The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

nozzferrahhtoo

solodeogloria wrote: »

You fix the issues that come from the heart issues and they will simply reoccur.

Good luck with that when it comes to things like sexual desire and lust and so forth. It is hard to fix something that you have no control over. We are, at the foundation, animals. Try not to forget that. And a lot of the thoughts, desires and compulsions that come careening into our consciousness on a moment to moment basis are entirely beyond our control.

Just demonstrate how little control you have over your own thought processes sometime. Think of for me, the name and face of a famous person. Right now, just think of one....... any one at all.

Now ask yourself why you thought of that one. Why did you NOT think of Abraham Lincoln or Nicholas Cage? You tried to think of a famous person but the one that came to mind was entirely out of your control.

This is a microcosm view of what the brain works like. You simply have no control over the thoughts, desires, responses and compulsions that come racing into your awareness. In fact you have very little control over your own conscious choices science has shown..... as studies have shown that at the level of the brain some choices are made before you are even consciously aware of making them.

And these biological and neurological facts are the reason why condemning people for thought crime is a nonsense and any preacher who pre-condemns you of a sin for feeling lust in your heart of mind is a preacher who is or was entirely ignorant of what we now know about the workings of the mind.

What you decry as "sinful" I simply acknowledge as being our basic animal reality. The self-hatred narrative is not one I use or require. It is not healthy.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You claim that desires can't be bad. I think they can be rotten in and of themselves even if they are never acted upon.

I think no response or emotion or thought is bad. I judge only action. Even love, the emotion we hold above all others, can be bad. Even hatred, the emotion many hold lower than all others, can be good. It all entirely depends what we do with those emotions.

People feeling love have done some HORRIBLE things to pander to that emotion. People feeling hate have done some WONDERFUL things to better and improve the world.

It is simply a nonsense to me to hold up any emotion or compulsion and simply declare it "bad".

solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Good luck with that when it comes to things like sexual desire and lust and so forth. It is hard to fix something that you have no control over. We are, at the foundation, animals. Try not to forget that. And a lot of the thoughts, desires and compulsions that come careening into our consciousness on a moment to moment basis are entirely beyond our control.

Good morning,

You're right. We can't resolve the heart issues. Or rather we can't resolve them alone.

That's why Christians argue that through Christ the root heart issues can be addressed. So rather than looking solely to the presenting symptoms we can look to the root issue which from a Biblical standpoint is turning away from God and as a result being given over to our wicked desires (as per Romans 1).

So instead of running around dealing with the presenting symptoms we can look to the heart issues. So if I struggle with lust am I saying that my ultimate satisfaction is found primarily in expressing myself sexually rather than in the God who loves me and gave Himself up for me (Romans 5:8-9). So if I struggle with an obsession with what lies in my bank account do I find my satisfaction in that rather than in the God who has given me a glorious inheritance in His Son (Ephesians 1). If I worry about what will happen tomorrow do I really believe in the God who controls all things and who knows every single hair on my head?

These are the type of diagnoses that we need to apply to ourselves and this is why a God who cares about our hearts is a God who actually cares for us.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is a microcosm view of what the brain works like. You simply have no control over the thoughts, desires, responses and compulsions that come racing into your awareness. In fact you have very little control over your own conscious choices science has shown..... as studies have shown that at the level of the brain some choices are made before you are even consciously aware of making them.

I disagree. To offer you an example. Let's take the lust issue for a moment. I take a bus and a train and then walk for about 10 minutes to work every morning. It takes about an hour which isn't the most important factor. In fact I'm tapping this post on my phone on this commute right now.

During the course of that journey it is highly likely that I will see an attractive woman. I could see her and think "she's beautiful" or I could dwell on her and think about her sexually. That's where I've moved into lusting after her and it was entirely within my control.

I know many people think that the Bible doesn't have anything to say on this issue but it's really perceptive. My housemate and I have been reading through James in the morning. This passage talks about our desires and how they work.

James 1:12-15 ESV wrote:

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

So this book which people so often deem irrelevant actually is relevant for me today on my morning commute. I could either descend into lust when seeing a beautiful woman or I could stop there and pray that God would be at work in her.

What I've done there is stop the woman from being an object of sexual lust and have prayed to the God who loves her and created her to draw her to Himself for her good (Genesis 1:26-27; John 12).

In the process I've chosen to trust God and His goodness.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And these biological and neurological facts are the reason why condemning people for thought crime is a nonsense and any preacher who pre-condemns you of a sin for feeling lust in your heart of mind is a preacher who is or was entirely ignorant of what we now know about the workings of the mind.

What you decry as "sinful" I simply acknowledge as being our basic animal reality. The self-hatred narrative is not one I use or require. It is not healthy.

I think following God and what He has said to us is better and I've given you an example of how we can control these things. I also think it's important for me to share with you how practically speaking God does change the way we live as Christians as we walk in daily relationship with Him.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're right. We can't resolve the heart issues. Or rather we can't resolve them alone.

Or at all. What you CAN resolve, as you said yourself, is to address the concept of self discipline and self control. That is why convicting people of thought crime is a nonsense. You are convicting people for what they have zero control over, rather than judging them by what they do.

As I said, you are agreeing with me, and making my points for me, more than you appear to know.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree.

Yet you do not appear to as what you write following this "I disagree" does not actually negate a single thing I wrote. Once again you are missing the differences between the thoughts and responses that arise unbidden, and what you then do with those thoughts AFTER that fact.

I keep writing about the former, and then you keep writing "I disagree" and going off on a tangent about the latter. It is somewhat consistent now so I would hope I am not the only one noticing it.

solodeogloria

Good morning,

It's admittedly getting a touch frustrating when you claim I agree with you when I say that actually our desires themselves are sinful.

You clearly do not share this view. Therefore we don't agree.

In addition claiming that I haven't offered you an explanation when I've given you a working example strains credibility. As does claiming that I've gone off on a tangent whilst responding to your post.

If you mean that I've gone off on a tangent by bringing the Bible and what it claims into the discussion, then I need to point out that we're on the Christianity forum discussing how Christianity works. I'm not making a secular argument.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo

No I am not claiming we agree on everything. But the issue is every time you disagree with me about those " desires themselves" you do so with a narrative about what we DO with those " desires themselves" once they careen into consciousness. So while you clearly believe yourself to be disagreeing with me, you are doing so by writing things I entirely agree with.

You being frustrated by this fact is not going to change the fact however, or help with you feeling your credibility strained. But a fact it is. When an emotion or desire comes careening into consciousness you have little, if any, control over this. What you choose to do WITH that desire (such as your tangential monologue on continuing the journey to work imagining the sexual exploits you would like to engage in with the pretty woman you just saw) is not really addressing the point I am actually making and I ENTIRELY agree with what you write about that.

And I am not pulling this out of thin air too, there is science there backing it up. Such as, as I said, the studies that show that at the level of the brain our choices are often already made before we consciously believe ourselves to be making them. And I showed you the thought experiment too that shows you have little control over what thoughts come into your mind. When you try to think of a famous person, you achieve this, but the first person to come to mind is simply out of your control.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

My worked example isn't a tangent. It's there to demonstrate very clearly that we can stop ourselves going to places where we shouldn't go in our hearts and our minds. In fact I would say it's the main part of my response to you. Lusting after someone sexually in and of itself is wrong from my point of view. It isn't in your point of view. We don't agree. I also think it's possible to deal with the underlying heart issues. You don't.

You can choose as to whether or not you want to engage with it. I hope others find it helpful at the very least.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes and what you are "demonstrating very clearly" is the part I agree with. However I was talking about the initial thoughts, desires and responses that arose in the mind in the first place. That is why I say a tangent. You can choose as to whether or not you want to engage in it. But I hope others find it helpful at the very least.

However when I say I agree, I do to a point. I actually see nothing wrong with entertaining a healthy fantasy life or day dreaming. I see nothing actually wrong with imagining sexual exploits with other women. Or imagining murdering an annoying boss. Our thoughts are our own and they only become an issue if they sow dark seeds within us (as you say). But generally I do not believe this is the case or result.

learn_more

@solodeogloria , I sympathise with you position on lust but only if it's over indulged. Sexual desire is a desire that can be indulged in too often just like any desire , like food or drugs.

However, I agree with @nozzferrahhtoo when he says that the reason one has those sexual intimacy desires in the first place is out of one's control. I could never explain why I find a mans face attractive, except that I know my attraction is innate. It can be ignored but it can't be switched off completely either.

You talk as if any kind of lust is wrong. I wonder how any heterosexual man could ever meet a woman and propose her hand in marriage if you have muted your sexual desires in the first place. If you were to be married ( I guessing your not ) how would it come about that you might get married and procreate. I've never heard how anyone could engage in sexual intercourse if it didn't involve sexual lust of some kind. Would you propose marriage to a woman , based on her academic achievements or what , given that you've suppressed your rotten thoughts and replaced them with God ?

Btw, my interest in men did not start out as purely sexual. I recall being attracted to men in my early teens before I ever had a grown up sexual though. That's why I say my attraction to men is innate. With that point in mind , I always find it insulting when people seem to consider my sexuality as nothing more than a desire to engage in sexual intercourse and nothing else.

Nick Park

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I actually see nothing wrong with entertaining a healthy fantasy life or day dreaming. I see nothing actually wrong with imagining sexual exploits with other women. Or imagining murdering an annoying boss. Our thoughts are our own and they only become an issue if they sow dark seeds within us (as you say). But generally I do not believe this is the case or result.

Genuine question. I'm wondering what the point of this is?

Jesus said that such imaginations are wrong. Therefore such a belief is pretty well a given in Christian thought.

While I appreciate that you, as an atheist, probably disagree with Jesus and Christianity on many things (and are entitled to do so - it's a free country) what does posting about it in the Christianity Forum actually achieve? When an atheist posts in the Christianity Forum saying, "Hey, folks, I disagree with Christianity!" is that anything more than soapboxing?

Nick Park

learn_more wrote: »

@solodeogloria , I sympathise with you position on lust but only if it's over indulged. Sexual desire is a desire that can be indulged in too often just like any desire , like food or drugs.

However, I agree with @nozzferrahhtoo when he says that the reason one has those sexual intimacy desires in the first place is out of one's control. I could never explain why I find a mans face attractive, except that I know my attraction is innate. It can be ignored but it can't be switched off completely either.

You talk as if any kind of lust is wrong. I wonder how any heterosexual man could ever meet a woman and propose her hand in marriage if you have muted your sexual desires in the first place. If you were to be married ( I guessing your not ) how would it come about that you might get married and procreate. I've never heard how anyone could engage in sexual intercourse if it didn't involve sexual lust of some kind. Would you propose marriage to a woman , based on her academic achievements or what , given that you've suppressed your rotten thoughts and replaced them with God ?

Btw, my interest in men did not start out as purely sexual. I recall being attracted to men in my early teens before I ever had a grown up sexual though. That's why I say my attraction to men is innate. With that point in mind , I always find it insulting when people seem to consider my sexuality as nothing more than a desire to engage in sexual intercourse and nothing else.

I think part of the problem here is that Christians (at least in English) generally use the word 'lust' to refer solely to a desire for wrong things.

The same is not always true in other languages. For example, I was preaching in a Romanian church last week. I noticed that Matthew 5:28 (But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart) in the Romanian Bible uses the word poftească. Then, as I joined a family for supper afterwards, they wished me pofta buna! (literally - 'good lust!' the Romanian equivalent of bon appetite!

The Romanian is probably more faithful to the original biblical text here than the English. The word Jesus used in Matthew 5:28 was επιθυμησαι (epithumeo). Then, in Luke 22:15, Jesus uses the same verb (epithumeo) to say "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you".

So the problem, from a Christian perspective, is not that it is wrong to strongly desire, or lust after, anything. The problem is that it is sinful to cherish a strong desire toward something that God has told us is wrong for us. In the sexual area of our lives that would, according to most Christians' interpretation of the Bible, include fantasising about engaging in sexual activity with anyone other than our spouse.

I don't think any of us choose who we are sexually attracted to. But we do choose whether we feed and nurture such an attraction, particularly when it is towards someone who is not our spouse, and who we are not courting (an old fashioned word, but still relevant for many) with a view to them becoming our spouse.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nick Park wrote: »

Genuine question. I'm wondering what the point of this is?

Is it genuine, or is it more a move to cover the fact you have ignored the posts I actually addressed to you by replying to one that I did not?

That said, the "point" of it was a reply to the topic of thought crime, and a user espousing the idea that holding lustful or immoral thoughts is some kind of wrong or evil.

I do not think it is. I think our thoughts are our own, and no matter how dark they get.... there is nothing wrong with that.

Let us take an extreme example to highlight what I mean. Take the pedophile who never harms or in any way sexually misuses a child. But his FANTASY life in his head is REPLETE with dark and noxious fantasies.

Is there anything actually WRONG with that? And what grounds rationally have we to even suggest there is?

Nick Park wrote: »

While I appreciate that you, as an atheist, probably disagree with Jesus and Christianity on many things (and are entitled to do so - it's a free country) what does posting about it in the Christianity Forum actually achieve? When an atheist posts in the Christianity Forum saying, "Hey, folks, I disagree with Christianity!" is that anything more than soapboxing?

Ah so it is one of THOSE posts is it, where rather than address what a person is saying you address his choice of where to post it. Not what the user says, but their right to say it?

I was under the impression atheists (which I do not call myself by the way) were welcome here so long as they did not derail the threads into "There is no god" type comments which (like back seat modding) is entirely against the rules......and you will notice therefore I have not done that or moved to do it AT ALL.

AND you will notice I also confine my writing on this forum SOLELY To the "mega" threads and leave the Christianity forum itself pretty much entirely alone.

So I am afraid I have to dismiss your "Atheist soap boxing on the Christianity forum" charge on the face of it, but there is a report button if you feel I have been operating outside the moderators mandates, and I will happily defer to their judgement on the matter and leave, should you choose to use it.

All that said and aside: Firstly however I would point out that I do not think anything is "Christianity thought" or that I am disagreeing "with Christianity". It might be YOUR interpretation of Christianity, but there is such a diversity in that realm, with over 33,000 branches, sects, off shoots and cults withing Christianity.... that it is often a mistake to generalize anything as "Christian thought". It is your thought AS a christian, but that does not make it Christian thought.

Secondly however when talking to theists on the subject of gods or messiahs, I am told time and time again that their god is Rational. So rather than act like "God appears to say this, therefore this is true" I choose instead to say "Ok it appears this god is saying this..... but our interpretation could be wrong..... so let us see if we can discern a rational basis for the position this god appears to hold.... and if we fail to then perhaps our initial interpretation is flawed...... or no longer contextually relevant anymore..... and we are actually ascribing a position to this god that it does not actually hold".

And what we see is that there are NO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer.... least of all on this thread so far (and yes, I have read it all)..... indicting the moral or ethical nature of homosexuality of the expression of it.

Therefore one has to ask oneself, I would hope, as an honest person and theist, "If my god is a rational one, and there is no rationality behind an anti homosexual sentiment..... then perhaps the flaw lies in MY flawed and biased human interpretation...... perhaps this god is not as against it as I thought OR perhaps..... like MANY things in the bible and so forth..... the mandates against it were contextual to a time and place we no longer as a species and a society occupy".

Nick Park wrote: »

I think part of the problem here is that Christians (at least in English) generally use the word 'lust' to refer solely to a desire for wrong things.

Interestingly enough the word Lust in German refers more to motivation. Which given the many parallels between our languages is an interesting minor diversion. When you are asked if you want to go to the pub or something you can often reply "Ich habe keine Lust" to say you lack any motivation, desire, zest or appetite to engage with the event.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

While I appreciate that you, as an atheist, probably disagree with Jesus and Christianity on many things (and are entitled to do so - it's a free country) what does posting about it in the Christianity Forum actually achieve? When an atheist posts in the Christianity Forum saying, "Hey, folks, I disagree with Christianity!" is that anything more than soapboxing?

Say's the Christian minister with 185 posts on the atheist forum

To be fair, I think the interaction between atheists and Christians on the two respective forum is positive and useful. I think we're all bigger than our beliefs and listening to the other persons point of view is always good no matter how fundamentally we might disagree with it.

learn_more

Nick Park wrote: »

In the sexual area of our lives that would, according to most Christians' interpretation of the Bible, include fantasising about engaging in sexual activity with anyone other than our spouse.

I don't think any of us choose who we are sexually attracted to. But we do choose whether we feed and nurture such an attraction, particularly when it is towards someone who is not our spouse, and who we are not courting (an old fashioned word, but still relevant for many) with a view to them becoming our spouse.

So the problem, from a Christian perspective, is not that it is wrong to strongly desire, or lust after, anything. The problem is that it is sinful to cherish a strong desire toward something that God has told us is wrong for us.

Yes but I keep trying to make this point but it's not getting though. Being gay is not about having a lust for something. I accept your god says gay is wrong in the first place. But my gayness is not pure sexual lust. In the same way that an evangelical Christians intentions towards a woman is not pure sexual lust.

I think that most evangelical Christian don't believe that anyone has an innate attraction to their own sex. Thus the way they rationalise it is to suggest that gays decide to go against gods word and simply have deviant sexual thoughts. Because they don't have god in their hearts or some other nonsense like that.

We are never ever going to have agreement about gay sex on this thread if the overriding belief is that sex before marriage is wrong.

The only thing I can do is try to express that my thoughts towards men are not purely rotten as @solodeogloria suggests they are.

aloyisious

When Christians of all kinds look at a person of the lgbt community, they should see solely another human being and desist from any thought that the person is instead a sexual deviant, something unnatural. They know nothing about the fellow human they see. They, if they are truly of the belief they profess to hold, must accept that he/she is made by their god and not by anything else. They have no cause to have an ipso facto belief the person is what they call a sexual deviant cos he/she's not straight.

Even a slight reference to the innate sexual difference between a heterosexual human and a homosexual human is demeaning. Admit that making a reference to the difference is made on a religious belief basis learned from other humans by rote and that homosexuals are in line with the plan of their god. Any other conclusion should, theoretically, be unthinkable, that the plan is flawed or that there is a being capable of altering the plan contrary to the wishes of their god.

solodeogloria

aloyisious wrote: »

Even a slight reference to the innate sexual difference between a heterosexual human and a homosexual human is demeaning. Admit that making a reference to the difference is made on a religious belief basis learned from other humans by rote and that homosexuals are in line with the plan of their god. Any other conclusion should, theoretically, be unthinkable, that the plan is flawed or that there is a being capable of altering the plan contrary to the wishes of their god.

Good morning!

A Christian can't do this. At least not in good conscience.

The objection that Christians have to any sexual relationship outside of the marriage if a man and a woman is from the Bible. We need to repent where we disobey God in this area.

That applies to me as a single heterosexual bloke as well as homosexuals. I need to repent where I fail too.

Claiming that God has said something He hasn't or claiming that God says something is right when His Word says it is wrong isn't acceptable in God's sight.

That's the core issue.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

A Christian can't do this. At least not in good conscience.

The objection that Christians have to any sexual relationship outside of the marriage if a man and a woman is from the Bible. We need to repent where we disobey God in this area.

That applies to me as a single heterosexual bloke as well as homosexuals. I need to repent where I fail too.

Claiming that God has said something He hasn't or claiming that God says something is right when His Word says it is wrong isn't acceptable in God's sight.

That's the core issue.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I came to edit mine above to include the following paragraph: This is a suggestion to people who profess to be Christians. Keep to your own affairs and stop using the bible to control the affairs of others. If you totally believe in God Almighty then at least have faith in him and the power implicit in the combination of those two words and leave the affairs of god in his capable hands..........................................................................................

Now ref your response to my original; I feel this interference in the affairs of others is something to do with people not being able to control their own affairs and innate feelings, something to do with their own conscience and what reading has done to it; a transfer of guilt, as it were. It doesn't take the bible or any other book written by humans to teach a person right from wrong, let alone how to behave towards and respect others. Those are (majorly) innate to humans and/or parent-taught.

Ref your reference to your feeling on the importance of repenting to God about sexual relations outside marriage, that is something that YOU feel and it is NOT applicable to other humans unless they feel the same, irrespective of whatever their personally-held beliefs are. You feel that you must, as it were, spread the word of the bible. Work away on it but please don't IMPOSE, by way of law or other agency, YOUR personal do's and dont's on other humans.

If you feel you have a need to repent in this life before what is called the day of final judgement, please remember that is solely in relation to affairs between YOU and your god.

Including this of your's - Claiming that God has said something He hasn't or claiming that God says something is right when His Word says it is wrong isn't acceptable in God's sight. - in your response seems to me to be a personal-felt belief of YOURS. I made no reference to God and his sayings on marriage relative to sex between man and woman, or to the same when it comes same-sex couples. To me, it is NOT a core issue.

This might upset you but any hang-ups you have regarding sex (absolutely not involving you in any way) between other humans (hetero or homo) and marriage, and notions that repentance is necessary when it comes to mere thoughts (unclean as it were) of the same are basically personal things best left to the people concerned and god. Your co-mingling of WE and I in your post is clearly something YOU Feel at a personal level, and not something other humans necessarily feel irrespective of their beliefs/non-beliefs.

All of what I've written above is in relation to a/the religious aspect of marriage, humans and sexual relations between them, whether they be hetero or homo. irrespective of whatever belief is felt or honoured by whomever reads this. It does not in any way count when it comes to the laws of mankind.

I think that I might have expressed my thoughts on a single item more than once, in varying words-sentences on mine above, but I'm not inclined for editing it further at the moment. Cheers.......

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

It's not about wanting to control anyone.

It's about wanting to believe what God said. God speaks in this world through His Word and in His Son.

It isn't loving for me to say that God doesn't care about my sin and the sin of others when it grieves Him.

It isn't just a personal belief. It is what God has spoken.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It's not about wanting to control anyone.

It's about wanting to believe what God said. God speaks in this world through His Word and in His Son.

It isn't loving for me to say that God doesn't care about my sin and the sin of others when it grieves Him.

It isn't just a personal belief. It is what God has spoken.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

It seem's to me that what you wrote above is about your personal belief in what god has said. Ipso facto, it has to be - at least in part - about your personal belief. You can't really divest one from the other.

The sins of others, despite your "It isn't loving for me to say that God doesn't care about my sin and the sin of others when it grieves Him" are between them and god. Leaving both those parties to deal with what is between them doesn't lessen the love you wrote about as being between you and god. You are not responsible for what others do, in respect of god. Again I suggest you leave what is God's business to God. I can't see god marking your card for what you see as the offences of others against god. EDIT: this is NOT a personal attack on your deeply held belief, it's just me sensing (through what you wrote) that you SEEM TO HAVE what may be a fixation on salvation of others and might not trust in the power of god to do what he does best.

Nick Park

aloyisious wrote: »

I came to edit mine above to include the following paragraph: This is a suggestion to people who profess to be Christians. Keep to your own affairs and stop using the bible to control the affairs of others.

Keep to our own affairs, eh? You mean like discussing stuff in the Christianity Forum?

aloyisious

Nick Park wrote: »

Keep to our own affairs, eh? You mean like discussing stuff in the Christianity Forum?

Eh no. Both you and solodeogloria have left out important parts of what I wrote. Solodeogloria left out this part: When Christians of all kinds look at a person of the lgbt community, they should see solely another human being and desist from any thought that the person is instead a sexual deviant, something unnatural. They know nothing about the fellow human they see. They, if they are truly of the belief they profess to hold, must accept that he/she is made by their god and not by anything else. They have no cause to have an ipso facto belief the person is what they call a sexual deviant cos he/she's not straight.....

Given how he's left out the first half, the second part of mine is what seems to be what upset solodeogloria: Even a slight reference to the innate sexual difference between a heterosexual human and a homosexual human is demeaning. Admit that making a reference to the difference is made on a religious belief basis learned from other humans by rote and that homosexuals are in line with the plan of their god. Any other conclusion should, theoretically, be unthinkable, that the plan is flawed or that there is a being capable of altering the plan contrary to the wishes of their god.......

Solodeogloria responded with this:A Christian can't do this. At least not in good conscience. He continued on with mention of sex outside marriage, a man and a woman, homosexuals, the bible and repentance. That, IMO, is a statement of christian religious belief and clearly pertains to my "Admit that making a reference to the difference is made on a religious belief basis" above. He follows this up with this reference:Claiming that God has said something He hasn't or claiming that God says something is right when His Word says it is wrong isn't acceptable in God's sight.

I don't recall making any such claim. I merely pointed out that homosexuals are part of what solodeogloria believes is god's creation, the humans. I can't see where a christian would have a problem with that. Solodeogloria seem's to see a lot of sin in people whenever sex or a mention of a person's sexuality is made, talking about lust and repentance.

You left out part of my response to solodeogloria: If you totally believe in God Almighty then at least have faith in him and the power implicit in the combination of those two words and leave the affairs of god in his capable hands...... My full quote was: This is a suggestion to people who profess to be Christians. Keep to your own affairs and stop using the bible to control the affairs of others. If you totally believe in God Almighty then at least have faith in him and the power implicit in the combination of those two words and leave the affairs of god in his capable hands....... Solodeogloria was talking specifically about the bible, marriage, sex and both heterosexuals and homosexuals. He believes that he, as a conscience-bound christian, must decide on the affairs of others cos he believes in what he sees as the the writings of god in the bible. That is what I meant, and still mean, when I wrote "this is a suggestion, keep to your own affairs, stop using the bible to control others, have faith in god and leave his affairs in his hands".

Nothing in what I wrote is a suggestion that anyone should stop discussing matters of faith in the Christianity Forum. Rather I was suggesting to solodeogloria that he have a little faith in his god to handle others peoples marital situations, sexual affairs and whatever repentance god think's is applicable for same without him fretting over them. So far as I'm concerned, god is quite capable of handling such matters without help from us mortals.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Eh no. Both you and solodeogloria have left out important parts of what I wrote. Solodeogloria left out this part: When Christians of all kinds look at a person of the lgbt community, they should see solely another human being and desist from any thought that the person is instead a sexual deviant, something unnatural. They know nothing about the fellow human they see. They, if they are truly of the belief they profess to hold, must accept that he/she is made by their god and not by anything else. They have no cause to have an ipso facto belief the person is what they call a sexual deviant cos he/she's not straight.....

Are you not leaving out the fact that neither solodeogloria or Nick Park has ever said they see a person of the lgbt community as a sexual deviant? That's your characterisation, not theirs. You're pillorying Christians for thinking something negative about people they know nothing about; exactly what you yourself are doing when you claim Christians think a person of the lgbt community is a sexual deviant, something unnatural. Maybe go a little easier with the tar brush yourself?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Indeed I didn't.

aloysius asked Christians to declare that same-sex relationships were OK in God's sight. I simply said that a Christian cannot do that in good conscience.

Why? Because the Bible clearly says that any form of sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong.

He starts to argue strangely that I'm trying to control people. Which is not true. People are free to ignore God's word. However it isn't loving to lie about what God has said. One day Jesus will return and people will be held to account. Jesus says repent before it's too late (Luke 13:5)

I won't tell him that same-sex relationships are OK with God when they aren't. The whole argument rests on the age old lie in the garden "Did God really say that?"

When we reach to that stage people clearly aren't willing to hear what God has actually said rather clearly in the Bible and aim to twist His Word to say something else. After extensive explanation of what the Bible says on this subject without any good Biblical response the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is willful disobedience.

The truth is that Jesus calls all people everywhere to repent and believe. I need this and others need it too.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Indeed I didn't.

aloysius asked Christians to declare that same-sex relationships were OK in God's sight. I simply said that a Christian cannot do that in good conscience.

Why? Because the Bible clearly says that any form of sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong.

He starts to argue strangely that I'm trying to control people. Which is not true. People are free to ignore God's word. However it isn't loving to lie about what God has said. One day Jesus will return and people will be held to account. Jesus says repent before it's too late (Luke 13:5)

I won't tell him that same-sex relationships are OK with God when they aren't. The whole argument rests on the age old lie in the garden "Did God really say that?"

When we reach to that stage people clearly aren't willing to hear what God has actually said rather clearly in the Bible and aim to twist His Word to say something else. After extensive explanation of what the Bible says on this subject without any good Biblical response the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is willful disobedience.

The truth is that Jesus calls all people everywhere to repent and believe. I need this and others need it too.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

OK, first things first.... I did NOT ask Christians to declare that same-sex relationships were OK in God's sight. I suggested instead that you leave God's affairs to God.

Now please provide the specific section, word for word, in the bible where God says that same-sex relationships are not OK. I'm not asking you or others christians to decide what's ok in God's sight. I think that would be an impossible task, pure guesswork and interpretation of what is in the bible. However you have decided that you, and other christians, know what's ok in God's sight.

Ref your repeated use of the "claiming what God said" angle and sin and your extending it to include lying and what Jesus said about repentance, that merely show's what I said about you trying to control other peoples lives, both homosexual and heterosexual to be true. You made the mental jump that because people have sexual thoughts, they are having sex outside marriage and offending in the sight of God. On that basis, a simple wolf-whistle from a building site in appreciation at a nice sight would be defined as sinful as it is (by definition) "phoar" sexual in nature. You are not leaving it to God to do what he does best, deciding what's ok or not ok in his sight, you are deciding that you can do it instead, claiming that's it on good christian conscience grounds you do so.

I have no problem with you sorting out with God whatever you feel is between you and God. Any repentance for what you wrote about in your (copied) following para: When we reach to that stage people clearly aren't willing to hear what God has actually said rather clearly in the Bible and aim to twist His Word to say something else. After extensive explanation of what the Bible says on this subject without any good Biblical response the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is willful disobedience;.... is (IMO) for him to decide upon and not you.

Your para above had me wondering do you include as people in need of repentance, people of other faiths and religions not under the sway of the bible, let alone fellow christians and homosexuals; so which is it there?

It's when you take it a stage further and usurp God's position for the purpose of making what are judgements on people you have decided are sinners that I again SUGGEST you leave what is God's to God and keep to your own affairs.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I don't think Christians do usurp God's position by believing and trusting in what He has said and encouraging others to do so. That is what God asks of us in the Bible. Therefore we live by it.

Claiming that we are usurping God's role by doing what He asked is downright silly. God will judge. Christians are called to share the Gospel with others and to care for those who already trust in Jesus. That will at times involve warning others to turn away from sin. I hope people will never be afraid of doing that to me.

As for the references they have already been provided on numerous occasions on this thread. I've made my case clearly several times as to why I believe what I do and I've asked for a good Biblical response. I'm still waiting.

All people everywhere (all means all here) are called to repent and believe. That's what Christians are called to share. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it isn't usurping God's role.

People are free to do what they wish but God will have the last say. God is in control. That's His Word not mine. Insisting that I want to control others when I'm simply pointing to what God has said is silly.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think Christians do usurp God's position by believing and trusting in what He has said and encouraging others to do so. That is what God asks of us in the Bible. Therefore we live by it.

Claiming that we are usurping God's role by doing what He asked is downright silly. God will judge. Christians are called to share the Gospel with others and to care for those who already trust in Jesus. That will at times involve warning others to turn away from sin. I hope people will never be afraid of doing that to me.

As for the references they have already been provided on numerous occasions on this thread. I've made my case clearly several times as to why I believe what I do and I've asked for a good Biblical response. I'm still waiting.

All people everywhere (all means all here) are called to repent and believe. That's what Christians are called to share. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it isn't usurping God's role.

People are free to do what they wish but God will have the last say. God is in control. That's His Word not mine. Insisting that I want to control others when I'm simply pointing to what God has said is silly.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I made one request to you to provide for me a specific part of the bible in relation to same-sex relationships and you have declined. I imagine that which you might interpret as referring to a dislike by God of such relationships is probably the Biblical edict about like lying with like....... If so it would have been easy for you to write and say so.

Regretfully, some persons identifying as Christians do usurp God's right to sole judgement when it comes to what they see as sinning, sinners and offending against the sight of God, instead of THEM relying on what you write is God's position by believing and trusting in what He has said and encouraging others to do so. My apologies if you are one of the sincere Christians who don't usurp and I caused any offence by seeing what you refer to in "Claiming that we are usurping God's role by doing what He asked is downright silly. God will judge. Christians are called to share the Gospel with others and to care for those who already trust in Jesus. That will at times involve warning others to turn away from sin. I hope people will never be afraid of doing that to me" as making judgement calls on others. Nowadays it's very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

You will be waiting a long time for a good biblical response from me. I tend to judge people on what they do and say, not on quotes from a much transcribed many varied book interpreted quotes. I rely on good old human feeling and trust in it. Goodness is an innate thing, as unfortunately, is badness.

EDIT....ADD-ON of the word THEM in respect of one form of christian and the real-deal Sincere Christian......

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

You know very well that I've posted on this thread in respect to the Biblical position on lots of occasions. You can look through what I've said before with the search function.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

learn_more

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

aloysius asked Christians to declare that same-sex relationships were OK in God's sight. I simply said that a Christian cannot do that in good conscience.

Why? Because the Bible clearly says that any form of sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong.

Absolam wrote: »

Are you not leaving out the fact that neither solodeogloria or Nick Park has ever said they see a person of the lgbt community as a sexual deviant? That's your characterisation, not theirs.

So, if both of you would not characterise gay sex as sexual deviant behaviour, how would you characterise it?

Lets say you both accept that homosexuality is innate, why would God put a man or woman in such a position in this life, when hetros all around us are getting married and fulfilling their sexual desire and having their own family? Seems like a bit of a mean thing to do.

I think when it comes to using the word 'wrong' in sexual relations, it's not much of a push to assume the detractor is thinking 'deviancy'. From what I have seen , evangelicals have be the most voicerious against homosexuality. And quite viciously expressed too.

@solodeogloria , is your sole objection to gay sex simply that it can only be conducted outside of Christian marriage ?

Absolam

learn_more wrote: »

So, if both of you would not characterise gay sex as sexual deviant behaviour, how would you characterise it?

Personally I'd characterise it as homosexual behaviour, that's what it is, why would I characterise it as anything else?

learn_more wrote: »

Lets say you both accept that homosexuality is innate, why would God put a man or woman in such a position in this life, when hetros all around us are getting married and fulfilling their sexual desire and having their own family? Seems like a bit of a mean thing to do.

In which case your concept of God may well be fundamentally different from the Christian concept of God? In the Christian view, God is love, so doesn't do mean things. That being a given, it's obviously your perception that's at fault; Something seems like a mean thing to do that cannot be, therefore it's the 'seeming' that's the issue.

learn_more wrote: »

I think when it comes to using the word 'wrong' in sexual relations, it's not much of a push to assume the detractor is thinking 'deviancy'. From what I have seen , evangelicals have be the most voicerious against homosexuality. And quite viciously expressed too

Nevertheless, if you say homosexual behaviour is wrong, you're not saying homosexuals are sexual deviants. Attacking someone for what you think they're thinking, well, that seems like a bit of a mean thing to do. Wouldn't you say?

solodeogloria

learn_more wrote: »

So, if both of you would not characterise gay sex as sexual deviant behaviour, how would you characterise it?

Good morning!

I would characterise it as the Bible describes it in respect to God. I would characterise my own sin in the very same way. It doesn't matter a jot as to how I would describe it. It matters how God describes it. I don't consider it any different to any other sexual failure that I commit or that anyone else may commit.

The key point is repenting of our failures and trusting in our perfect Saviour Jesus Christ for forgiveness at the same time.

learn_more wrote: »

Lets say you both accept that homosexuality is innate, why would God put a man or woman in such a position in this life, when hetros all around us are getting married and fulfilling their sexual desire and having their own family? Seems like a bit of a mean thing to do.

There are many people who don't fulfil their sexual desires in that way. There are lots of single straight people in our churches like me who know that God asks them to remain celibate.

Mind you I think my sexuality is fulfilled in a different way. My being celibate does fulfil my sexuality because it tells me that my hope is primarily in Jesus and in His return and that this relationship will be altogether better than any relationship I can have on this earth.

learn_more wrote: »

I think when it comes to using the word 'wrong' in sexual relations, it's not much of a push to assume the detractor is thinking 'deviancy'. From what I have seen , evangelicals have be the most voicerious against homosexuality. And quite viciously expressed too.

The Bible doesn't use that language. Therefore I don't use it. I would consider any sexual sin of mine on the same basis.

learn_more wrote: »

@solodeogloria , is your sole objection to gay sex simply that it can only be conducted outside of Christian marriage ?

No. It's simpler than that. God says no and He knows far better than we do about how to live well in His world.

That is the bottom line for me. I need God to keep changing my heart to say no to my temptations and to have a zero tolerance of things that He says no to in His Word for that reason.

Despite all the attempts to say that God expects more of certain people, this just isn't true. He expects that we change. That looks different for every person but it involves sacrifice.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

learn_more wrote: »

So, if both of you would not characterise gay sex as sexual deviant behaviour, how would you characterise it?

'Deviant' is not a word I would normally use (unless I'm talking about Donald Trump). But i think you just made a bait and switch.

There's a difference between saying someone is a 'sexual deviant' (which was the unwarranted accusation by Aloiysius) and describing a behaviour as being deviant. Having said that, I have not used he word 'deviant' in regards to homosexuality either as directed towards an individual or their actions.

I would characterise 'gay sex' as falling short of God's will for the life of a Christian. That, for the Christian, is what we call 'sin'.

Of course, as far as non-Christians are concerned, what they choose to do sexually (providing it's all consensual) is non of my business, and of no interest to me.