the patriarchal relationship is old and dusty too.(correct me if I'm wrong)
I feel like that is something that is natural I guess I just see so many parallels of the relationship between the submissive wife and the lovingly leading husband as good and healthy today. (lol) more insights to stev0's life WOO
Me and my wife believing in "biblical roles" and believe that they glorify God and that they mimic and exemplify the relationship between God the father and Jesus His son and also the relationship between Christ and the church.
When it turns into a bad thing is when the wife does the naturally sinful thing and tries to dominate her husband which usurps his role and the husband does the naturally sinful thing and tries to control his wife with a dominating mentality which is just plain unloving.
I'm sure this is all old news to you guys but there ya go.

[Steven E. Webster]

scott... well I believe that some dreams do have some meaning to be interpreted but if you can't pull any tangible wisdom from them or enlighten us with the profoundity of their insight that I'm obviously not picking up on... there best left on the pillow.

Well it is respectful of Scripture to consult it for wisdom. I think it's clear now that I believe Scripture is divine in nature. I think there are some subjects that are not clearly defined in the Bible which God has left up to good discernment; but I'm confident that though the situations were different in that time the wisdom that is taught in the Bible (and specifically here with Paul) is timeless and is direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Just because it's old doesn't disprove it's validity. I know you guys said there's all the studies out now by psychologist and such that say your born with a homosexual or bisexual orientation. I'd like to see how they determine that and how can I be sure of it's findings. send me a link to something. But as it stands with my orientation of believing whole heartedly that the Bible is inerrant, I don't believe just because Paul was not in the 21st century, that his assumptions what was natural is wrong.

Webster also mentions that their view of sex is ancient, old, and dusty and I take it that he thinks that the patriarchal relationship is old and dusty too.(correct me if I'm wrong)
I feel like that is something that is natural I guess I just see so many parallels of the relationship between the submissive wife and the lovingly leading husband as good and healthy today. (lol) more insights to stev0's life WOO
Me and my wife believing in "biblical roles" and believe that they glorify God and that they mimic and exemplify the relationship between God the father and Jesus His son and also the relationship between Christ and the church.
When it turns into a bad thing is when the wife does the naturally sinful thing and tries to dominate her husband which usurps his role and the husband does the naturally sinful thing and tries to control his wife with a dominating mentality which is just plain unloving.
I'm sure this is all old news to you guys but there ya go.

SteveO,
I'm not sure that I ever said that anything in the Bible is wrong simply because it is old. I, too, believe that the Bible is the source of timeless truths as well. It's just that Patriarchy and homophobia are not among those timeless truths.

Just because something is old doesn't make it right either. Christians argued that Slavery was o.k. because it was old and it was o.k. in the Bible. Now we can barely imagine how so many "Bible-believing Christians" justified so great an evil. Patriarchy is another one of those things that needs a lot more than age to justify it. (Some would argue that the movements against Slavery, Patriarchy and Heterosexism are all part of one continuous movement for human freedom with roots in the European Enlightenment.)

Patriarchy has definitely fallen on hard times in the circles I travel in (and I spend more time day in and day out in church than anywhere else). I don't know any women who'd do anything but laugh at you if you suggested that they be "submissive" to their husbands. I also don't know any men who expect submission from wives. And guess what? I know a heck of alot of happily married heterosexual couples.

I think we are running up against a cultural divide that we simply aren't going to bridge. The embracing of Patriarchy is one of the identifying characteristics of Fundamentalism of all kinds. Patriarchy involves not only the submission of women, but the oppression of homosexuals as well. I may as well tell you plainly that I believe Fundamentalism is one of the manifestations of human evil in the world.

I don't know if there are any arguments that will convince you of anything. A little life experience might have some effect on you, SteveO. 22 is a mighty tender age. Ten or twenty years down the road we may hope that you may have a different view.

Do you know that divorce rates are particularly high among "evangelicals"? My suspicion is that you won't find many women that will put up with Patriarchy "until death do us part" anymore.

I heard of an elderly widow talking to a young woman pastor who was divorced. The old lady said, "In my day, marriage was until death us do part. . ." After a long pause she added, "My husband lived twenty years too long."

I don't mean to be mean to you, SteveO, but I'm probably as morally outraged by Patriarchy as some Fundamentalists are about homosexuality.

Sometimes us "liberals" are accused of not having firm ideas about what is right and wrong. I have no problem at all saying Patriarchy is wrong.
Do I have Scripture for it? You bet I do! "In Christ there is neither male and female." And that's just a start!

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

I know you guys said there's all the studies out now by psychologist and such that say your born with a homosexual or bisexual orientation. I'd like to see how they determine that and how can I be sure of it's findings. send me a link to something.

SteveO,

You requested some links:

This is the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Here's a link to a Psycologist who is both an evangelical and a professor at a Christian College--Hope College

http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=62

Personally, I don't believe I need a scientist to justify my existence. I provide you these links at your request, SteveO. But don't expect me or anyone else here to keep arguing with you about whether we are "natural" or not. There is no need to prove anything to you.

You simply are going to have to adapt to the fact that we are going to insist on our full human, spiritual and political equality, and it is our faith that our commitment to the truth will prevail over every oppression.

Steven Webster

[scott snedeker]

scott... well I believe that some dreams do have some meaning to be interpreted but if you can't pull any tangible wisdom from them or enlighten us with the profoundity of their insight that I'm obviously not picking up on... there best left on the pillow.
.

Relax,

The image and impression are enough. Their purpose is fulfilled. This is a subconscious message and is not designed to be explained at this time.

Peace,

[Daniel]

Steven- thanks for the link to Hope College and David Myers. He wrote an article relevant to this discussion titled Response by David Myers: Another Christian Perspective on Homosexuality and the Church. It can be found here:

http://www.westernsem.edu/media/pub_article/rreview/autumn05

Of particular note is the following passage on page five.

Recent studies have similarly found that prejudice arises less from cerebral justifications than from automatic, gut-level reactions which seek justification. Reason is often the slave of passion. Moral reasoning therefore aims to convince others of what we intuitively feel, which in times past has led people to find in the Bible ample support for the subordination of African-Americans and of women. Haidt’s research also helps us understand why surveys find that people with gay friends come to have more accepting feelings, and also to have more supportive opinions about gay rights and gay marriage. (As empathy replaces disgust, one’s rationalizations change.) And no wonder men (who, more than women, feel disgust over same-sex relationships) write most of the antigay tracts.

[keltic63]

Well I say, to the best of my knowledge. Shortly, your God must be different from my God.

and this is one of the reasons that you've been warned about your posts here. For no matter how nicely you try to say it, you are still saying spiritually damaging things. The christians in this thread that have responded to you, have been very clear in stating that our beliefs are the result of wrestling with the word of God, listening to the Spirit, educating ourselves about the scriptures, considering all the interpretations, and arriving at this conclusion: God loves us as we are, as we have been created. Countless lgbt people have experienced the blessing of God on their lives and now live in the sunlight of God's love as gay and lesbian children of God. No one here has accused you of worshipping the wrong God. You have been called on some key concepts taught in scripture, though.

your short, haughty response to this is "your God must be different from my God." Your true feelings shine through, so let's see what this brief statement implies. Any experience of God that differs from yours must not be valid. Scripture tells us that having "another God" is idolatry; is that the accusation you wish to make against us? Fundamentalists have a great need for a group that is considered "other." Their assurance of getting into heaven depends on some "other" group that most assuredly will not get in. Don't believe me? listen to the sermons, radio talk shows on christian stations, read christian magazine articles. There is a pretty good list of "other" that they feign concern about: the homosexuals is pretty much at the top of the list, but there are also the abortionists, the liberals, the Democratic party, the feminists, etc. When I was in a fundamentalist church, I would often hear the minister name local churches that he claimed were dying because the Spirit of God had left that church.

You have a superiority complex, and it shows through, even in your briefest statements. You've come, made your statement, then asked us to defend ourselves. We have done so, rather politely, because of some concern we have about you. We'll be here for you when you need to come back. I hope that you return with less condecension.

[tdogg]

Well I say, to the best of my knowledge. Shortly, your God must be different from my God.

My God is apparently different from yours. I believe in a God who loves its creations with abandon. A God who doesn't proprose to toss its creations in an eternal vat of burning torture. A God who loves all its creations, one as much as the next. A God who came to earth in the form of a man, attempting to teach fellow humans to love, how to love and that love triumphs over all. A lesson that unfortunately, more often than not, was never learned.

My God loves me just as my God created me. I was created in a very special and unique way, different from any other creation, tho of course with some similarities. My God knows the number of hairs on my head, what terrifies me, what comforts me, my worries and my joys. My God is there for me, but never stands in my way. My God accompanies me like a best friend on my life journey, often commenting on my actions and thoughts, but never demanding that I think and act a certain way.

My God would love you Stevo, just as your are. My God would be there with and for you, but also allow you to proceed on your life journey, learning, experiencing, loving as you go. My God would know your true emotions, deep down in your heart where no other human could ever go. And my God would love you for your secret emotions and encourage you to embrace them and love yourself, while never impeeding your journey.

My God would listen to your heart's sorrows and joys, wishes and dreams as you meditate and would help you know how to make the sorrows not so sad and how to realize your dreams without thinking God would abandon you to the depths of hell for them. My God would NEVER throw one creation into eternal torturous damnation, my God is too loving and empathetic for that.

I don't know everything about my God, but I do know my God is first and foremost, LOVE. More than anything else, God is LOVE.

That is how my God seems to be different from yours. I was raised under the guise of what seems to be your God for years and years, false doctrine thrown at me and shoved down my throat. A doctrine steeped and run by fear and the need for men to dominate women and weaker men, and children. A need to be superior, the rulers, the dictators. Organized fundamental "Christian" religion was created to keep powerful men in control of their 'flock' and that is one reason why they need to keep spouting off hate and inacceptance of GLBT people. Once we are universally accepted, equal and yes, even loved as people, the power these religious icons (idols?) hold will crumble to the ground, as they are beginning to do already.

I pray Stevo that some day, somewhere on your life journey, you will be priviledged to meet my God. Love to you... :love::pray:

[u-dog]

T-dogg baby! you are awesome. thats really all I can say. I am speechless. I think we need to tuck that in right after John and before Acts! :eek:

[stev0]

My God is apparently different from yours. I believe in a God who loves its creations with abandon. A God who doesn't proprose to toss its creations in an eternal vat of burning torture. A God who loves all its creations, one as much as the next. A God who came to earth in the form of a man, attempting to teach fellow humans to love, how to love and that love triumphs over all. A lesson that unfortunately, more often than not, was never learned.

My God loves me just as my God created me. I was created in a very special and unique way, different from any other creation, tho of course with some similarities. My God knows the number of hairs on my head, what terrifies me, what comforts me, my worries and my joys. My God is there for me, but never stands in my way. My God accompanies me like a best friend on my life journey, often commenting on my actions and thoughts, but never demanding that I think and act a certain way.

My God would love you Stevo, just as your are. My God would be there with and for you, but also allow you to proceed on your life journey, learning, experiencing, loving as you go. My God would know your true emotions, deep down in your heart where no other human could ever go. And my God would love you for your secret emotions and encourage you to embrace them and love yourself, while never impeeding your journey.

My God would listen to your heart's sorrows and joys, wishes and dreams as you meditate and would help you know how to make the sorrows not so sad and how to realize your dreams without thinking God would abandon you to the depths of hell for them. My God would NEVER throw one creation into eternal torturous damnation, my God is too loving and empathetic for that.

I don't know everything about my God, but I do know my God is first and foremost, LOVE. More than anything else, God is LOVE.

That is how my God seems to be different from yours. I was raised under the guise of what seems to be your God for years and years, false doctrine thrown at me and shoved down my throat. A doctrine steeped and run by fear and the need for men to dominate women and weaker men, and children. A need to be superior, the rulers, the dictators. Organized fundamental "Christian" religion was created to keep powerful men in control of their 'flock' and that is one reason why they need to keep spouting off hate and inacceptance of GLBT people. Once we are universally accepted, equal and yes, even loved as people, the power these religious icons (idols?) hold will crumble to the ground, as they are beginning to do already.

I pray Stevo that some day, somewhere on your life journey, you will be priviledged to meet my God. Love to you... :love::pray:

I wasn't trying to be mean...but yes it did come off as condescending the way I said it. By your Words I do think our views of God are completely different. Just because I believe in a patriarchal type church and husband/wife relationship doesn't necessarily throw me headlong into what most people deem those relationships as. Mean unloving dominant or some how I get a high out of being "the leader" in the relationship... Honestly throughout my life I thought it was a stupid idea and that it had no place in my life or anyone else's. As I got to know my wife she introduced me to the idea and how it's helpful for each other to fulfill those roles. I hate the idea of being superior to my wife... and that's not the idea or the goal of the way we attempt to live out our marriage. I consider my wife completely undeniably equal to me in but I believe we are made differently...hardwired differently that "biblical roles" help fulfill. We seek to complement each other not dominate one another. I understand not everyone thinks it works...and I don't expect everyone to run their household the same way. I just see it's benefits and want to avoid the pitfalls of what ignorant men have made it out to be.

as for our views of God. We do have different god's. I can understand being unsure or rather having different views of homosexuality, but to say that God would not punish anyone for their sinfulness is not Christian. Even Jesus spoke of hell and those who will find it. So, if you are talking about a god other than the Christian god then I can understand where you are coming from but if you are talking about the Christian God as someone who does not punish sin then we are talking about two completely different gods.

God does love everyone and wants to see them come to Him and He does not rejoice in punishing "the wicked" (no I'm not trying to single out gay ppl) The wicked refers to anyone who has sinned.

[stev0]

Fundamentalists have a great need for a group that is considered "other." Their assurance of getting into heaven depends on some "other" group that most assuredly will not get in. Don't believe me? listen to the sermons, radio talk shows on christian stations, read christian magazine articles. There is a pretty good list of "other" that they feign concern about: the homosexuals is pretty much at the top of the list, but there are also the abortionists, the liberals, the Democratic party, the feminists, etc. When I was in a fundamentalist church, I would often hear the minister name local churches that he claimed were dying because the Spirit of God had left that church.


I believe you.. there are alot of a-holes out there they believe they've got to persecute other groups of people to be doing "the will of God." I believe there's an awesome verse for them about getting the log out of their own eye.

There's alot of "Christians" out there that think their doing the will of God and are just damaging the message of the gospel with their agendas and their preferences and trying to scare ppl into believing their way. (kinda like i was talking about the ppl on the UT(university of Tennessee) campus yelling at ppl telling them their going to hell.)

it's rampant...and people are mainly doing it to get the high of feeling like their are superior and really all their doing to shaming themselves and God by claiming to be of Him.

[Steven E. Webster]

I wasn't trying to be mean...but yes it did come off as condescending the way I said it. By your Words I do think our views of God are completely different. Just because I believe in a patriarchal type church and husband/wife relationship doesn't necessarily throw me headlong into what most people deem those relationships as. Mean unloving dominant or some how I get a high out of being "the leader" in the relationship... Honestly throughout my life I thought it was a stupid idea and that it had no place in my life or anyone else's. As I got to know my wife she introduced me to the idea and how it's helpful for each other to fulfill those roles. I hate the idea of being superior to my wife... and that's not the idea or the goal of the way we attempt to live out our marriage. I consider my wife completely undeniably equal to me in but I believe we are made differently...hardwired differently that "biblical roles" help fulfill. We seek to complement each other not dominate one another. I understand not everyone thinks it works...and I don't expect everyone to run their household the same way. I just see it's benefits and want to avoid the pitfalls of what ignorant men have made it out to be.

as for our views of God. We do have different god's. I can understand being unsure or rather having different views of homosexuality, but to say that God would not punish anyone for their sinfulness is not Christian. Even Jesus spoke of hell and those who will find it. So, if you are talking about a god other than the Christian god then I can understand where you are coming from but if you are talking about the Christian God as someone who does not punish sin then we are talking about two completely different gods.

God does love everyone and wants to see them come to Him and He does not rejoice in punishing "the wicked" (no I'm not trying to single out gay ppl) The wicked refers to anyone who has sinned.

SteveO,
Some interesting stuff here. Makes it hard to put you into some "Fundamentalist box"--you obviously are trying to think things through.

Seems to me that your marriage may not be as "old-fashioned" as some of us believed. It seems you've found a way to make marriage work for you. Marriage also works for me--my husband and I complement each other in many ways, but no one has to be "the man" and no one has to be "the woman."

Our culture has changed alot around marriage, and heterosexuals have done alot to change it. I suspect that young men your age don't look upon being a husband in any way like men of my father's generation did.

I find your Christian theology around sin and punishment a little suspect. It seems to me the whole point of God's incarnation in Jesus Christ was to spare us from the punishment of sin. God does not withhold punishment from us because we do not sin. God does not punish us as we deserve, because of God's grace.

In my own Methodist-Wesleyan tradition there is a belief in sanctification--a belief that we can grown in grace and become less sinful and more "holy". Another way of putting it is that we can, with God's grace, grow to be more loving, more Christ-like.

I embrace that belief, but I do not believe that my growth in grace is going to turn me heterosexual, or that my marriage to my husband is going to hinder my growth in grace. Quite the contrary, I believe my relationship to my spouse is also a gift of God's grace and that growth in love and holiness will happen for me in the context of a loving marriage. (Others may grow in grace and love in the single life. Not everyone is called to marriage.)

Seems to me we believe in the same God, we just have different ideas about whether homosexuality is a sin.


God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfecct love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because he first loved us. Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God mut love their brothers and sisters also. (I John 4: 16b-21, NRSV)

And here is a commentary on this passage from the New Interpreter's Study Bible


These verses affirm without qualification that the very nature of God is disclosed in love--love for God and for fellow human beings. The author flatly asserts, "God is love." While the author may be thinking of love within the Christian community, these verses will come to be a touchstone for the centrality of Christian love for all persons, deriving from the experience of divine love displayed in the life and work of Jesus Christ.

Steven Webster

[stev0]

SteveO,
I find your Christian theology around sin and punishment a little suspect. It seems to me the whole point of God's incarnation in Jesus Christ was to spare us from the punishment of sin. God does not withhold punishment from us because we do not sin. God does not punish us as we deserve, because of God's grace.

In my own Methodist-Wesleyan tradition there is a belief in sanctification--a belief that we can grown in grace and become less sinful and more "holy". Another way of putting it is that we can, with God's grace, grow to be more loving, more Christ-like.
Seems to me we believe in the same God, we just have different ideas about whether homosexuality is a sin.


I believe your right in saying "Seems to me we believe in the same God, we just have different ideas about whether homosexuality is a sin."
As for my theology on sin. I think everyone is a little miffed because I've been very straightforward with the idea that we deserve God's wrath... the reason I felt the necessity to highlight and focus on this element of God's character is because most of the post before the last past 2 days have been oh so cheery about God excepting everyone; and for those who have found their joy and peace and assurance in Christ here....I am happy for them. Just for those who believe they will get by, by just assuming God will look over their sin without Christ's provision I fear for them. Your comment on how we should have no fear now that we know Christ's love for us is right on.

I guess...I just wanted to make the point that for those that do not take sin as something to be cut out of their life and are not doing what they can to serve God...it shows a heart issue that would make me question my own faith if I did not in my heart hate sin for Christ's sake. For those who take sin as "oh well, Christ died for that so...no biggie."(yes, i know that's cheesy) I would want them to examine their hearts about this. Cause if their going to be Christian they should be sold out for it (not to say that I am the model Christian), cause a Christian who is in a pattern of being light-hearted about their sin has something to fear of God (either God's loving discipline/or His wrath for those that Christ is truly not in their hearts at all)

Sorry, I sure you have a thorough knowledge on this mister Webster and I don't think I have to worry about your soul and I pray we will meet in heaven's gates and our boundaries of culture and confusion over doctrines and what is right and wrong is put aside so that the ransomed will join in the praise of our God for He is holy and He is worthy of our praise. That's my reason for being here. I know my subjects have been off and my behavior unworthy of Christ, but my real joy is to see men and women seeking out the Lord and His glory. The Gospel is our common ground and it's perseverance our goal everything else is secondary.

[tdogg]

T-dogg baby! you are awesome. thats really all I can say. I am speechless. I think we need to tuck that in right after John and before Acts! :eek:

Thanks U! :love::love: Actually, it was totally from the heart this morning. Of course, this God is one and the same. But I prefer to perceive of my God has LOVE, while others perceive of him as JUDGMENT and PUNISHMENT. Guess some day we'll all have the answer.

Coming from experience (twice as years of it as Stevo), I've experienced God's love and acceptance. Bad things in my life, I don't attribute to punishment, just part of my life's journey. Once, I had a cancer scare, including 2 surgeries and certain body parts are no longer symetrical (but my partner enjoys them all the same!). At the time, I was involved in a non-denominational church that pretty much was started by pentecostals and was driven by pentecostal doctrine. Word was in the church that God must be punishing me for some reason - likely not regularly tithing to be the subject 'sin' - and that's why I was going through this. Common sense and my heart knew this was just part of my life and not punishment.

As long as those hold to the doctrine of sin, judgment, punishment and hell, that's what they will concentrate on and they will allow other people to tell them what's right and what's wrong. I prefer to listen to God, speaking to my heart, mind and spirit.

[Daniel]

I believe your right in saying "Seems to me we believe in the same God, we just have different ideas about whether homosexuality is a sin."

As for my theology on sin. I think everyone is a little miffed because I've been very straightforward with the idea that we deserve God's wrath... the reason I felt the necessity to highlight and focus on this element of God's character is because most of the post before the last past 2 days have been oh so cheery about God excepting everyone; and for those who have found their joy and peace and assurance in Christ here....I am happy for them. Just for those who believe they will get by, by just assuming God will look over their sin without Christ's provision I fear for them. Your comment on how we should have no fear now that we know Christ's love for us is right on.

No. Not miffed. More like waiting for the other shoe to drop, or watching a car crash that you've seen a number of times before.

The issue is, as Steven points about, a matter of sin. God's wrath doesn't upset this writer. Rather, what is upsetting is the assumption -which is undoubtedly a part of your history- that being gay is sinful, which is a condition deserving of God's wrath.

Nothing cheery about that.

And as for getting by, coming out of the closet and admitting to one's self and others that one is gay, is the essence of not getting by. Living with integrity as a gay person isn't a cakewalk in a world where other people are trying to tell you how and who to love. One pays a price. And if anyone understands this, it's Jesus, who had nary a word to say about the matter.

[RedneckDyke]

You go to UT? Austin?

ACK a teasip! :p Gigem Ags!
I was a sea ag, from a&m galveston!

[Zerbie]

ACK a teasip! :p Gigem Ags!
I was a sea ag, from a&m galveston!

Oh Galveston!! :D

I did my MM in Houston. We took day trips to Galveston to play at the beach.
:cool:

[stev0]

Thanks U! :love::love: Actually, it was totally from the heart this morning. Of course, this God is one and the same. But I prefer to perceive of my God has LOVE, while others perceive of him as JUDGMENT and PUNISHMENT. Guess some day we'll all have the answer.

Coming from experience (twice as years of it as Stevo), I've experienced God's love and acceptance. Bad things in my life, I don't attribute to punishment, just part of my life's journey. Once, I had a cancer scare, including 2 surgeries and certain body parts are no longer symetrical (but my partner enjoys them all the same!). At the time, I was involved in a non-denominational church that pretty much was started by pentecostals and was driven by pentecostal doctrine. Word was in the church that God must be punishing me for some reason - likely not regularly tithing to be the subject 'sin' - and that's why I was going through this. Common sense and my heart knew this was just part of my life and not punishment.

As long as those hold to the doctrine of sin, judgment, punishment and hell, that's what they will concentrate on and they will allow other people to tell them what's right and what's wrong. I prefer to listen to God, speaking to my heart, mind and spirit.

ah I think it's balance... you've got have a balance of all the attributes of God He perfectly and infinitely shows His love,mercy,wrath,grace,judgement etc. at all times. Heh, I'm very wary of churches that are quick to point out issues of tithing... and like in your case sometimes God just allows us to be tested and through those struggles we more clearly see the mercy of God manifesting in allowing us strength through our weakness.

"As long as those hold to the doctrine of sin, judgment, punishment and hell, that's what they will concentrate on and they will allow other people to tell them what's right and what's wrong."

I will hold on to those because they are a continual source of gratitude and joy. Knowing that because I am sinful and God must punish sin... I find great peace and joy in knowing my God humbled Himself to give me life...(which He didn't have to do.)
It not all I focus on but it is healthy to keep in focus

[Daniel]

As long as those hold to the doctrine of sin, judgment, punishment and hell, that's what they will concentrate on and they will allow other people to tell them what's right and what's wrong. I prefer to listen to God, speaking to my heart, mind and spirit.


I will hold on to those because they are a continual source of gratitude and joy. Knowing that because I am sinful and God must punish sin... I find great peace and joy in knowing my God humbled Himself to give me life...(which He didn't have to do.)
It not all I focus on but it is healthy to keep in focus

Stevo- since your post contradicts tdogg's meaning, that is, you indicate that sin, judgement, punishment and hell are a source of peace and joy, what exactly are you here for? To tell us that gay people are condemned by God? To witness for a God who loves his all his children, but unfortunately, must send the gay ones to hell? What kind of God is that?

Time to lay your cards on the table.

And please keep in mind, you've used the 'I-didn't-mean-to-offend-anyone' excuse three times now. You don't get anymore.

[Daniel]

http://outsports.com/campus/2007/millard0925.htm


Willamette College runner comes out

By Cyd Zeigler jr.
Outsports.com

From the first time I chatted with Steven Millard, he was what I wish I had been when I was his age: a top-level collegiate runner and very comfortable with his sexuality. When I asked the senior biology major several months ago if he'd be willing to do an interview with me for Outsports, he politely declined but told me he'd think about it for later in the year. Given that his senior-year season was coming up this autumn, I figured it would be sometime in the winter; he wouldn't want a discussion about his sexuality interfering with his season.

So it was with great surprise that I read a note from him about four weeks ago saying, "OK, I'm ready." He had already spoken to his coach and the athletic department about doing an article on him for Outsports. Mind you, they didn't know until that moment that he was gay; and he was met with smiles and nods and encouragement. In fact, none of his teammates and only one family member knew that he was gay before doing this interview; though, I bet they do now.

It took a couple rounds of emails and a phone call, but I've gotten to know Millard at least on a surface level. And he seems to be the genuine thing. The reason he's doing it? His hope that other young athletes will see this story and feel like they have a friend. I've got to believe the people at Willamette University feel blessed to have him there; and I feel fortunate to be able to bring you his thoughts here.


Outsports: How long have you been running?
Millard: I have been running essentially my whole life, ever since the beginning of elementary school.

Outsports: What first inspired you to run, and what built your interest in it?
Millard: Its hard for me to distill any particular inspiration that motivated me to start running. Some athletes pick it up from another family member or have a family history of running, but that wasn’t the case for me. I’ve just always had the drive to run. In elementary school I remember the sense of euphoria I got when I would just pick up my feet and go. Running felt so freeing. I don’t think I lost any races in elementary school, but since then the competition has been a little stronger. Joking.

Since elementary school my interest in running has been built by a love of the interpersonal and TEAM aspect as well as a desire to always perform better and to push my physical limits. A race is as much about passion and guts as it is about physical fitness. I love the challenge of races and the chance to motivate my teammates to perform at a level that they didn’t know they could.

Outsports: What's the toughest thing for you about distance running?
Millard: The hardest part about distance running for me is conquering the doubts that try to creep in. A good distance runner needs to stay intensely focused and mentally positive. It can be very hard in the middle of an 8k to stay engaged or summon the mental and physical energy to battle a long hill.

Outsports: Ever see yourself turning to triathlons?
Millard: I actually have thought about trying triathlons once I graduate from college. The running wouldn’t be a hard adjustment, and I have always loved swimming. I think I could pick up the biking pretty easily too. It would just be a lot of strength building.

Outsports: How long have you known you're gay?
Millard: I’ve known that I was gay since the winter of my freshmen year in college. That is the time when I began to come to terms with my feelings, or the period that I like to refer to as “coming out to myself.” It was a bit emotionally rocky for me, especially reconciling my Christian faith with my feelings, but I did a good job of not showing my internal struggle.

I’ve been attracted to guys as long as I can possibly remember, but I completely blocked it out and did everything I could not to confront it. After that method started to break down I tried to rationalize my feelings. Later in high school and at the beginning of college the issue was like a storm cloud in the distance; I knew that I was going to have to confront it.

Outsports: How have you reconciled your Christian faith with your sexuality?
Millard: Not simply or easily. When I first started to deal with my feelings I struggled with thinking that my faith and feelings might collide. I did a lot of reading and a lot of personal investigation and have come to the conclusion that the bible simply does not speak to the issue of homosexuality as we understand it today. One source that was tremendously helpful to me was the website gaychristian.net which has several thoughtful responses regarding the issue. Today, I am happy with where I am at regarding my faith.

Outsports: I saw you're a triplet. Are either of your siblings gay?
Millard: Neither of my two siblings are gay. In fact my sister is getting married in a year.

Outsports: What made your decision to attend Willamette?
Millard: I chose to come to Willamette based on a number of factors. First and foremost I wanted to attend a small University that had outstanding academics and a high-caliber cross country and track team. Willamette had the academic rigor I was looking for and I saw that the running programs under coach Matt McGuirk were very strong. I also wanted to be involved in choral music since I have been in choir my whole life. Currently, this is my second year as the tenor section leader in the chamber choir under the direction of Dr. Wallace Long. Based on these and other factors I am quite happy with my experience at Willamette.

Outsports: How good of a runner are you?
Millard: I feel as though I haven’t reached my full potential as a runner yet, and one of my goals for this year is to really explore that potential. I hope to be on the national squad, and help the TEAM to an outstanding national finish.

Outsports: I saw you finished 11th in a race this past weekend; is that good for you, or are you aiming higher?
Millard: I think that my finish this past weekend is a good starting point for the season. It was a solid effort, but I know that I can dig down deeper and find that elusive extra gear. I think that in order to find it I really need to focus on running with great pride and passion and for the TEAM.

Outsports: Most people don't see running as a team sport. What is it about being a part of a team that resounds most with you?
Millard: The TEAM is a huge source of our energy and spirit. Distance running is a sport in which we try to push our bodies further than we think they are capable… Its about pushing physical limits. The power of the TEAM aspect is based on the understanding that we can see the potential in our teammates that they might not be able to, and conversely, that others can see the potential in ourselves that we as individuals may be blind to. Because of this we have a huge responsibility to both lift each other up when our teammates need support and to also receive that support when we feel as if there is no possible way to continue on. We both re-instill the fire in each other and we push through the pain because the last thing we would want to do is let each other down. I think the reason that runners often share such a strong bond is because we hurt together and we get each other through it.

Outsports: Are you out to your family?
Millard: I came out to my sister in the spring and she was supportive. I am currently in the process of telling the rest of my family. I’m sure it will be hard for them, but I will be optimistic in saying that I think they will receive me well too.

Outsports: Are you out to anyone on your team? Do you think someone you know, particularly on your team, might react badly?
Millard: No, I am not out to anyone on the team, although I don’t mind if they know. I think that bad reactions will be very limited. The campus is supportive, the coaches are supportive and the team has a lot of special men and women on it. I think they will like me for who I am as a person, as they do for everyone else. And when it comes down to it, my sexuality has no affect on how I perform or how I interact with my teammates.

Outsports: Do you hope your team and other people you know read this article?
Millard: Yes I hope that they do because I think that they might be able to gain a new understanding. If nothing else, I hope that it would cause people to be aware that there are individuals who you interact with every day who are closeted and gay. I thank everyone for their support so far.

Outsports: Have you had any bad reactions when you came out?
Millard: Surprisingly, I have not had any bad reactions to coming out. I was expecting worse. It could be though that I am only out to a couple handfuls of people.

Outsports: Have you dated much?
Millard: I have had a couple dates, but generally I am kept pretty busy.

Outsports: Are you a confident person?
Millard: Yes and no. I have become more confident as I grow older and become more comfortable with myself. When I was in elementary school I was actually very self-conscious. Throughout junior high, high school and now college I have continued to slowly grow out of it. A lot of my self-confidence that I have now came from accepting myself for who I am regardless of my orientation. A huge part of the self-acceptance and coming out process for many guys, myself included, involves dealing with your own homophobic notions and stereotypes that were adopted from society ever since childhood. Once you can conquer those, it is really freeing.

Outsports: What does life hold for you after college?
Millard: I am still unsure about my post-college plans. My interests have always been very broad. I know that no matter what, athleticism and fitness will be a big part of my life whether that comes in the form of running or something else. Because I am interested in both the biological and social sciences I am considering nursing school, PA school or medical school. I am also fascinated by the biotechnology industry so that is another direction I may choose. It is likely that I will take a year or two off from school to distill exactly what I want to do and then go back. In the mean time I may become a Teach For America Corps member or join the Peace Corps.

Steven Millard at a glance . . .
AGE: 21
BIRTHPLACE: Seattle WA
FAVORITE MOVIE: Spider-Man I
FAVORITE SPORTS TEAM: Mariners
FAVORITE QUOTE: "Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional."
PLACE YOU'D MOST WANT TO GO ON SPRING BREAK: Dubai
PERSON YOU'D MOST WANT TO MEET: Roger Bannister or Josh Groban


Let's see.....he did a lot of reading and personal investigation.....

Ok. Back to our regular scheduled programming.

[tdogg]

I will hold on to those because they are a continual source of gratitude and joy. Knowing that because I am sinful and God must punish sin... I find great peace and joy in knowing my God humbled Himself to give me life...(which He didn't have to do.)
It not all I focus on but it is healthy to keep in focus

Not sure you got the meaning of my post Stevo?

So, bottom line here - do you think that because we are happy being gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, that we are sinning because of it? Is your quest to try and encourage us to admit we are sinning and turn away from who we are? Just asking for honesty.

Many of us here have told you that after lengthy struggles we have accepted and learned to love ourselves, and learned that God loves us just as we were created. Yet you continue to tell us you hold out hope that we will come to our senses and seek 'salvation'. Are you able to understand that we are happy and don't feel that we need to be 'not gay' in order to be saved from the depths of hell?

Is there anything more we can talk about, so that you can at least understand that we are good in the places we are at physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, in regards to being GLBT?

[sailaway58]

I will hold on to those because they are a continual source of gratitude and joy. Knowing that because I am sinful and God must punish sin... I find great peace and joy in knowing my God humbled Himself to give me life...(which He didn't have to do.)
It not all I focus on but it is healthy to keep in focus
God created man, he created him to fail. He gave us free will, oops, there goes the neighborhood.
But even though God set us up for failure he eventually provided us salvation through his son Jesus. Why did he do that if not to take away the judgment of sin? Who did Christ die for?
If there is a hell is Gods grace big enough to save the people he created to fail? I don't know who will be in heaven or hell but orientation will not determine either place we reside. I had a friend point out to me that Jesus already bitched out a bunch of religious leaders because they held to a book of rules no one could live up to. (My paraphrase)
We worship a book that calls itself holy and miss Jesus for all the debate.
Love the Lord God with all you heart, strength, mind and your neighbor as your self. He didn't mention the virgin birth, he didn't say follow the future cultural rules that Paul might mention, he said, I am the way and love.
Who among you has no sin? Gods grace is for all of us or none of us.

[tdogg]

That's beautiful Tim! Jesus said the #1 thing is LOVE. If that is not the #1 thing in our lives, we miss the whole point of Jesus' life and teachings, just like you say! It's about the love, taking care of the widows and orphans, doing the right thing even if it's not popular with those who think they are religious leaders.

Once again, our Sailaway makes total sense!! :love::love::love:

[stev0]

Not sure you got the meaning of my post Stevo?

So, bottom line here - do you think that because we are happy being gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, that we are sinning because of it? Is your quest to try and encourage us to admit we are sinning and turn away from who we are? Just asking for honesty.

Many of us here have told you that after lengthy struggles we have accepted and learned to love ourselves, and learned that God loves us just as we were created. Yet you continue to tell us you hold out hope that we will come to our senses and seek 'salvation'. Are you able to understand that we are happy and don't feel that we need to be 'not gay' in order to be saved from the depths of hell?

Is there anything more we can talk about, so that you can at least understand that we are good in the places we are at physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, in regards to being GLBT?

Hmmm....
bottom line is that if you are ignorant of a sin in your life or you don't understand that it is sinful I believe you are in the right.
But if you have come to the conclusion that something is sinful and you don't turn from it you are "rightly judged"
Furthermore, if you are unsure of whether or not something is a sin and you do it anyway, that is sinful.
Do whatever you do in faith.

So, I do believe there is gray area in sin, but I also think that from what I've read that it is clear what the Bible says of homosexuality.


If there is a hell is Gods grace big enough to save the people he created to fail? I don't know who will be in heaven or hell but orientation will not determine either place we reside. I had a friend point out to me that Jesus already bitched out a bunch of religious leaders because they held to a book of rules no one could live up to.

"...orientation will not determine either place we reside."
Your absolutely right.

If you want to understand me and get a clear understand of why I am so persistent with my views listen to this .mpeg from a worship night I heard about a year ago... I recently listened to it again and realize my Greek translation was incorrect to begin with. This speaker deals with the subject fairly and accurately and it's quite demystifying of the whole Romans chapter 1 thing. So if you care to understand me and my point of view

(A link use to be here and was removed because keltic60[themoderator] thought it was anti-gay.)

I've listened to yours now take a stab at mine

[tdogg]

Hmmm....
bottom line is that if you are ignorant of a sin in your life or you don't understand that it is sinful I believe you are in the right.
But if you have come to the conclusion that something is sinful and you don't turn from it you are "rightly judged"
Furthermore, if you are unsure of whether or not something is a sin and you do it anyway, that is sinful.
Do whatever you do in faith.

So you're wavering on what is sin or not sin. I haven't read anything in the Bible that gives me an indication that those who sin but don't realize it aren't actually sinning (not saying I base everything on what I read in the Bible, but that is what you are saying, so just wanted to clarify your opinion vs. what I've read in the Bible on this). Are you trying to say that you believe homosexuality is a sin, but because we don't realize it's a sin, that we aren't actually sinning?

So, I do believe there is gray area in sin, but I also think that from what I've read that it is clear what the Bible says of homosexuality. And for honesty sake I believe that most people I've encountered here have "itching ears."

What are you referring to in the Bible, regarding it being clear that homosexuality is a sin? Keep in mind, the Bible you are reading was likely a translation of a translation of a translation, etc, etc., of a translation of the original King James version (not really all that long ago)?


Now maybe I have "itching ears" and I'm looking for answers to suit my own preference... and for this sake I will continue to look into the Bible for revelation and review some of the websites you guys/gals have posted for me. I'm willing to look on both sides...but like you said you wanted me to be honest(blunt). I guess "the quest" is to one, provide my own opinion, that may reveal homosexuality as sinful to you; and two, maybe change my own opinion on it through study and conversation with people on this forum.
Maybe I'm in the wrong; but there is my opinion on it.(which will probably get me kicked off the forums), but you asked for it.


"...orientation will not determine either place we reside."
Your absolutely right.

If you want to understand me and get a clear understand of why I am so persistent with my views listen to this .mpeg from a worship night I heard about a year ago... I recently listened to it again and realize my Greek translation was incorrect to begin with. This speaker deals with the subject fairly and accurately and it's quite demystifying of the whole Romans chapter 1 thing. So if you care to understand me and my point of view

I've listened to yours now take a stab at mine

But, can you get from what we are telling you, that many/most of us have heard this all our lives? Have heard this side of the story and we just don't buy it anymore? So, if your goal is to get all of us to change our minds and say we homosexuals are sinning and better admit it and change into heterosexuals, then you will absolutely not reach that goal here.

If your goal is to listen and learn and possibly change YOUR opinion, then perhaps you will reach that goal, if you proceed with an open mind and heart. And Stevo we will definitely help you learn, with love and respect. Just keep in mind that we've heart your opinion over and over again and just don't buy that.

[keltic63]

Hmmm....
bottom line is that if you are ignorant of a sin in your life or you don't understand that it is sinful I believe you are in the right.
But if you have come to the conclusion that something is sinful and you don't turn from it you are "rightly judged"
Furthermore, if you are unsure of whether or not something is a sin and you do it anyway, that is sinful.
Do whatever you do in faith.

So, I do believe there is gray area in sin, but I also think that from what I've read that it is clear what the Bible says of homosexuality.



"...orientation will not determine either place we reside."
Your absolutely right.

If you want to understand me and get a clear understand of why I am so persistent with my views listen to this .mpeg from a worship night I heard about a year ago... I recently listened to it again and realize my Greek translation was incorrect to begin with. This speaker deals with the subject fairly and accurately and it's quite demystifying of the whole Romans chapter 1 thing. So if you care to understand me and my point of view

I've listened to yours now take a stab at mine

I have disabled the link. In the first few moments of the broadcast, homosexuality is compared to lying and alcoholism. This is spiritual violence. It is also a direct violation of the forum guidelines.

[andrewlittle]

Well, I have the link that was deleted, and I will go on record saying that this preacher does exactly what he accuses "those people" of doing. The exegesis demonstrated is beyond appalling - it is the idolization of his own intellect and bias.

He takes a word that occurs twice - once in Romans 1:26 and once in Romans 1:27 - and creates a meaning that does not exist. These words are simply the plural forms of the word that means female and is used in Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6 and Gal 3:28. He creates meanings for many Greek words that are ficticious. He has recreated scripture in the image he has in his own mind - he has idolized his own bias into Biblical truth.

If his assertion is correct - that the word thelus refers to the physical attributes of gender - how did he put that - oh, yes, female genitalia - then what the hell does he make out of Gal 3:28 - there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or vagina... He actually equates the meaning of being female to the genitalia - is that the only value of a woman he sees?

Utterly ludicrous, deceitful and mysogynist.

stev0 - if this is your idea of posting constructive dialogue, you are sadly mistaken. Take your corrupted Bible and go home.

[stev0]

stev0 - if this is your idea of posting constructive dialogue, you are sadly mistaken. Take your corrupted Bible and go home.

...lol I am at home.

[Daniel]

So, I do believe there is gray area in sin, but I also think that from what I've read that it is clear what the Bible says of homosexuality.

The sound of that other shoe dropping.

If you want to understand me and get a clear understand of why I am so persistent with my views listen to this .....So if you care to understand me and my point of view.

I've listened to yours now take a stab at mine

No. I don't think you've listened one bit Stev0. As noted by Tdogg, we've heard your line of thinking ad nausuem. And barring my Liberal West side persona (you've hear of those blunt New York types, right?), which can come across as pretty aggressive, what I'm after is not you the person, but the ideas you spout without, seemingly, much introspection or analysis.. Ideas which would, if taken to their ultimate conclusion, separate me from the love of my life.

Do you really think I'm gonna give up my husband of 15 years because of your ignorant, yes StevO- ignorant notions about the bible?

I don't think so. People only change what they are doing when they believe that another course of action will bring them happiness and well-being.

Hello StevO! I have that with my guy! You may not think so, but I do. And none of your perceptions about the bible is going to change that. You could burn me at the stake (and it's been tried in the past, believe me) and it wouldn't change my love for my husband.

So, I do believe there is gray area in sin, but I also think that from what I've read that it is clear what the Bible says of homosexuality. And for honesty sake I believe that most people I've encountered here have "itching ears."

Translation: The gay people on this site are guilty of sin, they just don't know it.

Well....that's an interesting thought. If I was a psychologist, which I am not, I would venture that this statement is a projection of your own feelings.

You can't stop love StevO.

[stev0]

The sound of that other shoe dropping.



No. I don't think you've listened one bit Stev0. As noted by Tdogg, we've hear your line of thinking many time before ad nausuem. And barring my Liberal West side persona (you've hear of those blunt New York types, right?), which can come across as pretty aggressive, what I'm after is not you the person, but the ideas you spout without, seemingly, much introspection or analysis.. Ideas which would, if taken to their ultimate conclusion, separate me from the love of my life.

Do you really think I'm gonna give up my husband of 15 years because of your ignorant, yes StevO- ignorant notions about the bible?

I don't think so. People only change what they are doing when they believe that another course of action will bring them happiness and well-being.

Hello StevO! I have that with my guy! You may not think so, but I do. And none of your perceptions about the bible is going to change that. You could burn me at the stake (and it's been tried in the past, believe me) and it wouldn't change my love for my husband.



Translation: The gay people on this site are guilty of sin, they just don't know it.

Well....that's an interesting thought. If I was a psychologist, which I am not, I would venture that this statement is a projection of your own feelings.

You can't stop love StevO.

I have no doubt that you love your partner...I don't deny that you can have true loving feelings for someone of the same sex. I'm not completely blind.
I took out the "itching ears" part because I thought it was a little much and would turn peoples stomach at hearing anything further from me... I dunno if you got that website I posted, but yes it would say much the same as you've translated.

[Daniel]

I have no doubt that you love your partner...I don't deny that you can have true loving feelings for someone of the same sex. I'm not completely blind.
I took out the "itching ears" part because I thought it was a little much and would turn peoples stomach at hearing anything further from me... I dunno if you got that website I posted, but yes it would say much the same as you've translated.

He's my HUSBAND! Get it? Husband! Capital H! Legal marriage -Toronto 2005.

Do you really think I'm gonna give up my husband of 15 years because of your ignorant, yes StevO- ignorant notions about the bible?

Glad to hear you aren't completely blind. Now open your ears! (Testy New Yorker rolls his eyes)

[tdogg]

...lol I am at home.

You probably noticed, we aren't laughing with you. There is nothing funny about not being taken seriously.

We are people, with valid lives, valid loves (including HUSBANDS and WIVES) and valid convictions. I'm not seeing that you get that Stevo. That is where the problem will lie, with trying to talk to us. When you begin to respect who we are, where we came from and where we are going (not trying to go, we ARE going there - we WILL have equality in our/your life time), when you do that, genuine dialogue will begin. To start that process, you must be willing to be genuine with us and treat us with respect. I believe that we have treated you with respect, especially considering some of your posts.

Thanks Andrew for your recap of Stevo's clip - not that I would read it anyway, but pretty much figured it was worthless. I believe it's common for some of these fundamental men to equate women with genitalia, as it keeps them from being fully human, fully equal and perpetuates the notion that men must be superior and women submissive. If these men truly believed women were equal, there would be no need for submissiveness on the part of their 'partners'. After all, when one can pare down another human to their basic sexuality, it removes the intellectual, emotional and spiritual aspect of that person - they are basically a physical being only - easier to control and manipulate when they aren't aware of the person's humanity.

[Zerbie]

I have no doubt that you love your partner....

He's my HUSBAND! Get it? Husband! Capital H! Legal marriage -Toronto 2005.



StevO, it's one thing if you wish to make a choice for yourself that in your estimation, a relationship with another man would have been/would be wrong for you, according to your value system. But I too ask that you not devalue the covenanted relationships of others because of your personal decision not to accept your own same-sex romantic feelings. If a gay man who has been through a marriage ceremony and has legally wed refers to his loved one as his husband, then that is the appropriate term for you to use as well.

I have a request for you Stev. Take a look through and read the testimonies of straight people and opposite-sex couples, married couples (several with young children) who are speaking out to demand that same-sex couples be received with the same human dignity and LEGAL RIGHTS that opposite-sex couples receive. Read through their personal statements. You will find about 2 dozen such statements by clicking on each city name (navigation bar at left) right here: http://www.sevenstraightnights.org

Same-sex couples have covenanted relationships that are no less valid/valuable than your marriage to your wife or mine to my husband.

[keltic63]

I have no doubt that you love your partner...I don't deny that you can have true loving feelings for someone of the same sex. I'm not completely blind.
I took out the "itching ears" part because I thought it was a little much and would turn peoples stomach at hearing anything further from me... I dunno if you got that website I posted, but yes it would say much the same as you've translated.

That ship has sailed. I'm already sickened by your posts. Here's what I'm getting from you: I think you're a gay man who's past influences, religious, societal, family etc. prevent you from expressing that. You've married a woman in an attempt to "prove" that you are straight. After 9 months of marriage you are "content" (your word) and that is just sad. You must have discovered that being married isn't going to cure you of "those desires" and you've discovered it rather quickly. Realizing that you will now spend the rest of your life with a person of the opposite gender who doesn't really excite you, you went looking for help online and discovered us: gay and lesbian people who are living happy, healthy, productive lives. We have what you want, including healthy committed relationships. You feel cheated and so you've come to attack us. The problem is, you have nothing in your arsenal that we haven't heard before. The link you provided??? the man compares my love to that of sin and debauchery within a few minutes of that broadcast. what makes you think I'd be willing to listen to that?

What will you do now, stev0? Your internalized homophobia is obvious. You feel trapped in a straight marriage, and here we are, all happy and way more than "content" in our gay and lesbian marriages (for you Daniel! & me very soon) and relationships. That can change for you, but you've got to confront your own feelings first, love yourself, wrestle with all of the influences that say homosexuality is wrong, and be brave enough to make things right.

I have a feeling you'll be leaving us soon. Blessings on your journey.

[Alecto]

Regarding the "gray area of sin":

It is arrogant for you to say "Ah. Yes. I have read the scripture, and I have concluded that homosexuality is a sin." And then to further say that people here, who have also read the scripture and come to a different conclusion MUST be wrong. It's a personal arrogance to not even consider that these people aren't just "sinning without knowing", but legitimately being drawn closer to their God through what you find to be sinful. I tend to stay out of these discussions for the simple reason that I'm not Christian, but one of the many things that quickly turned me off to most organized churches was that someone else always wants to get in between God and I. Historical context is helpful in understanding Scripture (I think), and I do think that people start to draw very different conclusions when some cultural differences are explored. But ultimately, the ONLY people who know where I'm at with God are God himself, and myself. Anyone else presuming to know the first thing about my relationship to God is presuming to know my whole life experience, my innermost thoughts and feelings, and those of GOD besides.

What I'm trying to say is: try to rethink perspective. I'm not saying you should walk away from here saying "Gay is great". But you need to understand that there's nothing special enough about you, or anyone else that is going to invalidate the life experience of numerous people here who are living close to both God and their same-sex partner or spouse (or maybe they're still looking). When I watch the sunrise, and someone walks up and starts making all kinds of arguments about how it didn't really come up this morning, and asking ME to prove to THEM that it did...that's when I stop listening and disengage.

[Emproph]

Steve0,

I apologize, I haven't read this entire thread, but now I'm getting interested. So if this has been covered, please forgive me - all.

I was wondering if you could tell me what you believe a Christian is, and if non-Christians are going to hell.

-Patrick

[paul]

Regarding the "gray area of sin":

It is arrogant for you to say "Ah. Yes. I have read the scripture, and I have concluded that homosexuality is a sin." And then to further say that people here, who have also read the scripture and come to a different conclusion MUST be wrong. It's a personal arrogance to not even consider that these people aren't just "sinning without knowing", but legitimately being drawn closer to their God through what you find to be sinful. I tend to stay out of these discussions for the simple reason that I'm not Christian, but one of the many things that quickly turned me off to most organized churches was that someone else always wants to get in between God and I. Historical context is helpful in understanding Scripture (I think), and I do think that people start to draw very different conclusions when some cultural differences are explored. But ultimately, the ONLY people who know where I'm at with God are God himself, and myself. Anyone else presuming to know the first thing about my relationship to God is presuming to know my whole life experience, my innermost thoughts and feelings, and those of GOD besides.

What I'm trying to say is: try to rethink perspective. I'm not saying you should walk away from here saying "Gay is great". But you need to understand that there's nothing special enough about you, or anyone else that is going to invalidate the life experience of numerous people here who are living close to both God and their same-sex partner or spouse (or maybe they're still looking). When I watch the sunrise, and someone walks up and starts making all kinds of arguments about how it didn't really come up this morning, and asking ME to prove to THEM that it did...that's when I stop listening and disengage.


This is so concisely and well put, Alecto.

"try to rethink perspective."

Stev0,
I assumed that was your original intent in posting this thread, but I now have my doubts. I don't know but by most appearances your original statement of being open to correction seemed mostly a ploy to get people to listen to you. I say "mostly" because, like many here, I see the posibility that you may indeed be gay, or at least bi, and that you are simply in denial. Denial that most here have experienced and gone through the painful process of digging out of.

You don't seem to grasp that many here see you as asking us to return to prison, to a place of torture. Try and understand that only a crazy person would ask us to do that.

Okay, I'll try another way. You've jumped off a cliff. You think you're flying. We have also had our various experiences of jumping off the same cliff, but did so before you. In some cases, before you were even born. Many of us have bounced off the side of the cliff on our way down, many have hit bottom and see where you're headed. Loving people here are throwing you ropes saying grab on, well help pull you in. And you are saying "jump, jump."

Given these analogies, can you see why many are repelled and even nauseated by what you say? Do not mis-interpret our responses as just wanting to "remain in sin." Frankly, by your definition, some of the people who have responded to you here are not "sinning." (u-dog, for instance). Our responses are to someone who is blindly asking us to return to a place of death and torture. Stev0, "arbeit" does not "macht frei." It's a lie.

[tymejumper]

I have been reading with some interest this whole thread about sinning and what the Bible says about homosexuality. Well, it does say some things about it certainly, as it says we should not eat pork, loan money and add interest, and should be stoned if we are not virgins when we marry.

So, here is my musing on the subject. It does say (in some versions) in the Bible that "man shall not lie down with man as a woman" and if, just for grins we take it literal, does this mean that only gay MEN are sinning? Lesbians are free and clear as they are women and not men? I can't physically lie down with my wife as a man lies with a woman, I don't have the physical parts to do so. I would have to go to the adult shop to aid in that endevour(and I highly doubt they had strapons back in biblical times so we can't apply that to now)

So, riddle me this riddler, what gives here? If we take all the Bible literal and such then we have to exonerate all us lesbians out there cause it does not mention we are sinning:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[stev0]

That ship has sailed. I'm already sickened by your posts. Here's what I'm getting from you: I think you're a gay man who's past influences, religious, societal, family etc. prevent you from expressing that. You've married a woman in an attempt to "prove" that you are straight. After 9 months of marriage you are "content" (your word) and that is just sad. You must have discovered that being married isn't going to cure you of "those desires" and you've discovered it rather quickly. Realizing that you will now spend the rest of your life with a person of the opposite gender who doesn't really excite you, you went looking for help online and discovered us: gay and lesbian people who are living happy, healthy, productive lives. We have what you want, including healthy committed relationships. You feel cheated and so you've come to attack us. The problem is, you have nothing in your arsenal that we haven't heard before. The link you provided??? the man compares my love to that of sin and debauchery within a few minutes of that broadcast. what makes you think I'd be willing to listen to that?

What will you do now, stev0? Your internalized homophobia is obvious. You feel trapped in a straight marriage, and here we are, all happy and way more than "content" in our gay and lesbian marriages (for you Daniel! & me very soon) and relationships. That can change for you, but you've got to confront your own feelings first, love yourself, wrestle with all of the influences that say homosexuality is wrong, and be brave enough to make things right.

I have a feeling you'll be leaving us soon. Blessings on your journey.

Cause I listened to posts and mpegs telling me I'm ignorant & arrogant for being so closed minded.

[stev0]

StevO, it's one thing if you wish to make a choice for yourself that in your estimation, a relationship with another man would have been/would be wrong for you, according to your value system. But I too ask that you not devalue the covenanted relationships of others because of your personal decision not to accept your own same-sex romantic feelings. If a gay man who has been through a marriage ceremony and has legally wed refers to his loved one as his husband, then that is the appropriate term for you to use as well.

I have a request for you Stev. Take a look through and read the testimonies of straight people and opposite-sex couples, married couples (several with young children) who are speaking out to demand that same-sex couples be received with the same human dignity and LEGAL RIGHTS that opposite-sex couples receive. Read through their personal statements. You will find about 2 dozen such statements by clicking on each city name (navigation bar at left) right here: http://www.sevenstraightnights.org

Same-sex couples have covenanted relationships that are no less valid/valuable than your marriage to your wife or mine to my husband.

No. I'm not against same sex marriages. It's not my prerogative to say you can't marry each other or refer to each other as husband and wife or whatever combination you have.

[Zerbie]

No. I'm not against same sex marriages. It's not my prerogative to say you can't marry each other or refer to each other as husband and wife or whatever combination you have.

Then you are for marriage equality? That's great!

Since you are still interested in being here and talking to everyone, perhaps you would also be interested enough to read the testimonies of all the opposite-sex couples and families (and straight single individuals) leading vigils in the coming weeks. If you haven't read them already, that is.

[stev0]

I have been reading with some interest this whole thread about sinning and what the Bible says about homosexuality. Well, it does say some things about it certainly, as it says we should not eat pork, loan money and add interest, and should be stoned if we are not virgins when we marry.

So, here is my musing on the subject. It does say (in some versions) in the Bible that "man shall not lie down with man as a woman" and if, just for grins we take it literal, does this mean that only gay MEN are sinning? Lesbians are free and clear as they are women and not men? I can't physically lie down with my wife as a man lies with a woman, I don't have the physical parts to do so. I would have to go to the adult shop to aid in that endevour(and I highly doubt they had strapons back in biblical times so we can't apply that to now)

So, riddle me this riddler, what gives here? If we take all the Bible literal and such then we have to exonerate all us lesbians out there cause it does not mention we are sinning:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Well, you can't take every word as completely literal. That's insane.
like
1 Corinthians 10:4 "and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."

Obviously Christ is not an igneous rock or stalactite or whatever.
and the Bible does mention lesbian relations
Romans 1:26
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

well that's were I know it's specifically mentioned. again with the talk of it's unnaturalness. if you really wanted to know.

[stev0]

Then you are for marriage equality? That's great!

Since you are still interested in being here and talking to everyone, perhaps you would also be interested enough to read the testimonies of all the opposite-sex couples and families (and straight single individuals) leading vigils in the coming weeks. If you haven't read them already, that is.

sure I would

[stev0]

Steve0,

I apologize, I haven't read this entire thread, but now I'm getting interested. So if this has been covered, please forgive me - all.

I was wondering if you could tell me what you believe a Christian is, and if non-Christians are going to hell.

-Patrick

well if your really interested I could send you a private msg but yes it's been covered several times throughout the thread.

[Zerbie]

sure I would

:cool: Cool. The link is above in one of my earlier posts.

[stev0]

He's my HUSBAND! Get it? Husband! Capital H! Legal marriage -Toronto 2005.

Glad to hear you aren't completely blind. Now open your ears! (Testy New Yorker rolls his eyes)

lol, sorry it's different you know. Not use to it.

[keltic63]

You probably noticed, we aren't laughing with you. There is nothing funny about not being taken seriously.

We are people, with valid lives, valid loves (including HUSBANDS and WIVES) and valid convictions. I'm not seeing that you get that Stevo. That is where the problem will lie, with trying to talk to us. When you begin to respect who we are, where we came from and where we are going (not trying to go, we ARE going there - we WILL have equality in our/your life time), when you do that, genuine dialogue will begin. To start that process, you must be willing to be genuine with us and treat us with respect. I believe that we have treated you with respect, especially considering some of your posts.

Thanks Andrew for your recap of Stevo's clip - not that I would read it anyway, but pretty much figured it was worthless. I believe it's common for some of these fundamental men to equate women with genitalia, as it keeps them from being fully human, fully equal and perpetuates the notion that men must be superior and women submissive. If these men truly believed women were equal, there would be no need for submissiveness on the part of their 'partners'. After all, when one can pare down another human to their basic sexuality, it removes the intellectual, emotional and spiritual aspect of that person - they are basically a physical being only - easier to control and manipulate when they aren't aware of the person's humanity.

Cause I listened to posts and mpegs telling me I'm ignorant & arrogant for being so closed minded.

Your responses to our posts are flippant and arrogant. it's not your closed mind, it's your disrespect for the people who have taken the time to engage in serious discussion with you. You toss aside and ignore their questions. You totally dodged all of my questions, and answered only the rhetorical question I posted near the end. If you expect us to take you seriously, you need to start coming up with some respect.

Well, you can't take every word as completely literal. That's insane.
like
1 Corinthians 10:4 "and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."

Obviously Christ is not an igneous rock or stalactite or whatever.
and the Bible does mention lesbian relations
Romans 1:26
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

well that's were I know it's specifically mentioned. again with the talk of it's unnaturalness. if you really wanted to know.

again, arrogant and flip. and how do you know for sure that Paul was talking about lesbians? Perhaps he was referring to the women who had sex with angels.

we also know that Romans 1 is a preface to Romans 2, in which he calls all of the christians on their idolatry.

[Emproph]

Let’s start with Biblical inerrancy.

First of all, you’re arguing from a position of Biblical inerrancy that pretty much all liberal Christians do not come from, not just the gay ones. So the premise for your argument is off right there. Not to mention the fact that those who do say the Bible is inerrant, all have a different idea of what that means, clearly you’d find “error” with the idea of stoning your disobedient children.

When you use an unagreed upon third party to argue for you, it’s called an appeal to authority (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority). It’s a logical fallacy.

At that point, It’s also a strawman (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw), another logical fallacy.

If you appeal to an authority that hasn’t been agreed upon, or not equally agreed upon, and then complain that "said" agreement on -- in this case sin – is not agreed upon, you’ve succeeded only in knocking down an argument that you yourself have constructed — but NOT, what the other party has assumed to be the actual argument.

Thus nothing is gained by you “winning” your own argument, and the rest of us are left feeling confused as to why we’re not getting through to you with understandings that are NOT based on your idea of Biblical inerrancy -- or interpretation of said passage, etc.

As I see it, the real argument here is about why you feel the need to believe that our love is sinful – via the Bible.

Because if it wasn’t a sin, what problem would you personally have with our relationships?

Furthermore – regarding unrepentant sinful behavior – do you really need the Bible to tell you that actions that harm yourself or others are morally wrong? Such as addictions, or lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc.

Do you wish to convince us that our love is evil, and thus sinful, for no other reason that “Because the Bible says so?”

Or do you have a way to show us this — something that you see, that you feel we do not, as to how our relationships harm ourselves and/or others, and are therefore sinful?

A common theme that is rarely said as pointedly as it should be, is that our love is not real.
If you believe this, then you believe we are incapable of recognizing true love, and that we are deluded. If so, so be it, but at least have the courage to admit that you consider our relationships to be nothing more than glorified friendships. (Though you might not want to put it quite like that)

[Emproph]

Does this about sum it up?

Would you say that these perceptions are generally correct as far as why the homosexuality thing is a sin-dealbreaker for so many people like you?
...the fact that we are a “violation of nature,” in an of itself – the quintessential embodiment of unnatural, if you will – makes our “unrepentant sin” particularly unforgivable.

By violating nature, we violate God’s creation, and thus violate God, directly – by and with our very being. To then accept this about ourselves, is the ULTIMATE blasphemy.

Heterosexual adultery, via cheating on one’s partner, or divorce and remarriage, is simply missing the mark on the sin scale – at least nature was the original goal, and thus the attempt was in line with God's creation.

It’s the difference between committing sin, and LOVING to commit sin.

They say our love is sin, what they don’t tell us is that they perceive this to be our love OF sin.

Which is a strikingly similar perception to that of Paul’s depiction of “us” in Romans 1. Going from the unnaturalness of same-gender attraction, to every description of evil imaginable. No connection between the two is ever explained. It's all based on our "sin against nature."

I think they conflate their own revulsion of same-gender attraction with the revulsion to evil that we all share.

Thus to sin against their nature (heterosexuality) becomes a sin against nature itself.

In addition:
We're all equally sinful, but those of us who recognize homosexuality as sinful, are less sinful than others, and are therefore in a position to point it out.

To argue that our love is sin, is to argue that we love sin.

Which is the basis of Paul in Romans, equating same gender attraction with the desire to do evil.

Would you agree with that?

[Daniel]

As I see it, the real argument here is about why you feel the need to believe that our love is sinful – via the Bible.

~

A common theme that is rarely said as pointedly as it should be, is that our love is not real.

Emproph- I'm glad you've touched down on this thread. You've put your finger squarely on the matter: conservatives and fundamentalists seem to operate from the underlying assumption that love between two people of the same sex is a counterfeit version of the 'real thing'.

Pray tell: which marriage are they talking about? The first, second or third one? ;)

The Carpenter had nothing to say about homosexuality and a lot to say about divorce. Well.....what's that saying about those who live in glass houses?

[tymejumper]

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature


Its interesting that you would mention natural vs. say unatural.

Consider this, God made animals and all natural things, correct? And animals that God created would only act in a natural and God sactioned ways. They would not act unatural, or he made a mistake and needs to rectify it.(He doesnt do that right, hes all knowing after all and does nt make mistakes)

Many animals have been seen in homosexual relations. Most recently, 2 swans that mated and made the heart with their necks. (they mate for life) Well, people could not figure out why there were no babies and finally biologists went to find out why, turns out they were two female swans. They followed the courtship trumpets and everything, they became partners. People come far and wide to see teir "lesbian" swans. This is not the only documented case of homosexual relations in the animal kingdom.

Also, what constitutes unnatural in the biblical sense? To me, stoning someone, marrying at the first menstrual blood(about 12)and cutting a male childs forskin off in a coventant to God is unatural. Do we still apply all the Bible today? After all, if we chose to read the Bible we have to take all of what it says, not just use the parts we can use to shore up our opinions.

[stev0]

Your responses to our posts are flippant and arrogant. it's not your closed mind, it's your disrespect for the people who have taken the time to engage in serious discussion with you. You toss aside and ignore their questions. You totally dodged all of my questions, and answered only the rhetorical question I posted near the end. If you expect us to take you seriously, you need to start coming up with some respect.


again, arrogant and flip. and how do you know for sure that Paul was talking about lesbians? Perhaps he was referring to the women who had sex with angels.

we also know that Romans 1 is a preface to Romans 2, in which he calls all of the christians on their idolatry.

If i've been avoiding your questions. could you please restate them. Because I've been trying to answer any questions that have come my way... and if your wanting a response to something that you have stated. it would be helpful if you listed them or something.
1.
2.
3.
etc.

and i'll answer them as best i can..

Does arrogant mean belief in something? Because I have a strong opinion and I believe I am right and talk like I am right. Does that make me arrogant? I am open to being wrong but I believe I still should have the space to express my own opinion. I don't consider you arrogant just because you believe your right with all your being.

"Perhaps he was referring to the women who had sex with angels."

What evidence do you have of that statement whatsoever in that chapter or even that book of the Bible?

[keltic63]

If i've been avoiding your questions. could you please restate them. Because I've been trying to answer any questions that have come my way... and if your wanting a response to something that you have stated. it would be helpful if you listed them or something.
1.
2.
3.
etc.

and i'll answer them as best i can..



just go back and read.

[stev0]

Let’s start with Biblical inerrancy.

First of all, you’re arguing from a position of Biblical inerrancy that pretty much all liberal Christians do not come from, not just the gay ones. So the premise for your argument is off right there. Not to mention the fact that those who do say the Bible is inerrant, all have a different idea of what that means, clearly you’d find “error” with the idea of stoning your disobedient children.
Yes, there is alot of misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm not saying I have it all right but I believe the Bible can be interpreted and comprehended accurately and atleast the gospel and method of salvation is clear.

Stoning your children these days is "in error"
but during Moses' days it was right. God made it a point to "set apart" his people to call them out to be "holy." and you can certainly say the Jews have made there mark in history and God planned it that way.
These days no you shouldn't stone your children. (In Christ there's a new covenant)


When you use an unagreed upon third party to argue for you, it’s called an appeal to authority (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority). It’s a logical fallacy.

At that point, It’s also a strawman (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw), another logical fallacy.

If you appeal to an authority that hasn’t been agreed upon, or not equally agreed upon, and then complain that "said" agreement on -- in this case sin – is not agreed upon, you’ve succeeded only in knocking down an argument that you yourself have constructed — but NOT, what the other party has assumed to be the actual argument.
Appealing to a higher authority... yeah I'm appealing to what we call the Bible... it is the "higher authority" and we can agree upon many things as being sinful. (no i wont appeal to liberal Christians very well because most believe there is no "authority" to direct us) and I get that.


Thus nothing is gained by you “winning” your own argument, and the rest of us are left feeling confused as to why we’re not getting through to you with understandings that are NOT based on your idea of Biblical inerrancy -- or interpretation of said passage, etc.

As I see it, the real argument here is about why you feel the need to believe that our love is sinful – via the Bible.

Because if it wasn’t a sin, what problem would you personally have with our relationships?

Furthermore – regarding unrepentant sinful behavior – do you really need the Bible to tell you that actions that harm yourself or others are morally wrong? Such as addictions, or lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc.

Yes we do need the Bible to tell us what is write and wrong. (the law is what reveals to us what is sin.)
Now naturally we do reap the rewards of our sins and can at time deduct what is destructive to ourselves. But without the Bible at times or for some people never, could we see what was unhealthy for us until the Bible had enlightened our minds and hearts to that truth.
so yes we do need the Bible. It is a light. It provides us with a tool for discernment of our lives.

Do you wish to convince us that our love is evil, and thus sinful, for no other reason that “Because the Bible says so?”

Or do you have a way to show us this — something that you see, that you feel we do not, as to how our relationships harm ourselves and/or others, and are therefore sinful?

A common theme that is rarely said as pointedly as it should be, is that our love is not real.
If you believe this, then you believe we are incapable of recognizing true love, and that we are deluded. If so, so be it, but at least have the courage to admit that you consider our relationships to be nothing more than glorified friendships. (Though you might not want to put it quite like that)
I don't think your love is fake, I believe you truly can love each other.

Does this about sum it up?

Would you say that these perceptions are generally correct as far as why the homosexuality thing is a sin-dealbreaker for so many people like you?

In addition:
To argue that our love is sin, is to argue that we love sin.

Which is the basis of Paul in Romans, equating same gender attraction with the desire to do evil.

Would you agree with that?

I believe many people love sin more than they do God...I believe I struggle with that myself. I love to sin, but it's by God's grace and His Word that I see what it is, how to abstain from it, how avoid it, and why I shouldn't continue in my sin.

Emproph- I'm glad you've touched down on this thread. You've put your finger squarely on the matter: conservatives and fundamentalists seem to operate from the underlying assumption that love between two people of the same sex is a counterfeit version of the 'real thing'.

Pray tell: which marriage are they talking about? The first, second or third one? ;)

The Carpenter had nothing to say about homosexuality and a lot to say about divorce. Well.....what's that saying about those who live in glass houses?

Just because He didn't saying anything specifically about it doesn't mean it isn't addressed in some way. (as that mpeg i posted up said) I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't mention robbing banks in the New Testament...but I kinda get the idea its wrong.

Its interesting that you would mention natural vs. say unatural.

Consider this, God made animals and all natural things, correct? And animals that God created would only act in a natural and God sactioned ways. They would not act unatural, or he made a mistake and needs to rectify it.(He doesnt do that right, hes all knowing after all and does nt make mistakes)

Many animals have been seen in homosexual relations. Most recently, 2 swans that mated and made the heart with their necks. (they mate for life) Well, people could not figure out why there were no babies and finally biologists went to find out why, turns out they were two female swans. They followed the courtship trumpets and everything, they became partners. People come far and wide to see teir "lesbian" swans. This is not the only documented case of homosexual relations in the animal kingdom.

Also, what constitutes unnatural in the biblical sense? To me, stoning someone, marrying at the first menstrual blood(about 12)and cutting a male childs forskin off in a coventant to God is unatural. Do we still apply all the Bible today? After all, if we chose to read the Bible we have to take all of what it says, not just use the parts we can use to shore up our opinions.

First...I've addressed this before in "fallen nature" earlier in the thread.
That because of our sin nature and creations subsequent fall, our "nature" is to twist that which is natural and the same in creation.


Yes you and if you read the Bible you'd understand alot of the things that were required in the new testament are no longer required of us...such as sacrifices (Jesus was the eternal sacrifice) ...the foreskin thing....now we use baptism as a symbol of our connection to Christ ...which corresponds to circumcision of the Old Testament which was an initiation to the covenant with God as baptism is to Christians today.

and the menstrual blood thing...I'll be honest I haven't heard about that marrying practice....alot of those are customs tied more to culture not the law.

[tdogg]

If i've been avoiding your questions. could you please restate them. Because I've been trying to answer any questions that have come my way... and if your wanting a response to something that you have stated. it would be helpful if you listed them or something.
1.
2.
3.
etc.

and i'll answer them as best i can..

Are you trying to say that you believe homosexuality is a sin, but because we don't realize it's a sin, that we aren't actually sinning?

What are you referring to in the Bible, regarding it being clear that homosexuality is a sin? Keep in mind, the Bible you are reading was likely a translation of a translation of a translation, etc, etc., of a translation of the original King James version (not really all that long ago)?

But, can you get from what we are telling you, that many/most of us have heard this all our lives? Have heard this side of the story and we just don't buy it anymore? So, if your goal is to get all of us to change our minds and say we homosexuals are sinning and better admit it and change into heterosexuals, then you will absolutely not reach that goal here.

Does arrogant mean belief in something? Because I have a strong opinion and I believe I am right and talk like I am right. Does that make me arrogant? I am open to being wrong but I believe I still should have the space to express my own opinion. I don't consider you arrogant just because you believe your right with all your being.


Arrogant means you have no respect for another person's belief. I respect what you believe; however, I refuse to accept your belief or allow you to lay that belief on me. In other words, I hear you but I don't buy it. But I will treat you with respect, try to avoid demeaning you and yours, and respectfully decline to put myself under your belief.


New question: "Well, you can't take every word as completely literal. That's insane." Who gets to decide what to take literal or not??

[Emproph]

Yes, there is alot of misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm not saying I have it all right but I believe the Bible can be interpreted and comprehended accurately and atleast the gospel and method of salvation is clear.
You can believe anything you want, I’m not arguing that. But when you want to argue our reality based on your beliefs, then the burden of proof lies with you.

Stoning your children these days is "in error"
but during Moses' days it was right. God made it a point to "set apart" his people to call them out to be "holy." and you can certainly say the Jews have made there mark in history and God planned it that way.
These days no you shouldn't stone your children. (In Christ there's a new covenant)

So in Exodus we were commanded not to kill, then in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, killing is back, and now we’re not supposed to kill again. Don’t kill, kill, don’t kill. Rather fickle for an unchanging God, don’t you think? So your own claim of inerrancy is dead, you killed it.

But to drive the point home further, Revelations 22:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2022:18-19;&version=31;):
18) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19) And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

A clear warning – on the last page no less – not to cause error to something that is incapable of containing error, which would be NOT ONLY another error, but a direct admission of the potential for error.

Want proof? Check out the different versions of that verse alone (http://bible.cc/revelation/22-18.htm).

Error is the opposite of inerrant. So if you consider error to be inerrant, then you’re in no position to be correcting anyone else on ANYTHING.

Appealing to a higher authority... yeah I'm appealing to what we call the Bible... it is the "higher authority" and we can agree upon many things as being sinful. (no i wont appeal to liberal Christians very well because most believe there is no "authority" to direct us) and I get that.

An authority which we’ve established is in error. Like I said, if you consider error to be inerrant, and in this case, a “higher” authority, then you’re in no position to be correcting anyone else on ANYTHING – because your very perception of the concept of error itself is in error.

Furthermore, you ignored my complaint and simply repeated you position. My point was that we haven’t agreed that your riddled with errors “authority” is authoritative in the same way. This needs to be established before any meaningful communication regarding it can occur.

[Emproph]

As I see it, the real argument here is about why you feel the need to believe that our love is sinful – via the Bible.

Because if it wasn’t a sin, what problem would you personally have with our relationships?

Furthermore – regarding unrepentant sinful behavior – do you really need the Bible to tell you that actions that harm yourself or others are morally wrong? Such as addictions, or lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc.Yes we do need the Bible to tell us what is write and wrong. (the law is what reveals to us what is sin.)
Now naturally we do reap the rewards of our sins and can at time deduct what is destructive to ourselves. But without the Bible at times or for some people never, could we see what was unhealthy for us until the Bible had enlightened our minds and hearts to that truth.
so yes we do need the Bible. It is a light. It provides us with a tool for discernment of our lives.
Your answer was content free. After 130 posts in this thread we’ve amply established your “feelings” about the Bible. In addition to that, you outright IGNORED my questions, which has been a common complaint in this thread. So let’s try this again:

If homosexuality were not a sin, what problem would you personally have with it?

To put it another way:

What personal evidence or experience, outside of the Bible, do you have that shows you HOW our love is sinful, and therefore harmful?

If you need to be told that self-destructive addictions, lying, cheating, stealing and murder are wrong, things that harm ourselves and others, then you’ve got WAY bigger problems than whatever you think is morally wrong with same-gender attraction.

This goes to the heart of what you believe sin is. If you believe that something that is not harmful to ourselves or to others is the same as something that is harmful to ourselves or others, then that’s the essence of “anything goes” moral relativism – but worse than that, in this case, it's attributed to the Bible in an effort to define it as "absolute truth."

A common theme that is rarely said as pointedly as it should be, is that our love is not real.
If you believe this, then you believe we are incapable of recognizing true love, and that we are deluded. If so, so be it, but at least have the courage to admit that you consider our relationships to be nothing more than glorified friendships. (Though you might not want to put it quite like that)I don't think your love is fake, I believe you truly can love each other.

I put that as specifically as I could so that it would be answered specifically. Friends can “love” each other, is this what you mean when you say that we “can” love each other, or are you saying that you agree that we experience REAL TRUE ROMANTIC LOVE within our relationships?

[Emproph]

Does this about sum it up?

Would you say that these perceptions are generally correct as far as why the homosexuality thing is a sin-dealbreaker for so many people like you?

In addition:
To argue that our love is sin, is to argue that we love sin.

Which is the basis of Paul in Romans, equating same gender attraction with the desire to do evil.

Would you agree with that?I believe many people love sin more than they do God...I believe I struggle with that myself. I love to sin, but it's by God's grace and His Word that I see what it is, how to abstain from it, how avoid it, and why I shouldn't continue in my sin.

Again, content free. Do you think that common sense is an argument in and of itself? Because I find it insulting. People who are atheist know that they do wrong, and that it's wrong to do wrong. We're also not debating about some ambiguous portion of the population that loves to sin more than they don’t -- or are we?

I gave you the specific opportunity to explain whether our love itself is equivalent to THE love of sin, as Romans 1-26-32 unambiguously claims, and you obfuscated -- incredulously after having cherry-picked my quote to begin with. What was the point of cherry-picking it if you were going to obfuscate anyway?

Given that the word “natural” was mentioned a total of 9 times in your originating post of this thread, in direct relation to "Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27,” Your response verges on outright mockery.

If you’re perfectly equal to us in your “love of sin,” then you have nothing to add and are in no position to be judging us, in which case, what are you doing here?

So AGAIN, let’s try this again. I’ll make it even easy for you:

Rom. 1:26-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%201:26-27&version=31)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1. Are you, Steve0, claiming that same gender attracted persons have “exchanged” or “abandoned” our opposite gender attractions?

2. If so, do you then also claim the following about same-gender attracted persons?:

Rom. 1:28-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-32;&version=31;)
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

3. And if you also claim the above about us, what is the connection between "choosing" same-gender attraction, in and of itself, and the desire to harm others?

[Daniel]

Stevo- Please explain.

I don't think your love is fake, I believe you truly can love each other.

How can love be sinful?

[Steven E. Webster]

Stevo- Please explain.



How can love be sinful?

The only explanation is that StevO's God is an irrational, arbitrary tyrant who declares what is sin based upon nothing but his own narrow prejudices.

I don't believe in such a God. Such a God is not a loving parent, but an abusive father. Such a view of God arises from the "dark side" of the human imagination.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-and-lies.html


Homosexuality, when perceived as a problem, is always "someone else's 'problem.'" It is never just the way things are, a homegrown reality. It is the cultural equivalent of "Well, he didn't get it from my side of the family." In East Africa it is blamed on the Arabs. The Arabs in turn call it "the English disease." Margaret Cho's mom assures us "No Gay in Korea!" Iran is similarly pristine along those lines, or will be once the state has its way.

[tymejumper]

First...I've addressed this before in "fallen nature" earlier in the thread.
That because of our sin nature and creations subsequent fall, our "nature" is to twist that which is natural and the same in creation.


Interesting answer, actually does not answer my original question except to tell us that WE as sinners are responsible for 'making' nature fall and therefore 'making' natural things unatural. Such as makeing animals homosexual secondary to our sinning.

Yes you and if you read the Bible you'd understand alot of the things that were required in the new testament are no longer required of us...such as sacrifices (Jesus was the eternal sacrifice) ...the foreskin thing....now we use baptism as a symbol of our connection to Christ ...which corresponds to circumcision of the Old Testament which was an initiation to the covenant with God as baptism is to Christians today.

Again, you have acertained from my commentary that I have not read, nor understood the Bible. I realize there are some sects of Christains that only study the old testament, Jahova Witness for example, but the majority of Christains now a days do believe that the new testament is the authority to stand by. In fact, believing that Jesus had a better idea when he came to speak to us for God, I recall he said NOTHING about homosexuality in the new testament.

So, the older passages you are siteing are obviously before Jesus came and therefore now, according to your own statement of "things that were required of us are no longer required of us" null and void.

Second thing I would like to bring to your attention, the orignal words "homosexual" and "gay" were not even used in the current context, specifically "gay" until the 20th century. I do not believe that Jesus nor the persons of that time frame would invoke a word that was not even used in the same context nor even known of then. So I doubt that our 'modern' wording being substituted for the original Hebrew, has been translated appropriately, nor will we know unless we sit at Jesus knee when he preached. At best it is just a guess.

Also, I must agree with others about the"unatural passions", how are we to know without reading into it in the morern context, that they meant sex? Maybe it was masturbation or telling their husbands 'I have a headache', which women were not allowed to do by the way as they were chattel and must "bow down to their husbands as they do the lord" that whole statement is really open to interpretation.

Much Metta:)

[Emproph]

I just noticed that this whole “unnatural” argument is exactly the same as the “there is no gay gene” argument; If there is no gay gene, then there’s no proof that we're born gay (ie, that it's "natural"). Once they get done with that whole absence of evidence IS evidence of absence idiocy, then they go into; but just in case a gay gene is found, homosexuality is still wrong. Then, like the “man’s fallen nature” argument, it’s compared with every negative aspect of human nature imaginable, except done so within the context of eventually finding genes for all those negative aspects.

I think one of the reasons they love the Romans text so much is because it depicts homosexuality as being the specific result of “man’s fallen nature.”

First...I've addressed this before in "fallen nature" earlier in the thread.
That because of our sin nature and creations subsequent fall, our "nature" is to twist that which is natural and the same in creation.
Now, same type of approach from another thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2108):
The choice of homosexuality in particular is due to Paul's need to find a visible sign of humankind's fundamental rejection of God's creation at the very core of personhood. The numerous allusions to the creation account in the passage suggest that creation theology was foremost in Paul's mind in forming the passage.

This guy takes the extra step that many do not, by acknowledging that we may not have “abandoned” or “exchanged” our natural desires, but stops short of saying we may have been born gay:
Some argue that a modern understanding of "natural" differs from Paul's and requires that we absolve those who discover rather than choose a homosexual orientation. These, it is argued, should be seen as victims, or simply different, and our definition of allowable sexual activity expanded accordingly.
And THEN goes on to make the same mistake that the rest of them do, via typical anti-gay strawman. Take something good or benign, and then equate it with something bad in order to condemn it – usually with no connecting logic in between. It seems like this “unnatural” / “man’s fallen nature” approach is their lame attempt to help fill in that gap - and Paul’s too! (Not you Paul, Saul-Paul ;))
The major problem with this response is that it shifts the meaning of "natural" from Paul's notion of "that which is in accord with creation" to the popular notion of "that which one has a desire to do."

But deeply ingrained anger does not justify murder, nor does deeply ingrained greed justify theft or materialism, nor does the deeply ingrained desire of many heterosexuals for multiple partners justify promiscuity. Desire in all of these areas, chosen or not, must come under the reign of Christ.
Nice huh? So, just in case homosexuality is genetic, it’s still wrong. And just in case some people are naturally born “unnatural,” that’s still wrong too. The problem is that both examples ignore the core issue.

1) We’re talking about the HUMAN “deeply ingrained desire” for love and companionship. And,
2) This drive is the ESSENCE of God’s creative intent in humans.

As I see it, there are only two legitimate arguments to be had here, and really only one.

A) Either our love is not real, and we’re delusional, and homosexuality really is a perversion of our natural desire for love and companionship. Or,

B) Our love is real, and natural, but the sexual expression of that love is not in line with God’s creative intent, in the same way that birth control, sterility, or asexuality, etc., are also not in line with God's creative intent.

As you can see, that second argument is DOA.

So, we’re back to the exact same question that I posed nearly a year and a half ago in the Corinthians thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=520).

If they think we’re too delusional to understand what real love is, why not just say so?

[Daniel]

As I see it, there are only two legitimate arguments to be had here, and really only one.

A) Either our love is not real, and we’re delusional, and homosexuality really is a perversion of our natural desire for love and companionship. Or,

B) Our love is real, and natural, but the sexual expression of that love is not in line with God’s creative intent, in the same way that birth control, sterility, or asexuality, etc., are also not in line with God's creative intent.

As you can see, that second argument is DOA.

So, we’re back to the exact same question that I posed nearly a year and a half ago in the Corinthians thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=520).

If they think we’re too delusional to understand what real love is, why not just say so?


Because they don't have a pot to piss in as far as that argument goes. As even Stevo has aknowledged....

I don't think your love is fake, I believe you truly can love each other.

Eventually, they are going to have to accept our love for what it is in all it's gay glory.



Capital L. Capital O. Capital V. Capital E.

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

[Emproph]

Eventually, they are going to have to accept our love for what it is in all it's gay glory.

Capital L. Capital O. Capital V. Capital E.
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x87/recyclinggoddess/thcheer3.gifhttp://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w169/baychef_album/thcheerleader.gif

GIMME AN "L"
GIMME AN "O"
GIMME A "V"
GIMME AN "E"

WHAT'S IT SPELL?

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

LOVE

Yay! Fanfare! Whohoo! http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w169/baychef_album/ththcheerleader.gif


Brought to you by your local queer cheer brigade.

[Daniel]

Brought to you by your local queer cheer brigade.

Cheer away!

How did you know that green was my favorite color? :D

[stev0]

New question: "Well, you can't take every word as completely literal. That's insane." Who gets to decide what to take literal or not??

Well, the only way to answer that is. You've got to decide (or discern) who's teaching or what teaching is logical and trustworthy and worth following. I believe God directs us if we allow His Spirit to work in us. We may not know perfectly God's will for us but we try and if we're really concerned with doing His will, we will study those things that are unsure. so really at some point you do have to decide things for yourself.


So in Exodus we were commanded not to kill, then in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, killing is back, and now we’re not supposed to kill again. Don’t kill, kill, don’t kill. Rather fickle for an unchanging God, don’t you think? So your own claim of inerrancy is dead, you killed it.

We are commanded not to murder
I struggled with understanding these passages myself...I've come across teaching that explained this better.
It was sinful to murder someone in your own tribe or group of ppl, over your own passions, to get what you want or to get revenge for some percieved wrong. That is what I believe "Thou shalt not kill" is about.
Leaving open the ability (biblically) to kill someone out of defense or in the sense of the old testament your talking about, They were under commission from the Lord to take over lands to fulfill covenant promises from God.


A clear warning – on the last page no less – not to cause error to something that is incapable of containing error, which would be NOT ONLY another error, but a direct admission of the potential for error.

Want proof? Check out the different versions of that verse alone (http://bible.cc/revelation/22-18.htm).

Revelations 22:18-19
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

I see your reasoning, but I believe that you broke this passage down too narrowly.
This passage could also be understood to say that people such as preacher's today when preaching the word they preach everything in the word like all about God's wrath and leave out all the parts about his love for us. or on any subject... if someone is consciously trying to leave certain things out of the Bible or tries to add his own twist to it like what I believe the Mormon church does. (their doctrine adds that your works are what get you to heaven)
So the ground you've based your argument on is unstable. (and yes i do understand that Bible is interpreted differently by lots of different ppl so it makes my argument shaky as well but the bible does give me a more stable ground than most. I must say).


Furthermore, you ignored my complaint and simply repeated you position. My point was that we haven’t agreed that your riddled with errors “authority” is authoritative in the same way. This needs to be established before any meaningful communication regarding it can occur.
At the moment I'll be honest. I don't know where to begin with establishing the authority of the Bible there are many different ways.
Do you need reasons to believe that it is inerrant?

Your answer was content free. After 130 posts in this thread we’ve amply established your “feelings” about the Bible. In addition to that, you outright IGNORED my questions, which has been a common complaint in this thread. So let’s try this again:

If homosexuality were not a sin, what problem would you personally have with it?

Homosexuality in and of it's self? None.
Some of the homosexual individuals that I've come in contact with... most were living a lifestyle that is self-destructive.
I've never personally met a homosexual Christian so I'd have to comment on that when I do.

To put it another way:

What personal evidence or experience, outside of the Bible, do you have that shows you HOW our love is sinful, and therefore harmful?

Outside of the Bible...There is no sin....The Bible is the Word of God. and Through His words we have the Law and through the Law came sin.
Romans 3:20
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."
It is considered sinful "out-side" the Bible by most Christians because it is a man made twist of God's design.


If you need to be told that self-destructive addictions, lying, cheating, stealing and murder are wrong, things that harm ourselves and others, then you’ve got WAY bigger problems than whatever you think is morally wrong with same-gender attraction.

This goes to the heart of what you believe sin is. If you believe that something that is not harmful to ourselves or to others is the same as something that is harmful to ourselves or others, then that’s the essence of “anything goes” moral relativism – but worse than that, in this case, it's attributed to the Bible in an effort to define it as "absolute truth."

Just because it's not specifically harmful to others or yourself does not mean it is not a sin...simple put.
Just talk to other people on this form and they can tell you that it has been harmful to their wives and their loved ones...their desires for it were so powerful and overwhelming that it tore apart their marriages.
...that's not harmful to others....


I put that as specifically as I could so that it would be answered specifically. Friends can “love” each other, is this what you mean when you say that we “can” love each other, or are you saying that you agree that we experience REAL TRUE ROMANTIC LOVE within our relationships?

I suppose you do... I have no evidence otherwise...
If you say you do I have to take you at your word...just as you have to take me at mine when I say that I love my wife. it may show in my actions but only God discerns the heart.


If you’re perfectly equal to us in your “love of sin,” then you have nothing to add and are in no position to be judging us, in which case, what are you doing here?


I think you misinterpret it. I enjoy sin as much as anyone else...so that makes me somewhat understand of sin struggles other go through. I'm trying to say no I'm not high and mighty only God is.

So AGAIN, let’s try this again. I’ll make it even easy for you:

1. Are you, Steve0, claiming that same gender attracted persons have “exchanged” or “abandoned” our opposite gender attractions?

2. If so, do you then also claim the following about same-gender attracted persons?:

Rom. 1:28-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-32;&version=31;)


3. And if you also claim the above about us, what is the connection between "choosing" same-gender attraction, in and of itself, and the desire to harm others?


1.yes.
2.I'll have to think on this some... but to my best understanding is that like all people... We struggle with different sins... and maybe someone's sin is only same-gender sexual relations and none of the others; and who is not at sometimes arrogant or boastful or alittle bit of any of those things if not only in thought.
3.I don't think that is the implication of that passage. Maybe it is but I don't think so and I will continue to mull over this verse.

[Alecto]

I'm gonna make at least a part of this real easy for you. You've already said that there are certain things you need to take our word for. Which is wise, and is something that a lot of people don't get. (I think I mentioned before here that's a pet peeve of mine: something that is wholly in my experience being invalidated by someone who couldn't possibly know). That said, let me tell you that for me personally, there was never attraction to the opposite sex. I didn't trade anything in. Nothing was exchanged or abandoned. Did I try for a year or two just to "make sure" that there was nothing there? Absolutely. Thankfully, I don't believe I hurt anyone in the process, but the fact is: the attraction was never there. The "behavior" is there for some people only because everyone around them expects it of them.

**I don't claim to speak for everybody, or every gay person, or every gay person on this forum etc. I'm only telling you my personal experience as one anecdote to prove that, at very least, not all gay folks have "changed" to be gay. Around the same time my classmates started noticing girls, I started noticing guys. Always been.

[sailaway58]

I'm gonna make at least a part of this real easy for you. You've already said that there are certain things you need to take our word for. Which is wise, and is something that a lot of people don't get. (I think I mentioned before here that's a pet peeve of mine: something that is wholly in my experience being invalidated by someone who couldn't possibly know). That said, let me tell you that for me personally, there was never attraction to the opposite sex. I didn't trade anything in. Nothing was exchanged or abandoned. Did I try for a year or two just to "make sure" that there was nothing there? Absolutely. Thankfully, I don't believe I hurt anyone in the process, but the fact is: the attraction was never there. The "behavior" is there for some people only because everyone around them expects it of them.

**I don't claim to speak for everybody, or every gay person, or every gay person on this forum etc. I'm only telling you my personal experience as one anecdote to prove that, at very least, not all gay folks have "changed" to be gay. Around the same time my classmates started noticing girls, I started noticing guys. Always been.

I want to personally thank you for sharing. I only wish more people in my life would listen to those that live your life and then just lovingly accept you, them, others, etc...
The problem with stevo, one of them, is he can not accept your life story, he believes it is faulted and even though you believe your story, you are wrong and have abandoned you "normal" sexual attractions.
Me? I believe you.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Notice of moderator action:

Dear stev0,

The moderator team has made the decision to limit your access on the Soulforce forums. You will not be able to post further messages in the public forums or send private messages to other members.

Your profile states you are 22, so we remain hopeful that one day you will accept and affirm people who are not heterosexual. Somehow I think that a lot more water will need to flow under the bridge before that happens. After 145 posts in the A Small Response to "Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink" (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3714) thread, you still state that we are really heterosexuals. Your comments are, at best, skeptical and dismissive of our relationships and our testimonies.

Soulforce is a civil-rights organization. We have come to see that anti-gay comments are not merely opinions, but rather a way to demean and oppress LGBT people. As long as the anti-gay groups can keep homosexuality positioned as a public "debate" they can successfully keep society from recognizing our marriages, our ordinations, our worth as people who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

I would suggest that you read Mel White's Why we can't wait to end this debate (www.soulforce.org/article/585). Rev. White's case for ending the debate is one of the primary reasons why Soulforce does not host anti-gay comments on our own website.

Jamie McDaniel
Forum Administrator