Saved Homosexual???

[Tennisbuff]

Just to start things off, I am not a homosexual. I was simply wondering if it was possible for a homosexual to be saved. I believe that the only qualification for salvation is to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can't a homosexual believe in this???

[Morpheus]

i agree with you. though i strongly believe that homosexuality is a sin before god, there is no dissonance between one possessing salvation by believing what you mentioned in your post, and giving into the natural sinful desire that leads to homosexual acts. i think it would be similar to someone being saved via belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of jesus christ, yet still unfortunately giving into the sinful desire of gluttony.

[Bib Lit Major]

Actually, I think that salvation is dependent on a new nature that we recieved through faith, that, though not yet perfect, is in the active process of rooting out all sin, through the help of the Holy Spirit. I might elaborate later, but heres a few Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Revelation 21:8
8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Of course we are to love someone who is a homosexual, but I don't believe that one can be a practicing, unrepentant (which means not turning from their sins) homosexual and be saved at the same time. If they repent and resist the temptation to come back to the old way of life and have faith in Christ, then they are saved.

I also don't have a double standard, I say the same of those who are not married, though straight, and are engaged in unrepentant sexual acts.

As far as the sinful nature, it is at war with the Spirit. The question is who will win?

Romans 8:5-17
5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation-but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs-heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

I know this might be a touchy issue, and I don't want to sound callous, but this is what I believe the Bible teaches.

[wwatts]

I think the question lies in whether someone is repentant or not. If a professing homesexual wants to stop being a homesexual but doesn't, that is still enough for repentance. Some other's think that if you want to do something, then you just do it and that's that. I don't believe that though. I think that when you are saved you are free from all sin in the eyes of God since he sees you at all times, but from your viewpoint you are not freed from all sin until you get to heaven.

[AtheistArchon]

- I think worrying about someone else's sexual habits is a sign of slight paranoia. This includes god, if we're to believe he spends the amount of time that he does watching people in their bedrooms.

- *shrug*

[Bib Lit Major]

Today @ 09:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118309#post118309)
wwatts:

I think the question lies in whether someone is repentant or not. If a professing homesexual wants to stop being a homesexual but doesn't, that is still enough for repentance. Some other's think that if you want to do something, then you just do it and that's that. I don't believe that though. I think that when you are saved you are free from all sin in the eyes of God since he sees you at all times, but from your viewpoint you are not freed from all sin until you get to heaven.

What is the definition you have for repentance? It appears you are saying that wanting to stop means you are repentant. If so, let me know so I can dialogue with you.

Today @ 10:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118358#post118358)
AtheistArchon:

- I think worrying about someone else's sexual habits is a sign of slight paranoia. This includes god, if we're to believe he spends the amount of time that he does watching people in their bedrooms.

- *shrug*

Of course, if your everywhere at once and can see all things, you can't help but "watch people in their bedrooms." :huh: I know you weren't talking about that, but I thought I'd bring it up.

[wwatts]

What is the definition you have for repentance? It appears you are saying that wanting to stop means you are repentant. If so, let me know so I can dialogue with you.


I think repentance is a heart felt want to stop doing an action. Maybe you can give a better definition.

[Pilgrim]

and a sorrow for having participated in the action to begin with.

[Bill the Cat]

May I?

There are three Greek words used in the New Testament to denote repentance.
(1.) The verb metamelomai is used of a change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with reference to the repentance of Judas (Mat_27:3).
(2.) Metanoeo, meaning to change one's mind and purpose, as the result of after knowledge.
(3.) This verb, with the cognate noun metanoia, is used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and life, to which remission of sin is promised.
Evangelical repentance consists of (1) a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness; (2) an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ; (3) an actual hatred of sin (Psa_119:128; Job_42:5, Job_42:6; 2Co_7:10) and turning from it to God; and (4) a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments.
The true penitent is conscious of guilt (Psa_51:4, Psa_51:9), of pollution (Psa_51:5, Psa_51:7, Psa_51:10), and of helplessness (Psa_51:11; Psa_109:21, Psa_109:22). Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Psa_51:1; Psa_130:4).

Easton's Bible Dictionary


The term שׁוּב, shūbh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man's turning away from sin to righteousness (Deu_4:30; Neh_1:9; Psa_7:12; Jer_3:14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man (Exo_32:12; Jos_7:26). It is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Psa_85:4). When the term is translated by “return” it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man (1Sa_7:3; Psa_90:13 (both terms, nāḥam and shūbh; Isa_21:12; Isa_55:7). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are translated by “repent” and “return” (Eze_14:6; Hos_12:6; Jon_3:8).

ISBE

[wwatts]

Today @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118493#post118493)
Bill the Cat:

May I?

There are three Greek words used in the New Testament to denote repentance.
(1.) The verb metamelomai is used of a change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with reference to the repentance of Judas (Mat_27:3).
(2.) Metanoeo, meaning to change one's mind and purpose, as the result of after knowledge.
(3.) This verb, with the cognate noun metanoia, is used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and life, to which remission of sin is promised.
Evangelical repentance consists of (1) a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness; (2) an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ; (3) an actual hatred of sin (Psa_119:128; Job_42:5, Job_42:6; 2Co_7:10) and turning from it to God; and (4) a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments.
The true penitent is conscious of guilt (Psa_51:4, Psa_51:9), of pollution (Psa_51:5, Psa_51:7, Psa_51:10), and of helplessness (Psa_51:11; Psa_109:21, Psa_109:22). Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Psa_51:1; Psa_130:4).

Easton's Bible Dictionary


The term שׁוּב, shūbh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man's turning away from sin to righteousness (Deu_4:30; Neh_1:9; Psa_7:12; Jer_3:14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man (Exo_32:12; Jos_7:26). It is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Psa_85:4). When the term is translated by “return” it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man (1Sa_7:3; Psa_90:13 (both terms, nāḥam and shūbh; Isa_21:12; Isa_55:7). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are translated by “repent” and “return” (Eze_14:6; Hos_12:6; Jon_3:8).

ISBE

These are pretty awesome definitions. I would agree with them, as they don't say that someone can't do that same sin that they are repentant of, again.

[Bib Lit Major]

06-05-2003 @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118518#post118518)
wwatts:



These are pretty awesome definitions. I would agree with them, as they don't say that someone can't do that same sin that they are repentant of, again.

I agree with Bill the Cat, but wwatts, they do say that someone can't continually sin the same sin. If someone slips, God will forgive them if they repent. However, heartfelt want to change is experienced by everyone on the planet at least once. Does this mean they're saved? According to these definitions of repentance that Bill has brought up, no one can be a saved practicing homosexual. In other words, a person can be a saved former homosexual. They may struggle with temptation to give in, but if they are truly repentant, they're not given over to the sin. Someone who has repented from pornography is not looking at pornography everyday, every week, every other month, etc. If they do look at pornography, they will be forgiven if they repent. Pornography is mainly a thing of the past to someone who has repented of it. They may struggle with the temptation to look at it, but they are no longer the slaves of pornography.

[wwatts]

I agree with Bill the Cat, but wwatts, they do say that someone can't continually sin the same sin.
I would agree with that, as long as God is the only one that determines the difference between someone doing the sin again and continually, doing the sin again.

If I was forced to try to make this distinction, I would say that anyone with even in the slightest want to stop doing something bad is repentant.

[Bib Lit Major]

Today @ 11:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120286#post120286)
wwatts:


I would agree with that, as long as God is the only one that determines the difference between someone doing the sin again and continually, doing the sin again.

If I was forced to try to make this distinction, I would say that anyone with even in the slightest want to stop doing something bad is repentant.

It's fairly easy to tell if someone is continually doing the sin or not... You're making this too complex. Merely wanting to stop doesn't mean you're repentant. If a sin dominates someone's life then they're not repentant, because they haven't actually changed, which in reality is the definition of repentance.

[Edit: All due respect, wwatts, but I agree with the idea that God ultimately decides, but you can tell if someone hasn't repented of sins which are outward in nature, i.e., aren't merely in the mind, but are in the physical realm, like homosexuality or pornography. They will not stop the sin. It will still remain a part of their life. One can't tell whether they want to stop or not, but one can tell if they have repented.]

[wwatts]

I think this really is a topic for the religion 101 forum, but oh well.


It's fairly easy to tell if someone is continually doing the sin or not... You're making this too complex. Merely wanting to stop doesn't mean you're repentant.

I think it does. Lets get into some premises/conclusions and try to make this somewhat philosphical :P Maybe we don't hold the same premises.

1. Repenting of all sin is necessary to be saved
2. When someone repent's of a sin, they stop doing that sin
3. Therefore when someone is saved, they stop doing all sins.

If this is valid then (3) is necessarily the case. I don't hold (2).

www.dictionary.com

sanctification

\Sanc`ti*fi*ca"tion\, n. [L. sanctificatio: cf. F. sanctification.] 1. The act of sanctifying or making holy; the state of being sanctified or made holy; esp. (Theol.), the act of God's grace by which the affections of men are purified, or alienated from sin and the world, and exalted to a supreme love to God; also, the state of being thus purified or sanctified.


4. After someone is saved, they go through a process of santification
5. Santification includes the taking away of sin.
6. Therefore, after someone is saved, they go through a process of taking away of sin.

You may not agree with (5), but if you do, I think (3) and (6) are mutually exclusive.


If a sin dominates someone's life then they're not repentant, because they haven't actually changed, which in reality is the definition of repentance.


Let me try to see if I understand what you are saying.

1) If repentance occurs a change occurs
2) At the point when someone goes from wanting to do a sin, to not wanting to do a sin, a change doesn't occur.
3) Therefore, at the point when someone goes from wanting to do a sin, to not wanting to do a sin, repentance does not occur.

I deny (2).

When I think of this argument for some reason I think of gluttony. There are so many people (that I believe are saved) that want to stop eating so much, but don't. This is not an argument for or against the 'repentance = stopping sinning', it's just an observation.

I think if I were to hold the view that 'repentance = stopping sinning', I would be sure to always say 'repentance = stopping to continually sin'. So many times, people want to just say that repent means or includes stopping sinning. The most I think we could say is that repent means to stop sinning so much. I don't even say that. I would say that if someone has a heartfelt want to stop sinning, they will stop sinning so much, with the help of God.

[Bill the Cat]

wwyatts, well said!! I agree with what you said. However, when we truly want to stop something, we will find a way to do it. Want to change is the key. A true heartfelt desire to change will predicate the change itself. But to continue with no inkling of stopping the behavior is not repentance.

[Jacob]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120389#post120389)
wwatts:
1. Repenting of all sin is necessary to be saved
2. When someone repent's of a sin, they stop doing that sin
3. Therefore when someone is saved, they stop doing all sins.

If this is valid then (3) is necessarily the case. I don't hold (2).



wwatts,

Excellent synthesis of the issues.

Repentence is as clear as the clarity of our hearts & minds ... :hrm:
UH-OH. Well, maybe repentence isn't that muddy, but the practical act of how it works out often is that confusing...

Sometimes repentance is confused with the concept of brokeness. I think that one can truly repent of sin, yet brokeness of spirit is not always present. Another confusing dynamic is that of being Spirit filled upon repentance, some of the time. My experience has been that this is not something that I can "conjur up". I have, at times, pleaded for repentence, but been unable to realize it.

Isa 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.

Jacob

[Jacob]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120419#post120419)
Bill the Cat:

A true heartfelt desire to change will predicate the change itself. But to continue with no inkling of stopping the behavior is not repentance.

Exactly. When someone is hoping, planning, or still willing to act in the same way, viewing it as an acceptable or "just human" choice, they have not repented.

Jacob

[Bib Lit Major]

Yesterday @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120389#post120389)
wwatts:

I think this really is a topic for the religion 101 forum, but oh well.



I think it does. Lets get into some premises/conclusions and try to make this somewhat philosphical :P Maybe we don't hold the same premises.

1. Repenting of all sin is necessary to be saved
2. When someone repent's of a sin, they stop doing that sin
3. Therefore when someone is saved, they stop doing all sins.

If this is valid then (3) is necessarily the case. I don't hold (2).

I think I'm getting strawmanned (is that a word?)? :wink: The straw man may be due to my own lack of clarity. (BTW, have mercy on me if I screw up in some logical way as I will on you, especially because my specialty is dealing with biblical texts, not philosphy).

Repentance, first, of all known sins. Therefore, we need to re-write (1):

1*. Repenting of all known sin is necessary to be saved.

This, thus, excludes sins not known by the individual yet, but will be revealed in the process of santification. Number (2) should be re-written to:

2*. When someone repents of a sin, they stop being controlled by the sin and are no longer characterized by the sin.

I think we can both agree that someone who doesn't want to change is not repentant, therefore I used the word "controlled" to represent a state where someone wants to change but isn't able to stop. This doesn't mean that someone who is repentant is now unable to do that sin again. What it does mean is that they are no longer doing that sin because they have to, and that they don't do so with any regularity or much repetition, but are instead characterized by non-participation of that sin. (I think it is up to God to judge on persons who are bound by sin, but I don't think a person who wants to be free can truly be bound by a sin.)

Therefore, we should re-write the premises this way:

1*. Repenting of all known sin is necessary to be saved.
2*. When someone repents of a sin, they stop being controlled by sin and are no longer characterized by the sin.
3*. Therefore, when someone is saved, they stop being controlled by all known sins.

Comments?

www.dictionary.com

sanctification

\Sanc`ti*fi*ca"tion\, n. [L. sanctificatio: cf. F. sanctification.] 1. The act of sanctifying or making holy; the state of being sanctified or made holy; esp. (Theol.), the act of God's grace by which the affections of men are purified, or alienated from sin and the world, and exalted to a supreme love to God; also, the state of being thus purified or sanctified.


4. After someone is saved, they go through a process of santification
5. Santification includes the taking away of sin.
6. Therefore, after someone is saved, they go through a process of taking away of sin.

You may not agree with (5), but if you do, I think (3) and (6) are mutually exclusive.

Actually, I agree with (5), as well as that (3) and (6) are mutually exclusive. However, as I have now (3*), which is what I actually believe, they are not mutually exclusive, because, during the process of sanctification, more sins are revealed which need to be repented of.

Let me try to see if I understand what you are saying.

1) If repentance occurs a change occurs
2) At the point when someone goes from wanting to do a sin, to not wanting to do a sin, a change doesn't occur.
3) Therefore, at the point when someone goes from wanting to do a sin, to not wanting to do a sin, repentance does not occur.

I deny (2).

Again, this needs to be modified (sorry if I gave the wrong impression). (1) should probably be re-written to:

1*) If repentance occurs, an inward change occurs, which leads to an outward change.

(2) then, needs to be modified as follows:

2*) Mere change from wanting to sin to not wanting to sin without a following outward change is not saving repentance.

Thus, the new premise would be:

1*) If saving repentance occurs, an inward change occurs, which leads to an outward change.
2*) Mere change from wanting to sin to not wanting to sin without a following outward change is not saving repentance.
3*) Therefore, if a person does not exhibit an outward change, then that person has not experienced saving repentance.

[Edit: I mean "saving repentance" as repentance that leads to salvation. By "outward" I mean in reality, not only sins that are outward in nature, but also true change in sins of the heart and mind. Thus, going from wanting to be lustful to not wanting to be lustful (inward change) will result in the removal of the control of lust as well as the non-participation in lustful activities and thoughts (outward change). Perhaps I should have picked a better word.]

I think if I were to hold the view that 'repentance = stopping sinning', I would be sure to always say 'repentance = stopping to continually sin'. So many times, people want to just say that repent means or includes stopping sinning. The most I think we could say is that repent means to stop sinning so much. I don't even say that. I would say that if someone has a heartfelt want to stop sinning, they will stop sinning so much, with the help of God.

But is "not sinning so much," real repentance? After all, could a wife be expected to forgive her "repentant" husband who has cheated on her everyday for the past year, if he now only cheats on her every other day? How about once a year? Just a thought.

[wwatts]

Thats not really how arguments work, I think. You must deny my premises or the argument follows. I think you deny (1) and (2)

1. Repenting of all sin is necessary to be saved
2. When someone repent's of a sin, they stop doing that sin
3. Therefore when someone is saved, they stop doing all sins

As far as (1), you deny this and say that people only need to repent for known sins. I deny that. I think people need to have a heart-felt want to do Gods will in every area of their lives in order to be saved (repenting of *all* sin). This is even when they don't know what God's will is in every area of there lives. When they go against that will unknowingly, they sin, but they repent for it, since they want to be in God's will. Which brings up an interesting point, IMO sin is nothing but willfully going against God's will or plan for your life. Let me know what you think.

You deny (2) and say that people can continue to do that same sin, but as long as they are not controlled by that sin, it's OK. But that is the crux of the problem!

1*. Repenting of all known sin is necessary to be saved.
2*. When someone repents of a sin, they stop being controlled by sin and are no longer characterized by the sin.
3*. Therefore, when someone is saved, they stop being controlled by all known sins


I could agree with (2) and the rest of the argument and say someone that doesn't want to be gluttonous and is mentally trying to stop, is not controlled by it.

Our problem is ... what is 'being controlled by sin'? Do you believe that a christian can have a serious problem with sin? Do you believe a christian can struggle with sin? I do.

Maybe I can use an analogy effectively here. I think we have a 'how many beans does it take to make a bean pile' problem. We both agree that there is a such thing as a bean pile. I'm saying it probably takes more then three beans to make a bean pile. You are saying it takes only three. We both agree when we see 100,000 beans together that it is a bean pile.

The bean pile is continual sin or controlled sin.

I'm saying God has a standard for a 'bean pile' which is knowing a person's heart, and human beings don't know it, because it is relative to each person. They know beans (sin) and can detect when there is great sins (100,000 beans together), but have problems with borderline things ie 3 beans making a bean pile.

If I was forced to, I would say when someone says that they are a homosexual or gluttonous, *and* turns there face away from God and says I'm going to do what I want to do, *that* is continous sin (ie the 100,000 beans). It seems that you are saying that someone could say I've been gluttonous and have serious problem with it, but they want to stop, but when they don't (before they die) that's not good enough to be saved. Thats what I disagree with.

I think that I've beat that analogy to death :P

1*) If saving repentance occurs, an inward change occurs, which leads to an outward change.
2*) Mere change from wanting to sin to not wanting to sin without a following outward change is not saving repentance.
3*) Therefore, if a person does not exhibit an outward change, then that person has not experienced saving repentance.


I agree with the gist of this argument. The problem that you have is that a person could have gotten saved and did 100000001 inward and outward changes, but still have a problem with gluttony. My argument allows for the position that every single sin does not have to have an outward change until death, when all sin is removed. So you would have to change your argument to something like this:

1*) If saving repentance occurs, an inward change occurs for every last known sin and an outward change occurs for every last known sin
2*) Merely changing from wanting to do every last known sin to not wanting to do every last known sin does not exhibit an outward change.
3*) Therefore, if a person merely changes from wanting to do every last known sin to not wanting to do every last known sin then that person has not experienced saving repentance.

If this is the case then I deny (1) and say that the change that needs to occur would simply be some outward change, but not 1 change for every sin. Maybe that is where our disagreement lies.


After all, could a wife be expected to forgive her "repentant" husband who has cheated on her everyday for the past year, if he now only cheats on her every other day? How about once a year? Just a thought

You can forgive anyone for anything they have done to you, even if they aren't repentant. Forgiveness doesn't have to be a give to get. You can forgive someone as a gift to them, and not expect anything back. My point being is that whatever level of repentance one person has, it's not necessarily the case that another person should not forgive them. The other person may forgive them based on how repentant they are, but that's their decision. Now the relationship between the two people might be based on how the unrepentant person acts ... but thats different.

[Bib Lit Major]

Today @ 12:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121261#post121261)
wwatts:

Thats not really how arguments work, I think. You must deny my premises or the argument follows.

As I said, philosophy is not my specialty, please forgive me. However, it seems hard to argue when, before I am able to present my own arguments, the cards are stacked against me.

I think you deny (1) and (2)

1. Repenting of all sin is necessary to be saved
2. When someone repent's of a sin, they stop doing that sin
3. Therefore when someone is saved, they stop doing all sins

As far as (1), you deny this and say that people only need to repent for known sins. I deny that. I think people need to have a heart-felt want to do Gods will in every area of their lives in order to be saved (repenting of *all* sin).

But on an individual level, one can only repent of sins they know they have. I agree they need to want to do God's will in their whole lives. I am, however, addressing sins on an individual basis. Thus, a person cannot repent for, say, pride if they do not know that they have a problem with pride. In order to be saved, one needs to repent of all their known sins and be willing to undergo the process of sanctification, which is the process of being in line with God's will.

This is even when they don't know what God's will is in every area of there lives. When they go against that will unknowingly, they sin, but they repent for it, since they want to be in God's will. Which brings up an interesting point, IMO sin is nothing but willfully going against God's will or plan for your life. Let me know what you think.

According to this definition of sin, then, you must have your will educated as to what sin is. That then means that someone who has access to a Bible, yet doesn't read it (willful ignorance), and thus, does not find out that homosexuality is a sin, is not sinning when they commit homosexual acts.

You deny (2) and say that people can continue to do that same sin, but as long as they are not controlled by that sin, it's OK. But that is the crux of the problem!

No I am saying that a person who is repentant is not bound by that sin and is, in fact, not participatory in that sin. If they fall from temptation into that sin, then they need to repent again. However, a person is not really repentant, if they have to repent, for instance, 5 times a week for the same sin.

I could agree with (2) and the rest of the argument and say someone that doesn't want to be gluttonous and is mentally trying to stop, is not controlled by it.

They are controlled if they want to stop but are unable to stop. Thus, they can mentally try to stop all they want but if they are unable, then they are controlled.

Our problem is ... what is 'being controlled by sin'? Do you believe that a christian can have a serious problem with sin? Do you believe a christian can struggle with sin? I do.

I believe a person can use their will to turn to God in their heart and be empowered to astop. I don't believe a Christian can struggle with a sin towhich they have the remedy. They may say they are "struggling" but stating is not necessarily factual.

Maybe I can use an analogy effectively here. I think we have a 'how many beans does it take to make a bean pile' problem. We both agree that there is a such thing as a bean pile. I'm saying it probably takes more then three beans to make a bean pile. You are saying it takes only three. We both agree when we see 100,000 beans together that it is a bean pile.

The bean pile is continual sin or controlled sin.

I'm saying God has a standard for a 'bean pile' which is knowing a person's heart, and human beings don't know it, because it is relative to each person. They know beans (sin) and can detect when there is great sins (100,000 beans together), but have problems with borderline things ie 3 beans making a bean pile.

Assuming that a person's heart can be against a sin, but is not freed from the sin, your analogy works. It has yet to be shown though. In fact, Jesus points out that there is indeed a way to tell what a person's heart is like (though obviously not perfectly):

34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
Matt 12:34-37 (NIV)

You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart , and these make a man `unclean.' 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man `unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him `unclean.'
Matt 15:18-20 (NIV)

In other words, what is on the inside will come out.

If I was forced to, I would say when someone says that they are a homosexual or gluttonous, *and* turns there face away from God and says I'm going to do what I want to do, *that* is continous sin (ie the 100,000 beans). It seems that you are saying that someone could say I've been gluttonous and have serious problem with it, but they want to stop, but when they don't (before they die) that's not good enough to be saved. Thats what I disagree with. I think that I've beat that analogy to death :P

The idea that a child of God has to struggle with sin and is always giving in is unbiblical in my opinion.

I agree with the gist of this argument. The problem that you have is that a person could have gotten saved and did 100000001 inward and outward changes, but still have a problem with gluttony. My argument allows for the position that every single sin does not have to have an outward change until death, when all sin is removed. So you would have to change your argument to something like this:

1*) If saving repentance occurs, an inward change occurs for every last known sin and an outward change occurs for every last known sin
2*) Merely changing from wanting to do every last known sin to not wanting to do every last known sin does not exhibit an outward change.
3*) Therefore, if a person merely changes from wanting to do every last known sin to not wanting to do every last known sin then that person has not experienced saving repentance.

If this is the case then I deny (1) and say that the change that needs to occur would simply be some outward change, but not 1 change for every sin. Maybe that is where our disagreement lies.

I think that anyone who knows gluttony is a sin and is willfully doing that sin is not repentant. Perhaps we have been arguing the same thing? However, I don't think we can call someone "repentant" who is still doing the same sins over and over.

You can forgive anyone for anything they have done to you, even if they aren't repentant. Forgiveness doesn't have to be a give to get. You can forgive someone as a gift to them, and not expect anything back. My point being is that whatever level of repentance one person has, it's not necessarily the case that another person should not forgive them. The other person may forgive them based on how repentant they are, but that's their decision. Now the relationship between the two people might be based on how the unrepentant person acts ... but thats different.

So you can have a different relationship with God and still be saved? Forgiveness, from my understanding of the biblical text, is conditional on repentance.

Maybe I've cluttered this up too much, and m,isunderstood you. If that is the case, I apologize. I am a mere amateur with philosophy.

[wwatts]

No I am saying that a person who is repentant is not bound by that sin and is, in fact, not participatory in that sin. If they fall from temptation into that sin, then they need to repent again. However, a person is not really repentant, if they have to repent, for instance, 5 times a week for the same sin.


Consider this: A sin can be a bad thought. You are saying that a saved person can't even struggle with the same bad thought 5 times in a week! I would think even Martin Luther the protestant reformer is in hell then, because he struggled with many sinfull thoughts, by his own admission.

The crux of our disagreement is still the pile of beans. You are saying 5 times a week, I'm saying it's got to be WAY WAY WAY more then that, but only God knows for sure.

Assuming that a person's heart can be against a sin, but is not freed from the sin, your analogy works. It has yet to be shown though. In fact, Jesus points out that there is indeed a way to tell what a person's heart is like (though obviously not perfectly):

34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
Matt 12:34-37 (NIV)

You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart , and these make a man `unclean.' 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man `unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him `unclean.'
Matt 15:18-20 (NIV)



Well I think that these verses don't support your view. I think there are other verses that would support your view better, but here it surely doesn't mean that a man can't have any evil thoughts and be saved. Likewise for any other sin. I think that we keep coming back to the same principles. The difference is someone committing a murder, and being a murderer. People nowadays think that if someone kills 1 person, they are a murderer. Well then King David, a 'man after Gods own heart', is a murderer and by this definition is definitily in Hell! I'm just trying to say that belief isn't biblical.



The idea that a child of God has to struggle with sin and is always giving in is unbiblical in my opinion.


But that statement is way too ambiguous. You should have said, 'the idea that a child of God that has to struggle with numerous sins, refrains from some, but not all, but is always giving in to some sin in this lifetime, is unbiblical in my opinion'. If you said that, I would disagree with you.

I would say that we are always waring with the flesh, and sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. I disagree with your idea of santification being only in sins that a person doesn't know about yet. I don't think the process of sanctification is very useful then, since every time I have heard of someone refraining from doing a sin especially thought-sins, they knew they had a problem with it and what it was before they did it.

I think that anyone who knows gluttony is a sin and is willfully doing that sin is not repentant.

A great deal of overweight pastors are going to hell then, by your definition of 'willfully'. If every sin was conveniently outward, like gluttony, then I doubt we would see anyone that would go to heaven, given so strict a view.


Perhaps we have been arguing the same thing? However, I don't think we can call someone "repentant" who is still doing the same sins over and over.


We are still discussing the bean pile dillema pretty much. You feel that you know what the minimum amount to make a bean pile is in God's eyes, and I'm saying you probably don't.


So you can have a different relationship with God and still be saved? Forgiveness, from my understanding of the biblical text, is conditional on repentance.


No, my point being is that whatever level of repentance one person has, it's not necessarily the case that another person should not forgive them.

You said in your previous post 'could a wife be expected to forgive her "repentant" husband' ... and I stopped right there and said a person can forgive another person no matter what 'level' or how 'repentant' they seemed.

Basically I'm saying the sin component of repentance is a grey area and you are saying no, its black and white. I brought up the fact that the amount of times a person can do the same sin is unknown (and still be saved), and you said that a person can't do the same sin 5 times in one week.



1*) If saving repentance occurs, an inward change occurs for every last known sin and an outward change occurs for every last known sin
2*) Merely changing from wanting to do every last known sin to not wanting to do every last known sin does not exhibit an outward change.
3*) Therefore, if a person merely changes from wanting to do every last known sin to not wanting to do every last known sin then that person has not experienced saving repentance.


If this is the case then I deny (1) and say that the change that needs to occur would simply be some outward change, but not 1 change for every sin. Maybe that is where our disagreement lies. ”



I think that anyone who knows gluttony is a sin and is willfully doing that sin is not repentant. Perhaps we have been arguing the same thing? However, I don't think we can call someone "repentant" who is still doing the same sins over and over.


So is that argument that I gave your view? Which premise do you deny?


Maybe I've cluttered this up too much, and m,isunderstood you. If that is the case, I apologize. I am a mere amateur with philosophy.

No, your not cluttering this up, I think I understand your view and you understand mine. I am just trying to show you the unattractive premises you must hold, given your view.

[Jillyn'Toast]

Well, I didn't read every post here, so I don't know if I'll be repeating anything or what. But what I believe is that homosexuality is a sin like any other. Jesus said in John 8:34-35 that anyone who sins is a slave to sin. A slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. Any sin is separation from God, and if you are separated from God you cannot be saved.

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 12:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121452#post121452)
Jill Pole:

Well, I didn't read every post here, so I don't know if I'll be repeating anything or what. But what I believe is that homosexuality is a sin like any other. Jesus said in John 8:34-35 that anyone who sins is a slave to sin. A slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. Any sin is separation from God, and if you are separated from God you cannot be saved.

Jill--I think you're right. This thread (and others like it on the topic) seem to be rehashing the same nuances over and over again. You didn't miss much by not reading it--way to cut to the heart of the issue.

[Bib Lit Major]

Yesterday @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121597#post121597)
quetzalphoenix:



Jill--I think you're right. This thread (and others like it on the topic) seem to be rehashing the same nuances over and over again. You didn't miss much by not reading it--way to cut to the heart of the issue.

I agree, this has gotten way too long winded and is not getting anywhere. PErhaps we could discuss biblical exegesis of passages concerning repentance, but then we would be better suited in the biblical exegesis forum with the topic being repentance, not a specified sin. I think my first post was probably my best and I probably should've left it at that. Thanks for the discussion wwatts, but I am not able to keep up this kind of discussion especially when there is no real clarity (at least as far as I'm concerned!). :)

[Feet Of Clay]

God's grace lies is the realization that failure is the only way to succeed. The primary stipulation of this concept is that failure only occurs when there exists something to fall short of. Resignation to failure is incapable of understanding Grace, because failing is what it meant to do. We all sin, we will all sin until the day we die. To resign yourself to sin is to say "Jesus, your salvation was incapable of enabling me to crucify my penchant for (Insert Sin)." The real question is can people actively engaged in homosexual practices be "saved as if by fire"? I think that one cannot lose their salvation, but to consistently trample on the Grace of Jesus would make me doubt if they ever truly understood it. I hold that it is possible, but very unlikely.

-Zm-

[Evangel]

God doesn't make you do anything that you do not want to do. If you want to be homosexual, you can be. As to whether or not homosexuals can be saved? i think so. but are they saved if they are homosexual? that is debatable.

if you believe in OSAS than you must say that all homosexual Christians are saved. that also means all rapists, murderers, etc. are saved. they don't even have to repent their sins.

so in short if an unrepentant homosexual is saved than so is an unrepetant murderer. when i say murderer, i mean someone that is murdering people as often as the homosexual has sex with a member of their gender (so like a few a week).


heres my thinking:

wwats is correct in that you must want to repent. bill the cat also provided a very nice definition.

if repentance requires you to turn away from sin than most certainly turning towards sin is not going to be repentant.



i would like to see a thread on REPENTANCE. is anyone going to start one?

i also think this whole homosexuality thing is fired by those that wish to make Christians look bad, apparently having morals is being "intolerant" these days. MOST Christians know the fate of homosexuals, murderers, rapists, thiefs, liars, etc. of course SOME Christians also have a contorted view of Salvation and what it really is.

[Queen]

:rant: How can someone deny who they are? I mean, should we live a life that is not ours and be unhappy with that choice, because we might burn in Hell forever? I can not believe that God would be that cruel! And I refuse to believe that.

Hell is here on earth. We people make things too difficult for each other. We are not the ones that can look inside a human heart and see what is really going on.....How can we be so darn judgemental towards each other. NOBODY is living a perfect life...Nobody

end of rant:blush:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Bill the Cat]

Queen,

One can have the feelings and not act. I have a problem with lust, as most men do. Because we are called to crucify our flesh, we don't act on that lust. We conform to the image of Christ and the Biblical model of family. Anything short of that is living after the flesh, not the Spirit.

You say you have bisexual feelings, but are you monogamous to your husband? Why? Do you "crucify" those feelings to live up to the oath you made with him?

[Queen]

Hi Bill,

Do you "crucify" those feelings to live up to the oath you made with him?

Nope, I do it, because I know that it will hurt him.....He is quite conservative. I don't want to hurt anybody.......but I don't know if I can keep that 'vow'. Life is inpredictable and I am not blind. But I want to keep my promise, he knows that. He also knows that I am bisexual. He has no problem with it. He respects it, but he does not want me to act upon it....so I won't. Just a simple promise between two people

Lust is a normal biological feeling. Men have lust. They say men can make love with out loving their partner. Well, women can do that as well. If it is someone you feel you can trust and like (their looks or whatever), what is wrong with a healthy dosage of lust? I know I have fantasies and I experience the pleasure of those fantasies.....they are pure lust and I don't see anything wrong with it. I am just who I am.

I guess that I am very openminded when it comes to sex and sexual orientation. I was always that open. You have no idea how much I weigh my words when I talk about it here....out of respect for people that find it offensive. I just tell it like it is.....quite shocking for many people, but it is just a vital part of our lives.

:egad:

And sexual orientation has nothing to do with being "sinful" or not. It is just who we are......it is just a part of our personality.....I can not shut my feelings down. My feelings, emotions, spirit, mid and soul make me to who I am...and I express that with my body.

It is just my opinion.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 07:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=297261#post297261)
Queen:

Hi Bill,



Nope, I do it, because I know that it will hurt him.....He is quite conservative. I don't want to hurt anybody.......but I don't know if I can keep that 'vow'. Life is inpredictable and I am not blind. But I want to keep my promise, he knows that. He also knows that I am bisexual. He has no problem with it. He respects it, but he does not want me to act upon it....so I won't. Just a simple promise between two people

And because you admittedly do not live the Biblical standard (I'm not saying it's better or worse, just different) this is what you value. It's how you choose to live the promise. I know my wife is addicted to food. I don't drill her on it or call her sinful, but I still don't like it too much.

Lust is a normal biological feeling. Men have lust. They say men can make love with out loving their partner. Well, women can do that as well. If it is someone you feel you can trust and like (their looks or whatever), what is wrong with a healthy dosage of lust? I know I have fantasies and I experience the pleasure of those fantasies.....they are pure lust and I don't see anything wrong with it. I am just who I am.

But you choose not to act on those fantasies, correct? Because you value the promise you made and don't want to hurt your husband. Without the framework of the Bible directing your relationship, this is what you have. Respect for his feelings.

I guess that I am very openminded when it comes to sex and sexual orientation. I was always that open. You have no idea how much I weigh my words when I talk about it here....out of respect for people that find it offensive. I just tell it like it is.....quite shocking for many people, but it is just a vital part of our lives.

True as procreation is what sustains the human race. Once again, the framework of the Word is where we differ.

And sexual orientation has nothing to do with being "sinful" or not. It is just who we are......it is just a part of our personality.....I can not shut my feelings down. My feelings, emotions, spirit, mid and soul make me to who I am...and I express that with my body.

I don't think I said that it was sinful in my last post. It is living after the flesh according to the framework of the Bible.

It is just my opinion.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

Always here to help. I hope I am sounding respectful and not accusatory.

[Queen]

Yikes...I had pc trouble

[Queen]

Bill,

You don't sound accusatory.....well, just a bit :wink:

I believe that we all have our "dark" side. (Something for Jinx the Jedi... :tongue: ). But I truly believe that we can not point the finger at people for not acting ' biblical'. I know enough homosexual people who are very religious, even read in their church and pray. But they have choosen not to deny themselfs.

I have choosen to be loyal to my husband, how hard it may be. But I made that choice before I realized I was bisexual (well, I've always realized it....but...hmm....I finally came out of the closet a few years ago). I don't know what I will do when I fall in love with a woman.....I hope I will be able to be strong, but I am not perfect...the flesh is sometimes weak...

Oh yea...Talking about this I thought of this:

Matthew 7:1 and 7:2

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

We can discuss about this subject for hours, but I think we always have a degree of disagreement.....I just hope that one day people realize that homosexual and bisexual are as normal or insane as heterosexuals...

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[BohemianXQueen]

:nc: Ok, first of all, everyone "sins". Everyone lusts, or feels greed, or is gluttonous, or something along those lines, so it's not like being homosexual is a 'bigger' or 'worse' sin. And, if god made everyone and everything, then he must have made gays also.

[Queen]

Hey BohemianXQueen,

* Off Topic You sound familiar! :wink: I wonder why.... :lol:

And on topic......I agree.......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 07:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=302842#post302842)
BohemianXQueen:

:nc: Ok, first of all, everyone "sins". Everyone lusts, or feels greed, or is gluttonous, or something along those lines, so it's not like being homosexual is a 'bigger' or 'worse' sin. And, if god made everyone and everything, then he must have made gays also.

Well of course He made gays, he just didn't make them gay. Gays, murderers, adulterers, liars, gluttons, and all manner of sinners are spoken against in the Bible. It's whether or not one is repentant of that sin. I am a repentant sex addict. I allow God to have that sin and remove it from my life. Do I struggle with it still? Sure I do. I just don't let it run the way I am in Christ.

[Pilgrim]

This argument of "God made me" always seems to miss the point that creation now, as we know it, is a fallen one. Our lusts and urges are not the so called "good" creation we started with.

The fall means that even our sense of gender has been effected. We are fallen biologically as well as spiritually, thus we have death where as Adam and Eve did not.

[Harlequin Solit]

Oh me oh my. We do have some brainwashed individuals.


You can't be 'cured' of your sexuality. You're like that since you were born or at least since being an infant, whether it's repressed or not.

God made me a masochist. You think I don't know all of this a teensy bit more than most of you? That's why I'll never bend down and praise him. ¬_¬

[Bill the Cat]

11-22-2003 @ 10:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308482#post308482)
Harlequin Solit:

Oh me oh my. We do have some brainwashed individuals.


You can't be 'cured' of your sexuality. You're like that since you were born or at least since being an infant, whether it's repressed or not.



Sorry, you have no scientific evidence of this, so your opinion.

[Queen]

I found this on the Net. The poem moved me to tears:

Sexual Orientation

(information derived from talkcity)


My father asked if I am gay.

I asked, "Does it matter?"

He said, "No. Not really."

I said, "Yes."

He said, "Get out of my life!"

I guess it mattered.




My boss asked if I am gay.

I asked, "Does it matter?"

He said, "No. Not really."

I said, "Yes."

He said, "You're fired, faggot!"

I guess it mattered.



My friend asked if I am gay.

I asked, "Does it matter?"

He said, "Not really."

I said, "Yes."

He said, "Don't call me your friend!"

I guess it mattered.




My lover asked, "Do you love me?"

I asked, "Does it matter?"

He said, "Yes."

I told him I loved him.

He said, "Let me hold you in my arms."

For the first time something mattered.



My god asked me, "Do you love yourself?"

I said, "How can I love myself? I'm gay."

He said, "That's what I made you. Nothing else will ever matter again."


-Anonymous High School Student



There are many things about you and your life that you have chosen. Your friends, your favorite band, the shirt you put on this morning. But there are also lots of things about you that were decided before you were born. Your skin color, your last name, whether you're right handed or left handed, how tall you will be. And your sexual orientation.

We know that now.

But in the past people thought of homosexuality as everything from a sin, to a mental illness, to a "life style" choice. Sexual orientation is not any of those things.

People are born either heterosexual (sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex), or homosexual (sexually attracted to people of the same sex), or bi-sexual (sexually attracted to both sexes).

Why can't we accept gays?

In the U.S. there are about 10 million homosexuals - gays (men attracted to men) and lesbians (women attracted to women). Millions more live in every country on earth. Most of them are not living openly as homosexuals because society still does not accept them. Why do we have such a hard time accepting gays or lesbians? Because of ignorance.

Most intolerance comes from ignorance.

A fear of the unknown. A fear of something different. Some people do not believe that we are born with our sexual orientation. They are afraid that if children read about homosexuality or get to know someone who is homosexual, those kids will want to become homosexual themselves.

This makes no sense.

Consider the verbal and physical abuse some openly gay and lesbian teens get at school. According to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Network:
28% of gay and lesbian teens drop out of school

Every 35 minutes there is a teen suicide attempt related to sexual identity

89% of gay youth abuse drugs

Not to mention the anger and rejection they often face at home when they try to talk about their sexual feelings with their parents.

1 out of 4 gay teens is forced to leave home after coming out to parents; these kids swell the ranks of the homeless.

With these facts in mind, who in the world would "choose" to be gay?

Studies show that:

By far, most gays and lesbians have parents who are heterosexuals.

Gay parents are NOT any more likely to raise gay children.

Even if parents (who influence us more than we ever know) wanted to influence a child's sexual orientation, they couldn't. And neither can anyone else!

It's Not Easy Being... Different.

Adolescence is a time when being different in any way can be frightening. Knowing the kind of unfair treatment you are likely to get from many ignorant people makes being openly gay or lesbian even more frightening.

What about me?

If you suspect you are gay or lesbian, accepting this reality can be a painful, lonely, and confusing process. Sometimes you may feel like you are the only person in the world who has these feelings. You are worried that if you breathe a word to anyone, your whole world as you know it, family relationships, friendships could fall apart. Sometimes you might deny your feelings to yourself and lie to others as a way of being accepted. You may work very hard to act like everyone else, keeping an important part of yourself hidden.

Take a Chance.

As you begin to share this part of yourself with others perhaps you will feel less overwhelmed by your feelings. By preparing yourself for all the responses you are likely to get - from acceptance to rejection - you can begin the process of accepting your sexual orientation as one part of the complex and fascinating person you are.


Sexual orientation is only one part of who you are.

It is not your total identity. (Which is why sticking labels on people never works.)

You are still the same unique person you have always been. You still have all of your own skills, talents, and strengths.

Self-acceptance and your capacity to give and receive love, is vital no matter whom you choose to love.

"The real question is not whether you are gay or straight, but how you manage your relationships. It's who you are and how you feel about yourself that matters. Whether you love men or love women is, in the final analysis, not as important as the fact that you are able to love."

Rev. Robert H. Iles
Executive Director Marcliff Foundation

http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/9691/sexualorientation.html

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Harlequin Solit]

Today @ 01:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=311907#post311907)
Bill the Cat:



Sorry, you have no scientific evidence of this, so your opinion.


0_o

You didn't quite get the point. It's a scientific fact that you can't 'cure' your sexuality. I've done a lot of research.

[Bill the Cat]

Really?? I think there are a few folks at Exodus that would disagree. Research is one thing, real life is another. Neither are bad, but one real example is worth 5,000 studies.

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 04:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312396#post312396)
Queen:

I found this on the Net. The poem moved me to tears:



Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

Queen, I read this poem and article and it is full of unproven arguments and one outright lie. I know how much it bothers you to read posts like mine, but it must be said.

There are many things about you and your life that you have chosen. Your friends, your favorite band, the shirt you put on this morning. But there are also lots of things about you that were decided before you were born. Your skin color, your last name, whether you're right handed or left handed, how tall you will be. And your sexual orientation.

We know that now.


Unadulterated lie. Sorry, but there is no scientific proof that conclusively shows that sexual orientation is genetic. At best, neutral science has speculated it is a mixture of nature and nurture. But it's still speculation. There is no "gay gene" no matter how hard someone wants one to be there.

[Queen]

Okay, true, we are still looking for that scientific proof but why? Can't we just not accept the fact that people are born that way....that it is as much part of them as gender? They already have scientific proof for transexuals......a man trapped in a woman's body and vica versa..


Understanding Sexual Orientation

Your sexual orientation is an essential component of who you are. It's a part of your personality. It determines who you are romantically and sexually attracted to.

Heterosexuals are attracted to partners of the opposite sex, homosexuals are attracted to partners of the same sex and bisexuals are attracted to either sex. Everyday terms you may have heard are "straights" for heterosexuals, "gays" for male homosexuals and "lesbians" for female homosexuals.

WHAT DETERMINES SEXUAL ORIENTATION?

We know very little about how an individual's sexual orientation develops. Whether a person is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual usually is established before puberty and before he or she begins having sex. Sexual orientation may even be established before birth, like whether a person is born a male or a female.

While we don't know what determines sexual orientation, we do know that people do not necessarily maintain the same orientation throughout their lives. Some people are consistently attracted to people of the same sex for a long time and then fall in love with a person of the opposite sex. Others who have had only opposite-sex relationships may later fall in love with a same-sex partner.

Just as a person cannot force himself or herself to "fall in love" with a particular person, such changes are not a matter of "choice." Just like heterosexuals, homosexual males and females often fall in love and form lasting, loving, caring and committed relationships. When it comes to sexual activities, the only major difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that homosexuals don't engage in penile-vaginal intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. All other sexual feelings and activities can occur.

Girls and boys often experiment in sex play with friends of either gender during their preadolescent and early adolescent years. They may also have "sexy" dreams about either sex. Such experiences should not be interpreted as proof of any particular long-term, adult sexual orientation.

Thinking of a person's sexual orientation as falling somewhere along a continuum or line can help us understand what's going on. People who are exclusively heterosexual are at one end, while people who are exclusively homosexual are at the other. Most people are not at either extreme, however. They are toward the heterosexual end, but not at the very end.

Since a person's sexual orientation is not a matter of choice and its origin remains a mystery, we are well-advised to simply accept and respect both ourselves and others regardless of sexual orientation. While this may be difficult if you believe that homosexuality is "wrong," remember that treating someone with respect doesn't mean you have to accept everything he or she does. No one deserves to be rejected because of who or how they are. No one deserves to be rejected because of sexual orientation.

HOMOPHOBIA

Many people have an irrational fear of homosexuality. This fear, which is called homophobia, results in a dislike or even hatred of homosexuals. Such people are prejudiced and often are hostile toward lesbians and gays.

The causes of homophobia are as unclear and complex as the causes of other prejudices such as racism and sexism. We do know some of the characteristics of those with anti-homosexual views, however. In general, they think they do not personally know any homosexuals, have peers who display negative attitudes toward homosexuals, are less educated and have rigid ideas about appropriate roles for women and men. People who possess these traits are often vocal in their opposition to homosexuals as a way of announcing to the world that they are definitely heterosexual and that they expect everyone around them to be straight as well.

One of the reasons homophobia is so common is that a large majority of people do not believe that any of their friends or acquaintances are homosexual. As a result, their opinions about homosexuals are often based on stereotypes and myths. They haven't learned the facts about homosexuality. They don't realize that most homosexuals don't fit the stereotypes. They also don't realize that the odds are fairly high that someone they know is lesbian or gay.

Interestingly, some homosexuals themselves are homophobic. Their hatred often is directed toward gays and lesbians that match the negative stereotypes.

MYTHS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS

It is a myth that gays necessarily display feminine qualities and that lesbians necessarily display masculine ones. In fact, the term homosexual designates one's choice of sex partner, not general masculinity or femininity.

It is a myth that homosexuals are likely to be child molesters. In fact, 95 percent of all reported cases of child sexual abuse are committed by heterosexual men.

It is a myth that AIDS is a homosexual disease. In fact, heterosexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is more common than homosexual transmission in Africa. In addition, heterosexual transmission is increasing more rapidly than homosexual transmission in the United States.

It is a myth that homosexuality is a mental illness. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973.

It is a myth that all homosexuals are promiscuous (have many sex partners). In fact, many homosexuals are involved in long-term relationships with a single partner. Like heterosexuals, some homosexuals are promiscuous while others are not.

It is a myth that homosexuality is somehow "catching" and that a child can catch it from a teacher or other adult. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that being around homosexuals has any effect on one's own sexual orientation.

INTEGRITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Learning the facts about sexual orientation is the first step toward acting with sexual integrity. Resolving not to harm or ridicule others because of their sexual orientation is the second. While sexual orientation is important because it determines a person's choice of partner, it's only a small part of the total person. It is only one of many factors that influence his or her personality.

Regardless of sexual orientation, everyone deserves to be respected and treated fairly. Regardless of sexual orientation, everyone has an obligation to respect others and treat them fairly.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AUTHOR: Gary L. Hansen, Ph.D., Extension Specialist in Sociology, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky; and William W. Mallory, Fayette County Extension Agent for 4-H/Youth Development, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky.http://www.nnfr.org/adolsex/fact/adolsex_orient.html

I found this on the Net. It says a lot about homosexuality (and therefor also bisexuality IMHO)

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Harlequin Solit]

Yesterday @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315073#post315073)
Bill the Cat:

Really?? I think there are a few folks at Exodus that would disagree. Research is one thing, real life is another. Neither are bad, but one real example is worth 5,000 studies.

Repression and cures are differing things.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 06:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317582#post317582)
Harlequin Solit:



Repression and cures are differing things.

And who prae tell are you to tell them that they are only "repressing"? They firmly believe they are no longer homosexual. Heterosexuality is a reality for them. I have spoken to a few of the folks here in Richmond who are former gays and they are 100% sure they are no longer gay.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317431#post317431)
Queen:

Okay, true, we are still looking for that scientific proof but why? Can't we just not accept the fact that people are born that way....that it is as much part of them as gender? They already have scientific proof for transexuals......a man trapped in a woman's body and vica versa..

If homosexuality were a genetic disorder, then I would have to agree with you, but it has not been proven to be. The only evidence says that some are predisposed to homosexuality, but nurture either establishes or shuns this predisposition. We fight every day against what we are predisposed to. Some are predisposed to be fat, but not all that are predisposed to it are fat. It's a decision to diet and exercise.

http://www.nnfr.org/adolsex/fact/adolsex_orient.html

I found this on the Net. It says a lot about homosexuality (and therefor also bisexuality IMHO)

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

It's just a rehash of the existing rebutted studies.

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."


From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."
LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press


From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."
"Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.


From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."
Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic" and that a combination of nature and nurture is the current thought.

[C. D. Ward]

Yesterday @ 09:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315073#post315073)
Bill the Cat:

Really?? I think there are a few folks at Exodus that would disagree. Research is one thing, real life is another. Neither are bad, but one real example is worth 5,000 studies.

Actually, no. With respect, this is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe in homeopathy and astrology.

One real example that contradicts 5,000 studies is called "an outlier". In terms of statistical evidence, it would carry very little weight, indeed.

Let's imagine that I were trying to develop a cure for cancer. I test 5,001 subjects. In 5,000 of the subjects I have no response, but one of them experiences a complete remission. By the above reasoning, I should declare my test a success, yes? Does anyone want to bet their life on my "cure?"

Edited to add: I should clarify. One postive example contradicting 5,000 studies doesn't tell us nothing. To be sure, it tells us that something happened; we just can't use the data to determine exactly what happened. To continue on this line, supposing that a "cure" were attempted on 5,001 homosexuals and one was actually "turned." This doesn't prove that he/she was "cured", and it doesn't prove that homosexuals can be "cured", not even in principle. The most we could say is that one individual changed. We would be unable to say why.

That said, I find any claim that homosexuality is predominantly genetic or environmental to be somewhat dubious. We simply don't yet have enough data to make that determination. I'd say that it's most likely a combination of the two, though which influence is stronger I wouldn't venture to guess.

There certainly is evidence that individuals can indeed change their sexual behavior. Whether or not that corresponds to a change in orientation is a different matter and one that is much more difficult to determine...

[Harlequin Solit]

Today @ 01:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317622#post317622)
Bill the Cat:



And who prae tell are you to tell them that they are only "repressing"? They firmly believe they are no longer homosexual. Heterosexuality is a reality for them. I have spoken to a few of the folks here in Richmond who are former gays and they are 100% sure they are no longer gay.

I could ask you the same.

[Satori]

Again I am in complete shock by the degree of stupidity and ignorance which is so very very commonplace on this site. It literally disgusts me and leaves me bewildered and saddened very very much.

It's as if you people have been hiding under a rock for the last 50 years, what else could explain your ignorance in this matter?

This thread is every bit as stupid as it is insulting and revolting. And some of you here actually wonder why I think many of you here are out of your minds and in need of a serious reality check. Give me a break. If you ever wondered that, then wonder no more, you now have a prime example of it yet again. This site has the highest degree of ignorance that I've ever seen on a forum site. No kidding. The stuff I've read on here has become the stuff of stories that I tell as jokes to my friends, family, and coworkers, and the contents of this thread will surely be the same, I personally guarantee it.

Your primitive, backwards, and anti-social attitudes towards human and animal sexuality leaves me feeling sorry for you for being so mindless and deluded and I sincerely hope that you will overcome your intellectual limitations one day and think outside of that silly little box which you have found yourself entrapped in. I doubt you will, but with increased education and awareness of the hard facts of our reality, and with any luck, hopefully your children or your grandchildren won't be as incredibly IGNORANT as those of you who think that homosexuality is a 'sin' that people need 'saving' from. Your supreme ignorance is blinding you to the reality in front of your faces, and if you were just a little more educated and intelligent you'd already realize this and you wouldn't be so disturbingly ignorant with regard to such matters. Sad.

It's a good thing you poor deluded fools stick to this site as a place to voice your incredibly stupid, antisocial, and backward notions. If you tried to pull this nonsense on a secular sight you would find yourself laughed at and ridiculed, or at best on the receiving end of the pity of others (if they are good enough people to see that your ignorance and stupidity is the result of your coerced metaphysical obligations, as I clearly do).

Fortunately for the world and everyone in it however, particularly homosexuals and those who are kind and loving enough to accept them for who they are, who they were born as, your archaic notions are going the way of the dinosaurs, it's already happened for the most part, and advanced societies worldwide have abandoned them in favour of attitudes that are FAR more loving, compassionate, real, and logically grounded.

So my advice to all you ignorant fools out there, who think that homosexualty is a "problem" that requires "saving from" is to stick your heads back in the sand and keep them there. The real world, as to opposed to your fantasy realm of make-believe (where human and animal homosexuality is regarded as some sort of illness or demonic influence) is not something you are yet ready for, and I doubt it's something you have the intellect or capacity to deal with anyway.

If you ever want to shed your blinding ignorance on this matter, and you really should, then that is easily enough accomplished - just tear yourself away from your bibles, religious literature, and theology forums long enough to educate yourself a little. That's all it takes. But I doubt any of you will. You seem to take delight in your mindless, unsubstantiated, and archaic attitudes, a factor which is contributing greatly to your ignorance.

I've said my bit and now I'm leaving this conversation and I will not return to it. I have certain conversational standards and this thread is well well below those standards, and I simply and honestly feel that lowering my conversational standards enough to actually participate in this discussion and talk about this with your poor ignorant and misguided individuals is not something that will benefit anyone. If you are clueless enough to actually take part in this discussion then I think you are too intellectually incapacitated to benefit from anything I would have to say about it. You need to educate yourselves more first, and THEN come talk to me.

I will however be posting a link to this thread in other forums so that other people out there in the REAL world can see how truly messed up, misguided, and ignorant many of the poor people on this site actually are. Sorry to have to use you as an example of ignorance like that, but believe me, it does a lot of good for others to see just how messed up and confused so many of you here actually are.

I'm sorry that my disgust for your antisocial idiocy and ignorance has made it hard for me show how much pity and compassion I have for you all, particularly the more deluded and misguided of you, in this post. Sorry about that. I do feel compassion for you, but right now I'm a little too disturbed and revolted by your mindlessness to actually show it. I hope you can understand.

Now I take my leave from this thread, and from this point onward the only time and consideration I will give to it is by using it as an absolutely perfect and shining example of how religious delusions conflict with modern realities and serve to fan the flames of discrimination, mistrust, and antisocial ignorance.

I pity you all. Good day.

[Stephen]

Awww, shucks Satori. Stop all the flattery, I know we're not as wonderful as you say we are. Tell the truth, what do you really think of us? :flowers:

[Harlequin Solit]

He makes some good points though.

[Satori]

I'm not lowering myself by actually participating in this thread, but here's something I feel you all could benefit from. I had it saved from long ago. Enjoy!

----------------------------------

Sexual Deviation in the Animal Kingdom
This is pretty cool.

This week I watched a show on the Discovery Channel, it was called "Out in Nature", maybe you saw it. Anyway, I felt it was worth talking about, for those that didn't see it. The purpose of the show was to discuss the homosexual practices that have been verified to take place now in *hundreds* of animal species.

It's interesting to note that the first people to discover homosexuality in animals were not inclined to share what they knew, because they would face ridicule and possibly worse the the then religious political authorities. So the people who lived a century ago were unnecessarily ignorant of such things. Eventually, when researches did write about this, they covered their own patoots by writing commentary about it like "These animals are commiting a sin against nature and against god, and are disobeying the doctrine of the church." Incredible, isn't it? We've come so far in such a short time that we can now laugh about this, and I think that's quite cool. But it's sad that the people who lived back then were so oppressed by their religious institutions that they feared torture, imprisonment, and even death for merely writing about what they saw. Boy I'm glad those dark ages are behind us now.

Homosexuality is extremely common in all sorts of amimals, and since we share the vast majority of our basic physiology with other animals, it's not surprising that human beings would also exibit such natural tendencies as well. After all, every gay person you'll ever meet, who is self-honest and free, will tell you that they, like the rest of us, became aware of their sexuality at a very early age, like 3-5 years old, long before they even knew what sex was or were old enough to understand the feeling and desires they were having.

The most amazing thing (and the reason I'm writing this at all) is the sexual behaviour of the great bonobo ape. This creature is regarded as the closest living relative to human, sharing over 98% of our dna in common with them. Not only do we look like them, we have amazingly similar behaviours as well, in so many ways. Here's a pic of this beautiful animal:

http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-04-28/ape.htm

I don't think it's really fair to call this ape an "animal" though, it's just so human like, not only in looks, but in behaviour and actions as well. It cries when it is upset, it laughs when someone does something funny, it expresses the full range of emotions that we humans do. To me, this creature is far more like an innocent child than something like a lion or something.

Anyway, bonobos, incredibly, are FAR more sexual than even us pretty perverse humans. Their societies are like 24/7 non-stop orgies with everyone having sex with everyone else. Gay sex, sex with youngsters (both ways), incest of every kind, even 3-somes. This goes on literally non-stop. I couldn't believe my eyes. Interestingly (and not coincidentily I'm sure, considering how closely we are related), the bonobo is also the only animal other than humans which have been observed having sex in the missionary position.

I wonder what your gods think about this? I wonder why your gods are so upset about homosexuality (something it created, presumably) when it created hundreds of animals species to behave like this. Or are you so misguided that you think that our good buddy SATAN (hehe) is influencing them with his dark magic, it couldn't POSSIBLY be a natural instinct, now could it? No, that would be too logical, practical, observable, and make far far too much sense for theists to regard as reality. After all, just about everything is the result of some supernatural influence, isn't it? So is satan tempting these poor creatures to get under god's skin? It must be, after all, there's nothing "natural" about homosexuality, it's choice, an affliction that people (and other animals too it would seem) need "saving" from.

Hopefully I've helped shed just a little ignorance, but I seriously doubt it. You'll cling to your narrow-minded views regardless of how much hard evidence reveals it to be a misguided fantasy. That is what faith is all about after all, and it's what your gods demand of your, so you better comply, or else it will get upset with your and enact it's vengeance upon you for the terrible crime of thinking outside that little archaic box.

take care.

[Satori]

11-26-2003 @ 09:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318088#post318088)
Harlequin Solit:

He makes some good points though.

thanks man, I'm glad to see that not everyone here is so completely out of their minds. cheers.

[Queen]

Bill,

I like you but....Hellooooooooooooooooo?

genetic disorder

:doh:

It is not a disorder, just genes, like blonde hair, blue eyes (hey, that's me! :wink:)......a disorder is my heart defect, and I wish I didn't had that!!!! My bisexual nature is.......FUN!!!!!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Queen]

Satori,

I don't know you but I don't agree with the "insults" you write between the lines. It's all about love, respect and compassion. And people differ from opinion, how 'ridiculous' it may seem in your eyes. But I agree...homosexuality is natural behavior. It is just a part of life on this planet. So, I agree with you. Just keep in mind that Christians often struggle between the laws of God and their own feelings. These subjects are difficult. If people choose to feel that about homo and bisexuality, it's their right.....They all have treated me with respect. I never hid my bisexual nature and they are all kind to me....they just don't agree with my sexuality...they respect me as a human being.....Hate crime is wrong, having a different view on matters is just human....Be more kind and you have kindness in return... :wink:


May I correct you on this:
I don't think it's really fair to call this ape an "animal" though, it's just so human like

It's the other way around. Humans are animals, mammals, primates.......Humans see themselfs as more, but we are just a tiny part of animal evolution..... :wink:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen
(and now you sweet people can flame me :egad: .....I will just say this over and over and over again :tongue: )

[PlumpDJ]

Hello,

I might be coming into this discussion a little late here but I'd like to ask my question anyway. :) The question I have is this :

How do we know homosexuality is sin?

Now of course one will have to appeal to passages in the biblical texts to argue the point, (as people have done here) but why should a homosexual trust those passages theological claims, when the theological claims are not verified. (and if they are then let's see those verifications. :) )

Jesus verified his theological claims, or his 'position of knowingness' with regards to theological claims by rising from the dead, and we can verify that by employing the historical method. So we should therefore trust what he says about God and salvation because we can 'join the epistemic dots'; but if there is no such verification in passages used to justify the claim that 'homosexuality is a sin' then why should a homosexual go with that?

Can the Christian who claims that homosexuality is a sin join the epistemic dots between that claim and the claim that it is in fact knowledge about God?

[Harlequin Solit]

Today @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320122#post320122)
Queen:

Bill,

I like you but....Hellooooooooooooooooo?



:doh:

It is not a disorder, just genes, like blonde hair, blue eyes (hey, that's me! :wink:)......a disorder is my heart defect, and I wish I didn't had that!!!! My bisexual nature is.......FUN!!!!!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen


To risk my reputation amongst you fine fanatics...

My masochistic nature is not fun. It is very depressing, and I think of it as a disorder. I don't feel anyting for either gender. They are all in the same basket, homo/hetrosexuality too. All just sexual orientations/preferences...

Disorder is just a word. If you want to be politically correct, a genetic 'feature'?

Anyway, there are various theories on how you 'become' sexually different. I personally think it's a mixture of nature and nurture... I think all people should be treated equally.

Oh, and if anyone wants to flame-for-Jesus at me for what I've said/ my sexual orientation, please do. It would make fine amusement.

[Amazing Rando]

The question of whether or not homosexuality is ingrained into somebody's nature is a very difficult one, and I certainly don't posess enough knowledge to answer it. Whether or not somebody "chooses" to be homosexual or not, the fact of the matter is that we, as Christians, have some very strong statements in our holy Scripture that say that homosexual acts (not nessesarily homosexuality) are sinful. Thus, for one to be a professing Christian and live an active, unrepentant homosexual lifestyle is to be a hypocrite.

However, this does not mean that we as Christians should attack non-Christians on the grounds of their homosexuality. For those who do not believe the gospel, the prohibitions of homosexuality cannot make any sense, and we shouldn't be attempting to make our morality theirs. Our authority should be God, while their authority is themselves. It's my opinion that Christians shouldn't be holding non-Christians up to this same standard on this issue, because they simply cannot understand it without first grasping the gospel.

However to anyone who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ, yet continues to defile him/herself through homosexual acts, all I can say is- what are you thinking? You need to make a choice- is God to be your master? If so, repent of your sin, and he will forgive you! If you are to be your own master, then stop claiming an authentic Christian faith.

I realize this may be very unpopular with both sides who have posted here already, but those are my sincere feelings on the matter.

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 01:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320299#post320299)
Harlequin Solit:




To risk my reputation amongst you fine fanatics...

My masochistic nature is not fun. It is very depressing, and I think of it as a disorder. I don't feel anyting for either gender. They are all in the same basket, homo/hetrosexuality too. All just sexual orientations/preferences...

Disorder is just a word. If you want to be politically correct, a genetic 'feature'?

Anyway, there are various theories on how you 'become' sexually different. I personally think it's a mixture of nature and nurture... I think all people should be treated equally.


Actually, what you said, I agree with. It's a mixture of nature/nurture. I don't think you can treat all people equally though. There has to be a common sense about it. Would you leave your child home with a reputable babysitter or Michael Jackson more comfortably?

[Amazing Rando]

While I agree with you Bill, I think the whole issue of whether homosexuality is part of a person's nature or a conditioned choice they make is immaterial. What's important for the Christian is what one does with it, you know?

[Harlequin Solit]

So you're saying that to get on God's good side, we have to go celibate for what we feel?

You gonna say that disability is a sin too?

You're saying Christianity is like a kid's club. "Oooh, you can't join my club! You're gaaay! God doesn't like gays! Who says? I do! Nyaaahhh! You can only join if you never, ever have sex! I can, but you can't!"

You got a treehouse for it too?

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321179#post321179)
Harlequin Solit:

So you're saying that to get on God's good side, we have to go celibate for what we feel?

in a way, yes. If I have murderous feelings, I need to supress them. If I have lustful feelings, I ned to supress them.

You gonna say that disability is a sin too?

No, and don't act stupid. My kids act better than that, and they are in Elementary school.

You're saying Christianity is like a kid's club. "Oooh, you can't join my club! You're gaaay! God doesn't like gays! Who says? I do! Nyaaahhh! You can only join if you never, ever have sex! I can, but you can't!"

God loves gays, just as He loves murderers, liars, cheaters, and unbelievers. He wants them to conform to His standard, not their own. Please tell me you are really not this simple.

You got a treehouse for it too?

I won't dignify that with an answer as it is completely assinine.

[Paul]

Yesterday @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321179#post321179)
Harlequin Solit:

So you're saying that to get on God's good side, we have to go celibate for what we feel?

You don't have to be celibate. You can marry someone of the opposite sex. I've met a homosexual Christian woman before who was married. At the time she was involved in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. She has children. So obviously you can be a homosexual and marry and do all the things that married couples do.

And homosexuality can be treated or cured in some cases either by a special grace of God or by a more natural return to health as one overcomes one's emotional disorders or with the help of professionals -- like psychologists or psychiatrists or counselors of some sort. Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder until relatively recently.

Be that as it may, you are lucky that you are not a rich man of whom God asks to give up all his possessions ;) Such a man is mentioned in the Gospels and he went away sad. I hope that your response is not the same.

[PlumpDJ]

Paul...

I'd like to ask you a question If I may. You wrote :

And homosexuality can be treated or cured in some cases either by a special grace of God or by a more natural return to health as one overcomes one's emotional disorders or with the help of professionals -- like psychologists or psychiatrists or counselors of some sort. Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder until relatively recently.

Do you think we can join the 'epistemic dots' between the claim that 'homosexuality is wrong' and 'this is knowledge of God's will'? I mean surely before a homosexual would accept the fact that it is wrong and seek treatment he or she must first be shown that this is knowledge about God's will?



Regards
P

[Queen]

Heal and save those "poor" gays and bisexuals??????

Ex-gays.

NARTH.

Exodus.

"Reparative therapy."

The mass media and the Web are filled with claims these days from religious conservatives, orthodox psychoanalysts, anti-gay organizations, and even a professional football player claiming that people with a homosexual orientation not only can become heterosexual, but also should do so.

However, claims by the Family Research Council, Charles Socarides, Joseph Nicolosi, and others of "successful" conversions through reparative therapy are filled with methodological ambiguities and questionable results (for reviews, see Haldeman, 1991, 1994; see also Haldeman's 1999 review paper is available on the web in HTML and Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format). They are also ethically suspect. [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]

In many of these behavior-change techniques, "success" has been defined as suppression of homoerotic response or mere display of physiological ability to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Neither outcome is the same as adopting the complex set of attractions and feelings that constitute sexual orientation.

Many interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation have succeeded only in reducing or eliminating homosexual behavior rather than in creating or increasing heterosexual attractions. They have, in effect, deprived individuals of their capacity for sexual response to others. These "therapies" have often exposed their victims to electric shocks or nausea-producing drugs while showing them pictures of same-sex nudes (such techniques appear to be less common today than in the past).

Another problem in many published reports of "successful" conversion therapies is that the participants' initial sexual orientation was never adequately assessed. Many bisexuals have been mislabeled as homosexuals with the consequence that the "successes" reported for the conversions actually have occurred among bisexuals who were highly motivated to adopt a heterosexual behavior pattern.

The extent to which people have actually changed their behavior – even within the confines of these inadequate operational definitions – often has not been systematically assessed. Instead, only self reports of patients or therapists' subjective impressions have been available. More rigorous objective assessments (e.g., behavioral indicators over an extended period of time) have been lacking (Coleman, 1982; Haldeman, 1991, 1994; Martin, 1984).1

Some psychoanalysts claim to have conducted empirical research demonstrating that their "therapies" are able to change gay people into heterosexuals. Their studies have multiple flaws, including a lack of safeguards against bias and a lack of control groups. Rather than having patients evaluated by an independent third party who is unaware of which patients received the "reparative therapy," these studies are simply compilations of self-reports from psychoanalysts who are attempting to change their patients' sexual orientation (and who are highly motivated to report "success").

And even if we accept these studies' claim that change has occurred, they do not provide any evidence that such change resulted from a particular therapy. Individuals who changed might well have done so anyway, even without therapy.


The 2001 APA Convention Papers

Furor Erupts Over Study On Sexual Orientation, an article by Ken Hausman in the APA's Psychiatric News (July 6, 2001)

Claims about the "success" of conversion therapies have appeared mainly in the mass media and on the World Wide Web, rather than in high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific journals. A 2000 paper by Joseph Nicolosi and his colleagues was published in Psychological Reports. Psychological Reports is also the major outlet for Paul Cameron, the discredited antigay psychologist. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Psychological Reports has very low prestige among researchers and a low rejection rate. In addition, unlike other psychological journals, it charges its authors a fee to publish their papers.

However, in May of 2001, two papers on the topic of conversion therapies were presented at the American Psychiatric Association's annual convention. One paper, by Dr. Robert Spitzer, reported findings from 45-minute telephone interviews with 143 men and 57 women who had sought help to change their sexual orientation. He found that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had achieved "good heterosexual functioning" and he attributed this to the interventions.

The Spitzer study was immediately criticized on several grounds. For example, the sample consisted predominantly of activists recruited from "ex-gay" and anti-gay organizations. About two thirds were referred to Spitzer by so-called "ex-gay ministries," such as Exodus, or by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Of those who participated, 78 percent had spoken publicly in favor of efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality.

This is a potential weakness of the study because activists are highly motivated to report that they successfully changed their sexual orientation. Consequently, they may present an inaccurate impression of themselves to researchers. Dr. Spitzer took the activists' testimonials at face value, with no checks on the reliability or validity of their self-reports. In his relatively brief interviews with them, Dr. Spitzer may not have been able to detect factual errors or misstatements – intentional or inadvertent – by the activists.

Dr. Spitzer's study also appears to suffer from some of the same methodological flaws as the published studies discussed above. For example, only a minority of the participants (about 40%) were exclusively attracted to partners of the same sex before they attempted to change. As noted above, including bisexuals in studies evaluating the outcomes of conversion therapies tends to inflate the proportion of "successes."

Dr. Spitzer did not claim that his findings could be generalized to the gay and lesbian population at large. Indeed, he was quoted in the New York Times as saying that, despite the findings from his study, the number of homosexuals who could successfully become heterosexual was likely to be "pretty low." He also conceded that participants in his study were "unusually religious" and were not necessarily representative of most gay men and lesbians in the United States.

The second APA paper, presented by Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder, reported findings from a study of 202 homosexuals who were recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating conversion therapy. Most of the participants (178, or 88%) reported that efforts to change their sexual orientation had failed. Only 6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift. Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change.

The research by Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder has recently been published (Schroeder & Shidlo, 2001; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Dr. Spitzer's research is currently being reviewed for publication.

An Analogy

To better appreciate the potential flaws in Dr. Spitzer's study, consider an analogous situation.

Suppose a pharmaceutical company claims that a new vitamin supplement can change left-handed people to right-handers. Mainstream medical organizations express their opposition to the vitamin, saying that it causes harm to many people who use it, and noting that there is no reason for left-handed people to try to change.

To test the drug company's claim, a researcher conducts brief telephone interviews with people who have used the product. He recruits most of his research participants from a list (provided by the drug company) of individuals who claim to have used the vitamin and have given public testimonials on behalf of the drug company. Many of those people say that they tried the vitamin because they felt miserable as left-handers in a right-handed world, and that they are now functioning as right-handers (although many report occasional thoughts about using their left hand).

The researcher's data consist entirely of the one-time telephone interviews. He does no follow-up interviews to assess the consistency of the users' stories. Nor does he conduct face-to-face assessments with standardized measures to assess whether the vitamin users have actually become right-handed. Meanwhile, another research team reports data from a different study, in which they found that the vitamin supplement did not change most left-handers to right-handers, and that many people who tried the vitamin suffered serious negative side effects.

In such a situation, we would want to ask several questions. How reliable are the reports of vitamin users who were recruited through the drug company? What about the many people who were harmed by the vitamin? Why is it important for left-handers to become right-handed in the first place?

We can raise similar questions about Dr. Spitzer's study.

How reliable are the reports of people recruited through Exodus and NARTH?
For those who did change, how do we know that they would not have changed their sexual orientation anyway, even without some form of therapy?
What about the many people who have been harmed by conversion therapies?
Why is it important for gay men and lesbians to become heterosexual in the first place? Doesn't the real problem lie in society's hostility toward people who are homosexual or bisexual?
Indeed, even if conversion therapies could be shown to change sexual orientation in a small number of cases, there are strong arguments that doing so is unethical. For example, Dr. Gerald Davison (1991), a former president of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, argued that change-of-orientation programs are ethically improper, and that their availability only confirms professional and societal biases against homosexuality.


The Mainstream Position

For more than a quarter-century, the major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized that homosexuality is not a mental illness. They are highly critical of attempts to change sexual orientation.
The American Psychiatric Association's official web site notes that: "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation.... There are a few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person's deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex. Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so."


Text of the 1997 resolution


The American Psychiatric Association's Position Statements on conversion therapy are posted on their web site.


At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about so-called reparative therapies. In particular, the APA resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct conversion therapy with individuals who are not capable of informed consent, including minors.

In 1998, at its December 11-12 meeting, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed a position statement opposing reparative therapy. According to the 1998 position statement:

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."

"Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction."

"The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed."

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."


In Summary

In summary, scientific data are lacking to show that behavior modification techniques effectively change individuals' sexual orientations from homosexual to heterosexual. The relatively small number of attempts that have been adequately documented appear to have been largely unsuccessful.

Does this mean that no one ever changes his or her orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through the use of such techniques? Not necessarily. It is possible that some individuals who enter such therapies eventually make such a change, although there is no evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship. Those people might have changed their sexual orientation without the therapy.

However, so-called reparative therapy techniques – premised on the assumption that homosexuality is a form of psychopathology – appear to do much more harm than good. And even if conversion therapies were shown to be successful in more than a relative handful of cases, they would remain ethically questionable.

The mainstream view in psychology and psychiatry is that people who are troubled about their homosexual orientation have internalized society's prejudice against homosexuality, and that the appropriate task of a therapist is to help them to overcome those prejudices and to lead a happy and satisfying life as a gay man or lesbian.

Notes

1. Claims by religious organizations to have changed homosexuals to heterosexuals generally have not been documented in such a way as to permit their critical evaluation. For more discussion of them, see Haldeman (1991, 1994)

I could not say it better in my own words....so I used information of this page:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Bill the Cat]

Claims by religious organizations to have changed homosexuals to heterosexuals generally have not been documented in such a way as to permit their critical evaluation.

We can't mind read, and neither can these schmucks. How do you tell if someone is indeed gay? Their actions and words. How can one tell that they have left the lifestyle? The very same way. How do I know Busheses is really gay? How do I know you are really bisexual Queen? Your words and actions. You are the same biologically as any other female of the human species. How would these pseudoscientists be able to tell that no change has taken place? the Vulcan mind meld perhaps??

[Queen]

Bill, Bill, Bill......What am I going to do with you?:no: "sigh" :doh:

I guess we will never agree on this one....oh well, as long as people understand and respect my opinion, I respect theirs...

We can't mind read, and neither can these schmucks. How do you tell if someone is indeed gay? Their actions and words. How can one tell that they have left the lifestyle? The very same way. How do I know Busheses is really gay? How do I know you are really bisexual Queen? Your words and actions. You are the same biologically as any other female of the human species. How would these pseudoscientists be able to tell that no change has taken place? the Vulcan mind meld perhaps??


*off topic :rofl: :lmbo: ....vulcan mind meld? Very original....You like Star Trek as well.....I am a big fan..

How do I know I am really bisexual? Believe me I know. I struggled with it for a long while and sometimes I even think I lean more towards women with my feelings then men.....I struggled a long time with this, refusing to see it and running away from it. Today I feel so much happier, admitting this to myself....

Those people know this, because psychologists have seen the results of this therapy. People that came in, depressed suicidal even, just because they denied this natural feeling they have.

Gay men are not unhappy and can be very religious. They do not deny God because of their lifestyle.....They embrace it and God will understand, because He is the only one that can look inside a heart and a soul....

:flowers:

Live long and prosper,
Queen

[Paul]

Today @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321976#post321976)
PlumpDJ:

Paul...

I'd like to ask you a question If I may. You wrote :



Do you think we can join the 'epistemic dots' between the claim that 'homosexuality is wrong' and 'this is knowledge of God's will'? I mean surely before a homosexual would accept the fact that it is wrong and seek treatment he or she must first be shown that this is knowledge about God's will?



Regards
P

Hi P,

I don't understand your question :)

Are you asking how we can know that homosexuality is wrong? If homosexuality is wrong, then it has to God's will that it is wrong since God is all-knowing and all-good.

I think there are at least a couple ways we can know homosexuality is wrongg. One way would be just by using one's common sense or reason. I think the way we are made by God is such that our minds and hearts and even our bodies tell us that homosexuality is wrong. Probably there are many homosexuals who know it is wrong or at least think it is wrong, but engage in that activity anyway. And there are probably some who do not realize it is wrong. It's probably a spectrum.

But using our reason we can come to know by examining God's creation that homosexuality is wrong. I mean just by looking at a man's body and a woman's body we can see that they fit together in certain ways which is not true of two bodies of the same sex. So that should tell us that God designed man for woman or woman for man. Our emotions may not always be in tune with that design but we know our emotions can sometimes be disordered. Some people suffer from pedophilia; that doesn't make the abuse of children OK. Other people suffer from kleptomania; that doesn't make stealing OK. We probably emotionally want to do things all the time that are not right -- when we are angry or when we are very sad or when we are very nervous or when we are very excited etc.

There's probably other ways to know that homosexuality is wrong.

In addition, we can know that homosexuality is wrong through God's revelation -- the word of God.

But apart from all these strict moral considerations, a homosexual whether he thinks homosexuality is wrong or not, may want to have his homosexuality treated or cured just because he wants to have it so. He may desire to marry and have children and may find his homosexuality to be an obstacle to that -- maybe women run away from him once they learn he is homosexual or bisexual etc. He may just want to be healthy, be integral and be fully a man.

But these "human" reasons are all kind of related to the strict moral ones. Homosexuality is wrong or a perversion because of how human beings are made. God created man, male and female He created them says he scriptures. And when Adam saw Eve, he cried: At last here is flesh of my flesh, bone of my bones. IOW here is someone whom I can love completely and here is someone with whom I can be complete and here is someone with whom I can make something beautiful. Being a heterosexual, seeing the complementarity between man and woman, having certain special affections for women in various ways, is part of being fully human -- even for those who choose to be virgins or celibates for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Homosexuals who while struggling with their emotional disorders cleave to Christ and die next to Him at the foot of the Cross as did Mary die in her heart there as John lived there being given life from the side of Christ and being given a mother in Mary, will be rewarded greatly. And in Heaven their desires and emotions will be perfectly conformed with Christ's. They will not be homosexual in Heaven. And the homosexuality they struggled with will not something looked upon with dishonor in the Last Judgment, but rather as a disease that was overcome -- it will be a badge of honor, a purple heart. Perhaps that is why God allows all these things ... so that the elect may have different colored medals on their breasts. I'm into colors :)

[PlumpDJ]

Hello Paul,

Are you asking how we can know that homosexuality is wrong? If homosexuality is wrong, then it has to God's will that it is wrong since God is all-knowing and all-good.

Well yes I would agree -- the problem i'm trying to get at is connecting the dots between the claim it's wrong and that this claim is knowledge from God. It maybe that homosexuality is not really part of "God's plan" (unlike heterosexual relationships), but maybe is not really a strong position to make claims from. :)

The Christian says it's wrong according to God -- the Christian homosexual says "How do you know?"

I think there are at least a couple ways we can know homosexuality is wrongg. One way would be just by using one's common sense or reason. I think the way we are made by God is such that our minds and hearts and even our bodies tell us that homosexuality is wrong. Probably there are many homosexuals who know it is wrong or at least think it is wrong, but engage in that activity anyway. And there are probably some who do not realize it is wrong. It's probably a spectrum.

Homosexuality is certainly not for me, it feels very strange, even wrong to me but my subjective experience of the morality of this thing does not place it on the same field as stealing or murder or deciet.

When I see two men being intimate in the way a woman and man are, it's quite disturbing to me but when I see two attractive women doing the same, it doesn't bother me at all? (quite the contrary) So I begin to suspect there is something else driving this rather then being the 'design choice' of an absolute being.

So it's not something that is 'obviously wrong' subjectively or even 'objectively' unlike many other things, like peodophillia and so on. So i can't really use that as a guide.

But using our reason we can come to know by examining God's creation that homosexuality is wrong. I mean just by looking at a man's body and a woman's body we can see that they fit together in certain ways which is not true of two bodies of the same sex.

So that should tell us that God designed man for woman or woman for man. Our emotions may not always be in tune with that design but we know our emotions can sometimes be disordered. Some people suffer from pedophilia; that doesn't make the abuse of children OK. Other people suffer from kleptomania; that doesn't make stealing OK. We probably emotionally want to do things all the time that are not right -- when we are angry or when we are very sad or when we are very nervous or when we are very excited etc.

So from looking at a man's body and a woman's body you say we can conclude that God made them to fit, but that doesn't mean God frown's upon departure from this. He may have no problem with it whatsoever, instead creating these tools to allow us to survive; with love and attraction being seperate moral issues.
So you cannot readily deduce theology from nature, especially when it also tries to reduce sexuality and love and attraction to something so very simplistic. We are clearly more then our bodies tools when it comes to love and attraction and the form it takes.

So my being a man is therefore far more then just having a certain biological form and to deduce that my intellectual or emotional states with regards to love and attraction *must* relate is not something you can deduce from the evidence lying in the world around us. The reason I say this is because there are so many examples which don't fit the mold here -- explaning them away as result of the fall is fine, but you cannot then turn around and use the evidence of the 'fallen world' to deduce theology,

So we're down to the real source of the Christian claim, the gospels.

In addition, we can know that homosexuality is wrong through God's revelation -- the word of God.

And this is where Christians seem to gleem the most support for their belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. And this is where my question about it's epistemology was really headed.

So how then do we know the author's who penned the various passages which are used to support this notion were speaking inline with God's will? How do we verify the theological item in question?