AssemblyBoard

Hey did you guys catch this?  This is too funny!  

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040719/D83TJ8080.html

These democrats are pathetic.  "He called me names, I'm telling."  Big sissies.  They ARE girlie-men.
And to call that homophobic...just plain stupid.  Did you know that the state of California's legislature has a five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus?  That makes me sick.

Arthur

King Arthur et al, :)

I read the article.  The democrats are justified in their reaction.  After all Schwarzenegger hurt them to the core; he called them a name. ;)

Seriously though, it is interesting how those democrats side-tracked from the 'real' issue that Schwarzenegger was addressing.  This all sounds sooo familiar.

quote--
Schwarzenegger dished out the insult at a rally Saturday as he claimed Democrats were delaying the budget by catering to special interests.

"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men," Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.
--end-quote

I like that Schwarzenegger guy!  He's got guts.

Lord bless,
Marcia

I'm not gay but.... (only mention because I think it matters -- in perspective -- that I'm not just sticking up for 'my own' as it were - b/c I gather that you don't think much of them and what they strive for - personally, as long as there are no children in their bedrooms when they have sex -  as is a Major problem in the Heterosexual World - then I don't care)

I'd like to take issue with Gay bashing - not b/c the bible isn't clear on what it says, but b/c I don't hear anyone on this board EVER questioning what the bible says, why's that?  Because George didn't?  What about the power structure that the bible lays out, we questioned the assembly, but the bible holds true for everyone?  is there no one out there who was once part of the assembly and no longer holds the bible itself as 'gospel'?  

We have problems in our society but I don't think how men do each other is one of our problems (unless of course men are buggering children which is a Big Problem in both Canada and the US by the way, largely under reported b/c it's done by dear old dad or mommy's boy friend.  Did anyone see that 60 minutes document. on Pornography?  I got a good two minutes of it and then shut  off the TV and went to be crying and lie awake most of the night crying.  You want to cry about somethin' honey, cry about that.
delila

Hi Deilia!

  I am responding to the part of your post that wonders whether there are any here on the BB who now reject the Bible because they see the Assembly and the Bible as being similar evils.

  I know for a fact that there are some who have left the Assembly who share your views on the Bible.  For myself, I came to understand that it is very easy to misuse the Bible and this is what false religious groups do.

  When some Samaritans rejected Jesus and His disciples  James and John asked the question, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from Heaven to destroy them?!" Jesus response, "He rebuked them!"

  Jesus' desire was not to take control over and judge men, but He came expressly to save and bless them!  It cost Jesus His life, which He freely gave for us!

  False religious groups, like the Assembly, do seek to control and manipulate lives to meet their own needs, and will use the Bible to defend their doing so, but I read the exact opposite in the Bible regarding what God wants in our relationships.   Over, and over again the Bible says that self sacraficial love, out of pure motives, is to be the goal of life in Christ.

   I received Christ and believed in the Bible before I got into the Assembly, and as such, I knew that there was a real God and that the Bible was His word.  It has been a difficult, but blessed, task to understand who Jesus really is and to help those whom were kept captive by a distorted image of Him.

   Jesus is a King (to mention Arthur's post) and he chose a crown of thorns instead to save the most evil perverts on this sick and sad world.   Again, He does not desire the judgment of the wicked, and expressly died to accomplish this goal.


   Can't you love a God like this?  He is many times worthy of all of our praise!!!!  If I were a king of this world I would cast my crown at His feet and revel in His mercy!

   For those that reject His loving invitation their desire to do so will be honored and they will dwell outside of God's eternity.

                         God Bless,  Mark C.

 :)Mark, I totally agree with you.

The Bible and its teachings have been around a lot longer than GG and his teachings.

Men may fail us and disappoint us, But God will never fail us or disappoint us.

Mark's quote:""

Jesus is a King (to mention Arthur's post) and he chose a crown of thorns instead to save the most evil perverts on this sick and sad world.  Again, He does not desire the judgment of the wicked, and expressly died to accomplish this goal.""""


 
JESUS KINGSHIP  is something better to look forward to than what this world of our is dishing out.

I am looking forward to it.

Lenore

Well said, Delila. I don't go on this board much but the gay bashing that shows up from time to time bothers me. The liberal-bashing as well.

Delilah,  I couldn't agree more. (Because I will get slammed for posting this) I would have e-mailed you but you are not posted!

 :)July 23rd at 10:19 pm

READ ROMAN 1 from verse 18 to the end of the chapter:

TRANSLATION: THE MESSAGE:
But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see:eternal power, for instance, and he mystery of his divine being. SO NOBODY HAS A GOOD EXCUSE. What happened was this: PEOPLE KNEW GOD PERFECTLY WELL, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confustion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. THEY TRADED THE GLORY OF GOD WHO HOLDS THE WHOLE WORLD IN HIS HANDS for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand.
     So God said, in effect. "If that's what you want, that's what you get."It wasn't long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. And all this because THEY TRADED THE TRUE GOD FOR A FAKE GOD, and WORSHIPED THE GOD THEY MADE INSTEAD OF THE GOD WHO MADE THEM--THE GOD WE BLESS, THE GOD WHO BLESSES US. Oh , yes!
   Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either -- women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men--all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it-emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches
   Since they didn't bother to acknowledge God. GOD QUIT BOTHERING THEM AND LET THEM RUN LOOSE. And then all hell broke loose, rampant evil, grabbing and grasping, vicious backstabbing. They made life hell on earth with their envy, wanton, killing, bickering, and cheating. Look at them: mean spirited, venomous, fork tongued GOD -BASHERS. Bullies, swaggers, insufferable windbags! They keep inventing new ways of wrecking lives. They ditch their parents when they get in the way. Stupid, slimy, cruel, coldblooded. And it's not as it they dont knowbetter. THEY KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THEY'RE SPITTING IN GOD'S FACE. AND THEY DON'T CARE - worse. they hand out prizes to those who dot he worst thing best!

Other translations like NIV, NKJV, NCV, NLT, are just as good .  
THE MESSAGE TRANSLATION, is a bit more blunt.

Romans 1 explains what this world is doing, Paul wrote about it in the 1st century, and it applies to the 21st century.  
DOESN'T THIS TELL US CHRISTIAN SOMETHING IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  The Bible portrays Gays as disgusting lecherous animals who wander the streets looking for prey!  In truth gays are just like everyone else.  I know a gay man who behaves with more dignity and integrity than most "christians".  Katheryn Lee Bates who wrote "America the Beautiful"  was gay. One cannot sing that song without sensing the goodness of its author.  Yes the apostle Paul had a problem with Gays but remember Hitler did too.

 ;): JULY 24TH AT 11:01 PM

Gays as people, they are people who have choosen a different lifestyle.  They are still people in need of a Saviour.

Whether we agree with that lifestyle or not. Isnt it between them and God.

As Christians we know the answer to that one.

I agree David , sometimes humans hearts who are non Christians can be more generous, more loving, more caring to others than Christians who see only with blinders on.  

Just because I can treat the gays people as people, it doesnt mean I approve of their choices or lifestyle.
It also doesnt mean I need to know what goes on in their bedroom. It doesnt mean I need to have their rights trampled over my rights as a Christian to be able to own or read my Bible.
I have a friend , her ex husband brother is gay, and he and his partner have been together for a long time.
She says as a Christian she cannot approve of their lifestyle, she admires their sensitivity to female point of views and feelings.
I have watched news about Gay Pride Parades.
They are some very ungirlie looking men who claim to the gay.  My reaction is what a waste of a good looking guy.
The Bible is very clear on the consequences of this subject being discussed.
Yet the Bible is also very clear, before we judge, we better have our own backyard clean up first.
Just as I am going to stand in front of God's judgement seat, to give an account of my choices, actions, thoughts, words.  
So shall every one else, that includes people who choose the Gay Lifestyle over the Salvation of Jesus.

THese are just thoughts spoken outloud.

Lenore

Your comments are appreciated. Thanks for not slamming me!  :-\ :-\

Sorry David M.  I do not want to slam you, but you might interpret my disagreement with you as slamming you.

I personally know a man who is gay.  He has even visited in my home with my family.  We have socialized, eaten together, shaken his hand(greeted him).  He would not have known that we knew of his 'preference'.  So what is the point that you are making anyway.

Nice people come in all flavors, as do not-so-nice people.  Hey we even experienced 'niceness' in the assembly, until we were ensnared and then...

Homosexuality is sin.  Adultery is sin.  Pornography is sin.

I do believe that you still have an 'assembly' view of God hence you are unable to see Him as a loving personal God.

Lord bless,
Marcia

     In the absence of our resident apologist who, I take it, is still traveling, I will point out that terms such as "good" and "nice" are meaningless without an established point of reference.  Without God in the equation, mankind has no higher standard to which to refer than itself.  The result is that people adjudge good and bad based on the effect that actions or attitudes have upon society.  The society under consideration is not God's, but humanity's.

     By this yardstick is determined that whoever or whatever "benefits" society more than harms it is ultimately "good."  That's "nice" in a world without absolutes, properly termed a fools' paradise, wherein whatever one wants to be right is considered to be right.

     A quick reality-check should establish that I am not the creator of my universe, but merely a creation within it, and that it is, in fact, not "my" universe at all.  This in turn implies the existence of a higher law than I am unto myself.  I say "should establish" because I find myself capable of an incredible degree of self-delusion when it suits me.  The thought that there is a Creator, higher than I, who may have just demands upon my attention and conduct, is easily enough to make self-deception attractive to my ego.

     Ah, to eliminate God.  Thereby we can eliminate sin.  With a few clever twists, we can even eliminate "bad," and simply live with good, better, and best.  How wonderful!  How fun!  We will concentrate on behavior modification, and eliminate punishment and consequence altogether.  There is no evil; just varying degrees of good...  We will adjust our views and preferences to accommodate everyone...  All of us will be happy...

     And yet, as we spread across the meadow, setting up the tents and gamefields of our forever delightful festival of fun living, we find uneven spots:  We trip during our sack race, our maypole ribbons tangle, the veggies burn on the grill.  What can these disruptions mean?

     Reality.  There is an absolute God with absolute values, absolute authority, and the absolute right to our acceptance.   The little tuft upon which we stubbed a toe is the turning point of the ages, the place at which the honest bow the knee in recognition and submission, and which the rest imagine themselves to circumvent, ignoring the truth to feast upon the flavor of the day.

     Be not deceived, God's Word tells us:  God is not mocked.  Each of us will reap according as we have sowed.  The fundamental options are eternal life or eternal destruction.  Sinners will be damned-- even "good" sinners;  the repentant will be granted mercy-- even the worst of us.  There will be no challenges-- no questions of "fairness."  God's world; God's rules:  Play or pay.

     What about all that "God is Love" stuff?  None of us has begun to imagine the wonders He has prepared for those who love Him (only possible because He first loved us).  But He is under no obligation to us.  We cannot require Him to divulge all in advance, so that we can sit back and examine and consider at our convenience whether or not to accept His offer.  What utter folly to think otherwise!  If God is God, there can be no question that He is worthy of all worship and service, no debate of whether He is "God enough."

     The good can never be good enough, the nice never nice enough to deserve access to God.  It is offered only because God is God enough to show us mercy and offer us grace to approach Him through His gift to us of faith in His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.  

     The absolute pinnacle of God's kingdom is this:  That the onlybegotten of the Father, without sin and full of grace and truth, became the living sacrifice to satisfy God's wrath upon the sin of the rebelliousness of we, His creation, and that through our acknowledgement of and response to His grace, none of which we are capable of apart from His enabling, we may be joined forever to Him as heirs of His kingdom and joint heirs with Christ.

     For the sinner, the great mystery appears to be "Why?"  "How?"  The effort to mask it in complexity seems endless.  But always, the answer is simply Christ.

     For the redeemed of the Lord, it is possible to marvel that the gift of life in Christ is as wonderful as it is, and yet holds the prospect of forever increasing...


God grant us eyes to see and ears to hear,
al Hartman

Sorry, it takes me some time to track down responses to what I post.  often, I never do.  Alas, I think this topic is worth talking more about.  I'm not posted?  What does that mean btw? I'll go back and put in an email address to fix that if that's the case.  I've signed off the board many times b/c it can be addictive and perhaps when signing on again didn't fill out all the forms.  whatever.  I'll check.

As I've written before, I think the bible is worth questioning further.  I was an assembly sap sucker far too long b/c I accepted the premise that God wrote the bible and therefore it is true and so anyone showing me oh so carefully what God wanted in my life from the bible had me hook, line and nearly drowned.  Yes, Paul had a problem with those who did 'un-natural' things.  Funny though that what's so unnatural in one culture is perfectly natural in another.  If a Christian holds true all that the bible says he is bound to treat homosexuals badly.  I don't consider myself a Christain anymore because I can not completely accept all that the bible has to say and will not be bound to obey the words of a book and thereby bow to tyrrany once again.  Also, I once again state that if one views all the world through 'christain' lenses, it's very much like looking at life through a straw, many are excluded, precluded, secluded, and of course, written off as sinners who can only get back to God through Jeorge, I mean Jesus.  And it ends there, right?  Yeah, I have problems.  I don't look at the society I live in, indeed I can not, as having its only home, indeed very much of its hope tied up in the sinners prayer.
delila

Hi Delila,
I always appreciate your posts because, as someone who has becaome agnostic after a long process of trying to believe and yet be open to new ideas after leaving the Assembly, I certainly can relate to a lot of what you post. Plus, your posts have encouraged me to speak up more about how I may not subscribe to the views that may be prevalent on the board. David M, you deserve some credit in this regard.

And the topic of this thead is worth talking about. As someone who struggled often and quite silently with homosexuality in the Assembly, I found the supression to be quite damaging in addition to the ex-gay Christian groups I went to before joining. At least with the ex-gay groups, we all suffered together, but I often felt very alone with this issue in theAssembly. I've confided it to at least three people, including a leading brother. I never really talked much about it in the group to those three beyond those initial confidences.  I never acted out on the feelings at all during those four years I was "in fellowhsip." If I had acted out, the guilt would have been enormous. After leaving, it was half a year before I had to face that I was gay and I decided to accept it. It was not an easy process at all. I had a much easier time "coming out" as gay when I was seventeen, before getting into all the Born Again beliefs surrounding a taboo on homosexuality, but coming out again at 26 was harder. I found out about Evangelicals Concerned, a group (not a church) for gays and lesbians from evangelical backgrounds, a year later. The discussions were always interesting and there were some good people, but I had already become agnostic by the time I met them, so they were a supportive group of people where I felt I didn't have to "explain everything" because many of them have had similar experiences.

Words are very powerful things. Words can hurt as well, especially if they are violent towards a someone. Strangely enough, the violence can be done quite benignly - the speaker is non violent but the words are. This is why I really got upset some time ago with what seems like gay bashing on this board. I'm not asking for aplogies from anyone; I just had to say where I'm coming from.

I must confess that I do not know what "gay bashing" is.  

Does the term mean, "making statements critical of homosexuals"?  That is what the people who use the term seem to mean, (at least to me).

So, what is it about homosexual conduct that raises it to a level that is beyond criticism, making all critical statements morally reprehensible?

IMHO, the term "gay bashing" has been invented by those who wish to indulge in these practices to deflect criticism of their behavior.  It is a form of  ad hominem argument, where the person is attacked rather in order to discredit what they say.

It is usually a sort of last resort defense of a position for which no positive argument can be made.  Personally, I have never heard an argument made claiming that homosexual conduct is a positive good.

Thomas Maddux

perhaps we should speak of the specific sexual acts that homosexuals engage in that offend you so much.  Then perhaps we could compare those to the heterosexual acts themselves that offend me (including those I've already mentioned that involve children) and then we'd be speaking clearly, without bashing, without mincing words.
d

[quote author=Tom Maddux link=board=6;threadid=732;start=0#msg19394
I must confess that I do not know what "gay bashing" is.  

Does the term mean, "making statements critical of homosexuals"?  That is what the people who use the term seem to mean, (at least to me).

So, what is it about homosexual conduct that raises it to a level that is beyond criticism, making all critical statements morally reprehensible?

IMHO, the term "gay bashing" has been invented by those who wish to indulge in these practices to deflect criticism of their behavior.  It is a form of  ad hominem argument, where the person is attacked rather in order to discredit what they say.

It is usually a sort of last resort defense of a position for which no positive argument can be made.  Personally, I have never heard an argument made claiming that homosexual conduct is a positive good.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
In the literal real world sense of the term, "gay bashing" refers to the act of physically attacking someone for being gay. But that's not how I meant here. I was talking about how some remarks about gays sounded hostile. I'm not talking about the person who says they don't agree with homosexuality but they still treat the person with respect.

I did not set out to make an ad hominen attack. I was not targetting one specific person nor was I talking about the board as a whole. I have never been rude to another poster nor have I baited any one in an argument. I certainly was not attacking you.

I don't think homosexuality is a good or a bad thing. It does not qualify them for sainthood nor does it make them the devil. If it's consensual, it does not hurt anyone.

[perhaps we should speak of the specific sexual acts that homosexuals engage in that offend you so much.  Then perhaps we could compare those to the heterosexual acts themselves that offend me (including those I've already mentioned that involve children) and then we'd be speaking clearly, without bashing, without mincing words.
d

Delila,

Actually, I never said that homosexual conduct offends me.  Morality is not a question of subjective preferences, but rather of objective moral standards that God has revealed, at least to our consciences.

Homosexual conduct is offensive to some, not offensive to others.  But it is always evil.  The fact that some forms of perverted heterosexual behavior are offensive to you does not make homosexual conduct ok.

The real question is, "Is this good or evil?"  If you argue that this judgement is entirely personal and subjective, then all acts are ok.

You have condemned adults who "bugger" kids.  So why is that wrong?  Not consentual?  Who says it has to be consentual?  Once one adopts a merely subjective standard of morality, all moralities are equal.  Including that of the child "buggerers".

Delila, it seems to me that you have been trying to have your agnostic cake and eat it too.  Do you really believe George G never did anything wrong?   That is where your relativism leads to.

If we all make up our own morality...GG had his, and who's to say he was wrong?

Thomas Maddux

Shin,

I heartily disagree.  Homosexual conduct hurts the participants.  Without even mentioning the eternal consequences of rebellion against God, it is destructive to the personality.

I noticed thirty years ago that "gay" becomes the one overriding identity of the homosexual.  "I'm gay" becomes a statement of who the person is, who he sees himself as.  

In the healthy personality, sex is one aspect of life.  In homosexuals, it is "who I am".   That is dysfunctional.

As to the bondage that homosexuals experience, I would refer you to the link that Stephen Fortesque put up in the discussion on gay marriage.  The link contains study after study, done by many sociologists at many secular universities.  

The results of all these studies show that homosexuality is a hideous bondage.   Homosexual men have dozens, hundreds, even in some cases thousands of sex partners.  The so-called "committed relationships" are shown to be largely a myth.

Yes, there are some of these relationships that last, but statistically they are rare.   I know a couple of "gay" couples that have endured for many years.  Both couples are female though.

For the vast majority, the studies show, homosexuality is a dysfunctional bondage to self-destructive behavior.  Even if one is an athiest and acknowledges no values whatsoever, it cannot be denied that it is dysfunctional...we are not designed physically to behave like that.  

AIDS has spread throughout the homosexual community because of millions of individual acts of irresponsibility.  It is tragic to see millions die so horribly and so needlessly.  

So, I can hardly agree with, "If it is consentual, it doesn't hurt anyone.

Thomas Maddux

Shin,

Since you have posted this on public forum, I hope you do mind me responding thus.
TomM was posting while I was composing my response, but I decided to post it anyway.

My opinion is that people get entangled into all kinds of harmful activities and then make statements like 'as long as it is not hurting anyone else' as a hopeless ending to their dilemna.  The drug addict or the alcoholic gets ensnared and then is unable to break out of his addiction.

The homosexual becomes one possibly because he needed some 'affection' at some point and there was no one to meet that need but another of the same sex.  Then one thing leads to another and neither can break free.  Sometimes the homosexual grows up having an aversion to those of the opposite sex (like I do for Escorts and Taurus' ;)) and choose a same sex relationship.  I do not know the circumstances in your life, but I do know that it is a struggle to break free when and if you are so inclined to do so.

Yes, the Bible does label homosexuality as sin, as it does adultery and murder and lying and...
I know of a Christian talk show host in Toronto who is well respected in the gay community because he does not bash them for their lifestyle, though they do talk about it and know his stand on the matter.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Tom,
I'm not really interested in debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. Frankly, it's quite old. It's one thing to know where people stand because of what they believe the Bible says about it; it's another when people dehumanize gay people and feel their beliefs justify it.

My recent posts were about how some posts were hostile towards gays. I do believe it is damaging. I'm also sure I'm not the only ex-member from the Assembly who either is gay or struggling with it, so my reason for speaking up is (a) I have a voice and I'm going to use it and (b) so others may not feel alone.

Marcia,
I understand your perspective. I may not agree with it but I know you have always treated me with the respect you would show to anyone, regardless of what kind of opinions I stated or anything else I presented on this BB. That impresses me. :)

I know you addressed this to Tom, and I hope that Tom will reply even though I am adding my 2 cents.

If you are speaking up for the benefit of yourself and others, then I suggest that you go all the way.  I believe that Tom has some valid points that you can either 'refute' or change your own mind about.  Of course, if you are a dyed in the wool gay person who does that even want to entertain the thought that there could be something wrong with your 'preference' and therefore, just want to make your 'stand' on the matter clear, then there really is nothing more to discuss re. the homosexual lifestyle eh??

Believe it or not, I used to be a dyed in the wool assemblyite even after George Geftakys was excommunicated.  I debated and inquired and investigated annonymously on this BB for about 4 months before I changed my mind.  I was annonymous because I was 'protecting' the assembly here.  I was inquiring because I wanted to find out the truth of the matter.  As it turned out, I was the one who changed my mind.  The transition from assembly life to non-assembly life was very difficult, but necessary.  Now I am very happy for having made that choice.

Yes, you can expect that sometimes the discussion will get heated.  And you can expect that on a BB where most of the posters are Bible believing Christians that homosexuality will be presented in a -ve light.

But we love you and respect you as a human being whose soul is precious to God that He... you know the rest of the story.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Shin,

Please don't glibly dismiss the exhortation as a mere intellectual exchange.   The greatest bondage introduced from the pits of hell to mankind kind is sexual sin whether it be homosexuality, adultry, or pornographic addiction.  I can understand when homosexuals feel they have no recourse other than to say "I was born that way" because that is exactly the same way folks in sexual addition groups feel.

An over-preoccupation with sex leads to personal destruction, breakup of families  as well as (as we are seeing in the new millinium in Africa) downfalls of nations.  Just like eating disorders are a product of deeper psycological and spiritual needs, so are these sexual disorders.  It would do you well to find out what is going on under the surface.

-Dave

Shin,

I can understand that you do not wish to "debate" the rights and wrongs of homosexual behavior.  I have been a Christian for over 40 years and have never even heard anyone try to argue that it is a positive good.   So, as far as I know, there is no debate.

As to "dehumanizing" gay people.  This is just another ad hominem attempt to deflect criticism by attacking the critic.  Since when is someone "dehumanized" if someone disagrees with them?  If that were true then there would be no humans!

Dave and Arthur disagree about John Keary.  Which one is no longer human?  Nonsense.

I called homosexuality a horrible bondage.  Marcia has likened it to being an alcoholic or an assembly member.  I think it is much, much more serious then those bondages.

My church has a ministry to recovering homosexuals.  They have openly testified about the power of the addiction.  I think that it is much more serious than substance abuse, although there are many commonalities.  

I have heard people describe how giving way to these passions has taken over their lives.  Families broken, careers destroyed, on and on.   Yet the desires are so strong that the homosexual will frquently pay any of these prices for continued gratification.  A homosexual that I was trying to help back in the 70's said to me, "I can't believe that something that feels so good could be wrong."

I suspect that the power of this evil is related to the fact that a key element of the addiction is that the addict changes his entire self concept.  In drug abuse or alcoholism the addict doesn't see himself as a fundamentally different person.  Homosexuals seem to do this.

Marcia has discussed some of the possible causes of homosexuality.  It seems to be very complex, and I think it is an error to think, as many do, that all homosexuals are the same.  There may be many causes behind this problem.  

Homosexuals are people.  It is their humanity that causes me to take such an adamant stand against this evil.  This bondage devastates them.  What they were created to be is obliterated by this horrific dysfunction.  

I am not a Calvinist who can just say something like, "well, see what happens when you aren't among the elect".  I can't just consign these folks to hell and be done with it.

I believe that the world that God loved and sent his Son into contained many who were in this bondage.  I believe that Christ can cure the sickest soul, if the desire is there.

Thomas Maddux

In the early 70's homosexuals pushed the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.

In the 70's and 80's, homosexuals were asking to just be accepted for who they are--"I'm gay, OK?"

The 90's saw the rise of the popular use of the terms "homophobe" and "gay bashing"--both tools to attack those who did not agree with their agenda.

Today homosexuals are pushing to change society to conform to their beliefs including the destruction of the sanctity of marriage.  

You give them an inch, they want a mile.

They preach tolerance, but practice censorship.  "Everyone is to be accepted..." they say, except for those who disagree with them.  

In their depravity, they think they have evolved beyond normal human beings--homo illumen or homo superior, they call themselves. And they seek to "enlighten" the rest of us poor idiots by aggresively pushing their agenda, particularly in the courts.  Judicial courts need no popular vote, only a planted and payed for judge to make the decision.

What they consider to be enlightenment and progressive culture, ascending above God, in actuality opens a pit of depravity in which these humans sink to depths of unspeakably wicked behavior.

Arthur

Yes, it's obvious we're human beings. It's obvious everyone is human. What I meant by "dehumanize" is when one reduce somone/a group of people to  an abstraction. Saying "Gays make me sick" involves some level of abstraction. Is there really a face connected with that statement. If someone said, "Japanese people make me sick," a lot more people would be quick to say that's not right. Yet Japanese people were targeted as an abstraction in WWII propaganda and Japanese-Americans lost their property and were placed in interment camps such as Manzanar. I'm sure many people had their arguments for these things. In the mid 90's, I heard on the local Christian radio station a caller defending the bombing of Hiroshima during a talk show during an anniversary of VJ Day.

I do find the drug user or alcholic anology offensive. I know it works for some people as a way to humanize gay person, so I'll humor you on this. I know substance abusers can expend significant resources to support their usage, which can put their families, jobs, and friends in harms way. I'm not really harming anyone and I'm not the type of person who will do anything at any price to have sex. My life is actually quite boring in comparison. I just don't have time for a lot of that stuff and my time is better focused on reading, writing, art, my graduate studies, and getting a job after graduation.

I know there are a lot of destructos in the gay community. I can't talk for them. I know a lot who aren't and those people are among my friends.

I've been there, done that with the ex-gay ministry. Sexual tension between people was often rampant but coyly danced around. They all talked about how they wanted sex so badly but yet they were in this position where it was not available. I became friends with one such person in the group, who took a shine to me, and a couple of years later, I lost my virginity to him (I was very young, during the times I was 18-21). I later learned from another friend that hooking up is not so unusual. I felt a lot of guilt over this, which led, not to "the bondage of homosexuality," but to another type of bongage - getting involved with the Assembly. I wanted to get my life right with God at the time and somehow, the idea of doing things for God made me feel forgiven. Tones of Saint Maybe by Anne Tyler*.

As I mentioned earlier, I kept my "struggle" to myself for the most part during my years "in fellowship." I never acted on them yet I felt like I needed it so badly. After accepting that I was gay afterwards, sex just stopped being such a big deal. If I don't get laid, I'm not going to die. Yet a lot of people in the ex-gay ministries felt that way.

*novel by Anne Tyler where a young man joins The Church of the Second Chance because he feels his meddling in his late brother's marriage led to him dying in a car accident. The Church of the Second Chance is weirdly legalistic and preaches a doctrine that forgiveness must be earned.

I think it's easier to be pre-occupied with something if it's been turned into the thou shalt not*.

I have done a lot of thinking of what goes on underneath my surface. I am a very introspective person. Getting into religious addiction, especially where one does the spiritual binge and purge (easily illustrated as the sin-repent cycle), was certainly the sign of some disorder. The Assembly was certainly religious addiction for a lot of people. People I knew in the ex-gay ministry were on spiritual binge and purge as well.

William Blake, "The Garden of Love"

I went to the Garden of Love
and saw what I have never seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
and Thou shalt not, writ over th door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore,

And I saw it was filled with graves,
and tombstones where flowers should be:
And Priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds,
and binding with briars, my joys and desires.

If that were truly the source of the problem, Shin, then the Pro-murder, Pro-bear-false-witness, Pro-adultry and Pro-rob-your-neighbor movement would be right up there with the pro-gay movement.

I think the pro-murder movement has already been effective: wars (including our more recent ones), the dropping of an A-bomb on Hiroshima, the American bombing of Dresden,The Inquisition, the murder of heretics (which Calvin himself was stangely guilty of, being a heretic himself in the eyes of the Catholic church, the death penalty,.

Bearing false witness - practiced by our government regardless of who's in office. Everyone else is prosecuted for perjury.

Rob your neighbor - routinely practiced by a lot of corporations (i.e. Enron).

Adultry - more common and more implicitly accepted than we'd like to admit.
So many people we supposedly respect have affairs and everyone seems to look the other way. And we don't have to look to far for an example, even if we all don't respect him now.

Everything above seems to have some unspoken, unofficial stamp of approval by the American public.

Sorry, gay rights is nothing compared to the above.

I understand that sin is prevelant thoughout society and it encompasses more than just the sin of homosexuality.

What I was getting at is this:  You made the point below that the homosexual preoccupation with sex was because the Bible forbids it.   What the point of my comment is is that the Bible's prohibition of sex outside of marriage does not cause the homosexual's preoccupation with sex any more than the Bible's prohibition of murder cause more murders.

All the law does is illuminate that behavior and attitudes as wrong.  It is not the "thou shalt not" that is the cause.  It is not the "thou shalt not" that is the problem.  It is the inclination of our hearts that rebell against the "thou shalt nots" that is at issue.

I'm off camping for the weekend.  See you Monday.

I think this is funny.  The research I've read is similar.  Men, homosexual or not, are generally don't stick to one relationship. But what you are describing, is not unique to men who do men, but extends to men who do women too.  AS for Aids, like other std's, is generally spread by men to women and children too, from what I understand.
d

Delila,

    You are right.  The studies done on Homosexual men that Tom is referring to focus on one type of Gay man.  The "typical" man!, Gay or Straight, who goes to bars and has one thing on his mind. (My friends in High School, my own brother- I could go on and tell you many stories that are forbidden on this B.B.) These studies neglect (as the Bible does also) the thousands of Gays who behave in a much more committed way.

Hi Shin,

  I agree that your manner on the BB has been courteous and I am glad that you continue to talk with us here; especially since you understand that many defend Evangelical Christianity here, and the Biblical standards of morality that it embraces.

  The comments that I am about to make are not for the purposes of debate (and certainly not attack), but that they might be a blessing to you, and others for whom the Bible has become an enemy, instead of the friend that it should be.

  I am not a homosexual, but I have engaged in sinful behavior that the Bible also condemns.  There are many failings in my life and the Bible teaches that "I will reap what I sow."   Though I am saved by grace, grace without personal honesty is only a theology; not an experience.

  One thing that blocks the experience of grace in our lives is when we reject the Biblical standards of righteousness.  I say this, not trying to give you a lecture, but as an individual who has done this myself, and will probably fall prey to it again.

 The only difference between us may be that I continue to struggle against what the Bible defines as sin in my life, vs. just accepting the fact that my sin will always control me.  I believe that the Biblical moral standards are correct, even when I can't live up to them (though I have done a fair share of rationalism in the past when confronted with my sin, but I can't remain in that state for long as I just feel bad.)  

   It is true that there is a false religious message that makes parts of normal humanity into sinful activity (ie Assembly nonsense) but re. what is immoral the Bible is very clear.
I say this because I noticed you said that "homosexuality was neither good or bad" and while this makes us feel better when we do what God condemns, it hardens our conscience.  In such a state we get a distorted view of who God really is:  cruel, demanding, and vindictive.  We also will be very unhappy.

  God's desire to lead us into His righteousness is because He knows of the terrible consequences of sin in our lives.  In this sense you have chosen a path in some ways like George has.  There is a difference in that GG says he doesn't sin, but you reject the Biblical standards of morality altogether.  The end result is the same:  a very unfulfilled life apart from the experience of the love of God.

  God loves us so much He sent Jesus to die for all these sins for which we are guilty.  We don't help ourselves, or others, when we harden our conscience.  

  I imagine there is some kind of sexual relationship that you would deem immoral, such as child molestation (I'm not saying that homosexuality is the same thing).  There are those who for whatever reason have these kind of sexual urges.  In ancient Greece these kind of relationships were common (man with boy).  Should such an individual resist such inclinations?  Yes, for just because I have a sexual desire it just wouldn't be right to act on it.  

  Societal revulsion toward this in the past has acted as a means to help folks struggling with these kinds of things, but now there is a very successfull movement to throw off these "shakles."  So much so, child porn. is deemed "protected speech" by the Supreme Court!

  I'm sure you've thought about this before, but I hope that by God's grace you may find your way back to a good conscience and faith in Christ.

                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

Dear Shin, :)

Most analogies are just that; one cannot make a 100% parallel application of the analogy to the issue/topic.  In using the substance abuse analogy, I only meant it to go so far as to say that the method of ensnarement is similar, and that the difficulty of getting free from it is similar.  I could use the same analogy for other topics as well.

The topic was/is homosexuality, hence the focus.  I do agree however that I find child abuse, and pornography, and wife abuse etc to be grievous sins as they do affect those around the offender.  That being said I am sure that there are some very nice gay individuals, some even nicer than some Christians we know.  It does not change homosexuality into a non-sin issue.  You mentioned that you "felt a lot of guilt" and you ended up, unfortunately, in another type of bondage ie the Geftakys Assembly in San Diego.  You know what I think of the Geftakys assembly system so I will not elaborate on that here, but for the most part, we are on the same page re. opinion on the assembly system.  However, your conscience did bother you, so what do you conclude from that?

Lord bless,
Marcia

PS Arthur, your governor, who called those democrats girlie-men, acted in Junior as a pregnant male with female pregnancy behaviour.  Interesting eh?? ;)
MM

David M.

Just how have you learned this?  Can you refer us to a link?

Quite frankly, I think you are talking through your hat!

Thomas Maddux

Delila,

I think you are mistaken.  I have encountered this idea in the past, and it always seems to be a generalization based on the observations of the speaker.

The only way to make accurate statements about men in general is to rely on research that has gathered data from large numbers of people.

Sociological research is not an exact science, but it is much more reliable than "all my friends say...".

When I was overseas in the USAF I had an opportunity to observe men in a very unnatural situation.  President Eisenhower, as a budget cutting measure, had decreed that the armed forces would no longer ship families overseas with the military personel.

So suddenly you had large numbers of married men, who had had, one assumes, regular access to sex, living away from their women for 18 months.

A military base is somewhat similar to a small town.  Everyone knows everyone else's business. This is especially true in a barracks situation.  You work, eat, sleep, play and even use the toilet facilities together.

Anyone who wanted sex could have it for the price of a taxi ride and a couple of dollars.  So, it was there for the taking.

My best estimate is that among unmarried men, (mostly in their 20's) about half availed themselves of the local prostitutes.  That means that about half did not.  The ones that did were mostly low ranking career enlisted men in their late 20's.  The ones that didn't were usually guys who had no intention of reinlisting.  

Among the married men, 80-90% did not "mess around".

I think that research has shown that most married men don't stray.  Some do, to be sure, but they are a minority.

Regarding AIDS, the vast majority of cases are found among homosexual men or intravenous drug users.  The women and children who become infected usually contract it from a "switch hitter" or a druggie.

Thomas Maddux

Yeah, guess he's not afraid to get in touch with his feminine side.  Maybe those offended by a joke like "girlie men" have something to worry about.

Arthur

Hi Marcia,
While I think guilt can be a useful emotion, I think it can be "educated" to the point of controlling us. Guilt seems to come natural for things such as lying, stealing, and doing things that harm other people. What people learn gets incorporporated into the guilt response as well. People affiliated with the Boston Church of Christ seem quite adept at programming guilt responses in their members. I was in a more mainstream evangelical church at the time but I think guilt got programmed there too on some level. Because of that, it's really hard for me to trust guilt, especially guilt that seems doctrinally related.

Shin

PS - Funny point about our governer. I'm not happy about everything about Schwartzenegger in office but at least he's got a sense of humor about himself, especially if he played a pregant male and in Total Recal, there is a scene where he is disguised as an old woman with a "high tech" mask.

Shin,

This is where you went wrong.  Christianity is not about working off guilt!  It is about repentance of sin and seeking forgiveness from God, who offers it through the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.


How different this is from real Christianity.


"For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God."  (I Thess. 4:3-5)

Shin, millions of Christian men deal with sexual temptation , at its normal level, and do not act upon it.  This is the normal experience of godly men.  That is just the way it is.


So your solution was to surrender to your unnatural passions.  Now you feel better, as all addicts do while they indulge in their particular addiction.  But Shin, if you are a Christian, (which is, IMHO, in doubt), what you have done is to surrender to an unnatural enslavement.  I suspect that you merely "got religion" in the assembly, but have never experienced new birth.


I don't doubt this.  These perversions scar the soul and may never be completely gone.   I have seen many brothers from the Baby Boom generation struggle with sex addictions involving pornography. But there are plenty of folks who have recovered and have not fallen into these sins in years.

Thomas Maddux

Hi Mark,
Thank you for the kind reply. I just made the point in my reply to Marcia about guilt being educated and I do think there was a lot of that in my life as a Christian. Maybe while I may have "rejected Biblical standards of morality," I don't think it's right to murder, steal, lie, or do something that harms someone else. I do think those things are immoral as I find child pornography and child molestation reprehensible. These things harm the children involved and there is no way they could even be considered consenting partners in those situations. So with the child molester, I find that someone would prey on someone weaker or with less power to be sick. It's a violation of the child's trust. That someone is preying on a weaker, non consenting partner is not really the issue with homosexuality.

I think I reject "Biblical standards of morality" because it is, as William Blake says, is something that "binds with briars my joys and desires."* I don't think "Biblical standards of morality" has really enabled compassion or anything else that is desirable of "Christian Behaviour." Speaking of Christian Behaviour, C.S. Lewis makes the comment that Christianity is the one religion that approves of the body. As much as I enjoy Lewis's work, especially his fiction, I don't agree with him. I'm not a Buddhist but the Eightfold path makes more sense to me as an ethical framework.

If I were simply an ex-Christian who's never been through the Assembly, I wouldn't even bother posting here or going through the BB.  I wouldn't be able to relate at all. Because there is a shared history, I enjoy talking to you people. I don't think I would ever return to Evangelicalism if I were to come back to some kind of Christian faith. So if that ever happens (such as if I joined the Unitarian or Episcopal Church), I hope I don't get blasted for my choice.

Thanks once again for your thoughts, Mark,

Shin

*William Blake. "The Garden of Love." The Songs of Innocence and Experience

Shin,

In your reply to Mark, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.  Your ideas on morality are a perfect example of Romans 2:15, "...they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing ore else defending them"!

This is exactly what you are doing.  Moral condemnation of other's behavior, while excusing your own.

Either moral law objectively exists, or all moralities are equal.  You merely dislike child abusers, but their acts are not wrong...nothing is wrong...or, for that matter, right.

You know that is not true.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
You're engaging me in that either/or logical fallacy and the way you're using it is very offensive. Here is an example of what's offending me: "You merely dislike child abusers, but their acts are not wrong...nothing is wrong...or, for that matter, right." Yes, I do seriously dislike child abusers and I find what they do to be horrible, damaging, and wrong. Also, while I was never a victim of child molestation, I did have a step-father who often beat and verbally abused me until I turned 16. And yes, I will condemn what he did as wrong even though I understand he grew up that way. And yes, I understand people do some pretty forked up things to other people because of what happened to them but my sympathy is more for the victims. So excuse me if I'm not objective concerning this example.

The esteemed Zen teacher Thich Nat Han, would point out the perpetrators or moral wrongs are victims as well. While I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that one, I respect this view because I understand it is a step in forgiving my enemies.

So I digressed. I think what Mark's point to me was that despite my rejection of morality as defined by the Bible, we agreed on some things were moral. I agreed on that but maintained my disagreement with the idea that homosexuality was immoral.


Shin

Yes, I agree with you in that guilt can be "educated" to the point of controlling us.  Sometimes we get the wrong 'education' and sometimes we are 'educated' correctly re. sin.  I use the analogy of the little Johnny who is out with his friends.  One of his friends starts throwing rocks at someone's basement windows and invites Johnny to do so.  Johnny knows it is wrong.  Johnny knows that his Dad is not around, but that it would grieve his Dad if he found out.  Johhny can choose not to throw the rocks because he loves his Dad and does not want to grieve him, or because he is afraid of how his Dad will react.  The action of throwing the rocks and destroying another's property is wrong in each scenario.

I know a family whose husband/father turned 'gay'.  After many appeals from his wife, he refuses to change his lifestyle.  That marriage is going to end up in a divorce and the young child will be left without a father.  It could have been a case of adultery with the same end result.  I find it all very sad.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Hi again Shin,

  I'm very happy that you received my comments as I intended them, as a desire to be helpful.

  Yes, the Assembly certainly has given us a feeling of shared experiences that allow an ability to communicate with one another.  Unfortunately, the experiences shared were often very negative, and most so because it attacked our connection with spiritual truth.

  Re. my mention of "child molestation":  As I stated in my post, I was not making a direct analogy btwn. this and homosexuality, rather addressing the fact that you must draw moral lines somewhere (that there are some things that are good or bad).  Also, that these people say that they are "born with" this sexual desire and are helpless to resist "who they are."  I agree, of course, that child molestation is different from sex among consenting adults.

  The problem is in choosing how to draw the lines.  If we leave it up to our own subjective criteria we will fall victim to situational ethics, instead of principle.

  Budhisim will not help here, as it does not really recognize good and evil.  I was involved in eastern religion before my salvation and it led to a very deep narcissitic type of life.  It does allow for a kind of escape from conscience as one "transcends ego" but it is all an illusion that comes crashing down when the reality of who we are is impossible to dodge; life has a way of "bringing us down off our throne."

  Please pardon me as I share an example of the above paragraph.  I was living up in the Sierras and went with some friends to a place called "Hot Creek."  (No, this will not be a wild sex story  ;))

 It was a beautiful night and through meditation and fasting I was enjoying a wonderful feeling of peace within.  Someone was playing some music by the Rolling Stones from the album they dedicated to Satan.  I was thinking of how beautiful the music was, when this girl, who was with another group, started to scream as if she was being terrorized!

  Here's the point from this story:  I was bugged that this person interrupted my good feeling, vs. having a concern for the terrorized individual! :'(  This is the difference between Christian morality and a subjective basis for how we choose to live our lives.  Indeed, the lack of feeling that I had for this distressed person awoke what turned out to be a very healthy stirring of guilt in me.  Love, though of course having emotion, is a concern for others that must be in "deed and truth."

  I later discovered that this person was "freaking out" because someone slipped her some LSD (Yes, I could tell you some stories about the "love generation" of the 60's).  My conscience was awakened to the fact that spirituality is not so much about inner peace, but about morality that is expressed in action.

  Though Christians may experience a great deal of inner turmoil over sin in their lives it does not necessarily mean that the "at peace with oneself" individual, who has learned to reject guilt over the same sin is in a better state.

  What does homosexuality do for my neighbor, even if they are consenting adults?  Is there no negative effects?  What of the missed opportunity to have a deep committed relationship with a woman?  Can you ever learn to live a committed life of love to a woman, having children, and all the depth such a relationship means?

  Society, for it's survival, must have the above relationship thriving, and for this we have God's endorsement.  If we love others (our society) we will choose behavior that bests serves it's health.  Though I must struggle against various inner desires, I am loving when I choose against them to serve a higher good.

  If I decided to follow my inner guide I would still live alone in some beautiful location, and in my own blissfull escapist way, let the world roll on into oblivion.  I certainly would not naturally chose to: get married and deal with kids, work hard every day, give to charity, share the Gospel, or write on this BB.

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.

 

Hi Mark,
Your posts certainly give me something to chew on and it could take a while to answer all of those thoughts. :) So I thought I'd just reply to this.

Personally, I don't think gay men have any business getting married to women. If I were a woman, I certainly would knowingly refuse to marry a gay man. And I'd certainly not be happy if I found out after he kept it from me. In this hypothetical situation, I'm sure I could forgive this person and become friends but I don't think I'll ever really know the answer to that. I don't believe it's really fair to either party involved. I have known people in this situation. I have also read Mel White's* Stranger at the Gate and he does go into the joys and heartaches of being a gay man married to a woman. He and his ex-wife had an amicable divorce and they have a better relationship as exes than they ever did as a couple.

I just don't think the idea of a "reformed" homosexual man getting married to a woman is really fair to either party. I think it's a pretty tall order for both. I don't think I could have handled it.

Shin

*Mel White worked as ghost-writer for many years in the evangelical publishing realm and his clients included Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jim and Tammy Bakker.

Hi Marcia,
You have a good point about how guilt can be constructive as well.

The husband who turned gay - I don't know if he really turned gay. Maybe someone waved a magic wand over his head (silly me) but I suspect he was gay all along. Or maybe he really didn't know much about himself when he got married and this is one of those situations where sefl-discovery exacts a horrible price. It is sad.

I don't think someone like this has any business marrying a member of the opposite sex, especially if he knew this thing about himself all along.

The ex-gay ministry always touts dating and marriage as success but I wonder if it's more damaging in the long run.

Shin

Yes Shin,

  I do tend to ramble on in my posts.  Thanks for being so good natured with your responses.

  I won't say much in this post, but to only clarify one point by means of asking a question:
   What would you advise someone who felt their sexuality was an unchangable part of their being and that sexual desire was for children?  Would it be fair if this individual tried to change his feelings and attempt to develop normal sexual desires?

  Again, I'm not attempting to say that homosexuality is the same as in the above question, only that both have sexual desires that they feel control their lives and are inseperable parts of their identity.

                                        God Bless,  Mark C.

Shin,

You are mistaken.  The fallacy of false dichotomy, (either/or) is committed when a statement purports to present equally exhaustive alternatives, but other alternatives exist.  "Everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican" would be a statement that commits this fallacy, in that there are other alternatives.

I said that either moral standards objectively exist, or they only have subjective existence.  There are, as far as I know, no other possibilities.  It is not possible for something to objectively exist and not objectively exist at the same time.

So, no fallacy has been committed.

In fact, when you go to picking and choosing moral standards, as you are doing, all you are really doing is expressing your subjective preferences.  

If you can do that, why can't a pedophile?  You say you don't like child abuse, but some folks enjoy it.  So, why are they wrong?

Some folks try to use, "It's wrong to hurt others" as a "bottom line" moral standard.  So, what makes that true?  

My point is that in your attempt to say that homosexuality is ok, you are driven to irrationality to maintain your position.

In one of your posts you state that the Buddhist 8 fold path seems like a good way to live.  Odd that a fellow who says he could not continue to resist his desires praises a method for eliminating desire.  Desire is the Buddhist "root of all evil."

A friend of mine served for three years in a Buddhist country, Nepal.  He and his wife were missionaries who served as health and agricultural consultants in a village three days walk from the nearest road.  The religious and social traditions of these folks determine their lives almost completely.

Once he had learned the language he discovered that the men in his area did not know what homosexuality was!  They had never heard of it.

Doesn't do much for the "I was born this way" claim.

BTW, I think you are right about one thing...men who are conflicted about their sexuality should not get married.  It is better to stay single and not bring such severe problems into a marriage.

Thomas Maddux

Shin,

Thank you for being such a good sport in this discussion.  You are probably on information overload.

Having spent 21+ years (almost half my lifetime) in a cult-like environment, I am overly sensitive to 'brainwashing' tactics now that I am out.  George was good.  He would say things like, "You know people say that we are brainwashed, but you know I need my brain washed." And guess who was going to do it.  Another favourite of his, "We don't want to steal sheep from other gatherings.  You guys go out and preach the gospel and bring people in."  So we were so noble we did not want to steal, and we were not going to let others resort to the ignoble deed of stealing us either.  We had our pat answers and attitudes.

You said, "The husband who turned gay - I don't know if he really turned gay. Maybe someone waved a magic wand over his head (silly me) but I suspect he was gay all along. Or maybe he really didn't know much about himself when he got married and this is one of those situations where sefl-discovery exacts a horrible price. It is sad."
This sounds suspiciously like the work of a 'brainwashing' master.  Almost all gay people, once they succumb to homosexual activity, say that they were probably gay all along, but didn't much about themselves until now.  This is indoctrination and not about self-discovery.  The only thing about self to be discovered is that we are all sinners, but there is hope from God for the sinner.

I respect your choice to remain unmarried to a female person, as I believe is best for the one struggling with pornography too.  But I also agree that if/when you were to have 'victory' (for lack of a better word) over this passion, then why not?

Lord bless,
Marcia

With child molesters, they could be simply mentally or chemically unbalanced. Some psychotic killers are. I understand this though I'm still not very sympathetic towards them. Their condition may cause them to harm others. I'm not going to include homosexuality here since the APA does not consider it a mental illness now.

Also, child molesters have been underneath the "cultural radar" for such a long time. Like adulterers, theses people's deeds were often ignored and others would make excuses for them, despite thatt society often termed such acts revolting. I don't think societal revulsion really ever stopped anyone; it just caused them to do these things clandestinely.

I don't think I ever brought the "enjoyement" issue into this discussions. People who enjoy hurting others are a bunch of sadistic forks. I'll probably get myself into some more hot water here, but I don't always do things because it feels good. I certainly would have flunked out of one of my final semesters as an undergrad if I caved into the depression I was dealing with at the time. With all the papers and final projects I was responsible for at the time, I almost wanted to say fork it and not do them. But admission to graduate school (as well as finishing the course with a BA) were at stake. So I bit the bullet and did the things necessary for my grades (which were very good that semester).

Shin,
I admire how even-headed you are.  Polite too.  I will take note and aspire to that.  Your point about child molesters being under the radar is well made.  I will also add, if I might that because children and women were considered (are considered) property in many cultures, uncluding many homes in Canada and the US (as well as other countries), this abuse is under-reported and under-punished and altogether dealt with poorly.  Often the abused will be blamed, told they asked for it, though they are children often or women who (regardless of what they wear or don't wear) can not help that some pervert decides to exert his force on her.  I think (and no stats on this on hand for you doubters) that homosexuals have also been beaten and humilated because 'real men' - those red necked meat heads who consider their one working member to define them completely - wish to make a statement about their power.  Sometimes I listen to that song "Imagine" and cry.  If our species evolves into something healthy, I wonder how it will choose to define itself?
d

Delila,
Thanks. I've learned how handle myself with a certain amount of grace over the years. When I was a kid, I was more impulsive and I had a lot of temper outbursts. The temper's still here but I've learned that I'm less effective during an outburst, however justified I may feel.

As you pointed out, the blame is often placed on the victim. When I was in elementary school, I remember being made to feel like I was responsible for the behavior of the kids who bullied me for being a "sissy." I wanted nothing to do with these kids yet they went out of their way, either alone or in groups, to make themselves look good by hurting someone they percieved as weaker. Somehow, I don't think think using less hand gestures, getting the prance out of my walk, or talking less girly would have appeased them. When I was in the sixth grade, it got to the point to where I could no longer run or hid so I had to hit back. While someone might tell me, "Good for you," I shouldn't have had to strike back. Getting picked on followed by having to fight back only detracted from what I had to learn those years. I wonder how much prejudice children assimilate from their parents along with the blaming the victim mentality. Unfortunately, it only gets worse as people get older.

As an adult, I've been lucky enough to never have been a victim of a hate crime. SDPD has kept that number pretty low in San Diego because there isn't that blaming of the victim from the police.

I kind of feel like I digressed somehow with this, but I never "asked" to be targeted by others in any situtation that was abusive. We ex-assembly-ites should definitely know better when hearing the story of someone who's been a victim. Listening first (instead of jumping to some judgment) would go a long way.

- Shin

Shin,
Bullies, yes.  I think I cried nearly every day from grade one to grade 8 or 9 coming home on the bus.  We were 'white trash' where I was raised.  My parents never considered raising children any different from raising pigs so we were fair game and since the picking-on continued at home, our parents were no help - although I must say that my mother did shoot a dog once that bit me in our kitchen ( wasn't our dog).
Anyhow, I was/am very careful to advocate for my daughter who is going into grade four this year.  I've only had to do it a couple times but I've also taught her and still continue to teach her some assertiveness so that she doesn't have to always take the victim's role.  However, that being said, I always think of the best things to do or say after the fact when I'm on the spot alone.  I married a bully and by the end of this year the divorce should be granted but before we were separated for the last time I got this job at a wonderful pro-family non-profit agency only to find out a couple of months into the job that one of my co-workers was a bully and i was her favorite target.  It gutted me.  I went through a year of counselling before I could get my 'legs' under me.  A strange experience that I still don't pretend to fully understand but again, I think it rang all the right bells for me: bullied as a child, bullied in the assembly, married a bully and then working with one.  It was enough to send me into temporary retirement.  This week I interviewed for my first full time job prospect since.  Follow up interview today.  Confidence is everything.  Wish me luck
d

Hi Delila,
I definitely wish you the best in this interview. And I wish there are a good group of people in this job, among other things.

A few years back, a friend who grew up in the same neighborhood as I did in the sixth grade told me that one of my most vicious bullies wound up in prison.

My former step-father, whom I've mentioned in another post, died seven years ago around 55 years of age. It certainly was one of those case where one feels sorry someone's dead but there are no tears.

Thankfully, I never had to deal with any of those people after high school. However, there was a certain sense of closure to hearing about these two people.

- Shin

 Hi Shin,

  I also am mystified as to why someone would have the sexual urges that a child molester has, but then again I'm mystified about some of what goes on within my own psyche.  I grew up with a very strong attraction to women, but was raised to control my urges; so much so that I lived through my hippie (free love) years without ever losing my virginity!  For some reason I just knew that it would be wrong to have sex without a loving commitment, even when I was as high as a kite!

  How much was because of my environment, or what was due to genetics?  It is my opinion that we all are born with certain proclivities, and that our environment can either prepare us to stand against character weakness or to yield to it.  As a Christian I understand that I inherited a sinful nature.  

  I have heard it said that the only way a child molestor can be changed is by new birth.  Of course, I am not a psychologist and have not studied this issue.

  That APA changed their views on homosexuality, not due to science, but on the basis of homosexuals who were prominent in the group.  I say "science" but I don't think there ever was really a scientific understanding of homosexuality--- as in biological one.

  The APA had a member publish a paper where he contended that sex between minors and adults is not necessarily a negative thing.  The reason he said this is that in his evaluation these young people seemed to grow up psychologically healthy in most cases.  Progressive thinking or slippery slope?  It is clear that the author of the paper had an agenda to break down a moral distinction to help advance his own perverse desire.

  This is why I keep asking the question:  How do we draw lines?  And if we have no objective criteria in which to draw lines; how far do we go in judging a behavior as bad?

  It seems to me we need a clear moral compass as provided for us in the Bible.  

  This is not to say that all those who accept the Biblical standard will live up to it.  We know all too well the hell hole of hypocrisy that religion can be, but to reject the Bible because there are monstrous phairisees in the world is to totally misunderstand the loving purpose of God.


  I know that a faith destroyed can not be put back together again by my persuasion, but if I can possibly stir a little desire to keep an open mind on your part then God can still get through to your heart.  We think that God rejects us because of who we are, and our inability to change ourselves; no wonder, with such a belief, we just give up! :'(
 
 I earnestly believe that God understands all your pain, need, and desires.  I also believe there is a special place in God's heart for those devastated by false religion, and who were abused as children; He will never rest until He brings you back to Himself!

                                                     God Bless,  Mark C.  

  Tom back in 1983 I read "What Every Christian Should know About Homosexuality" by Tim LaHaye. Mr. LaHaye shows us that gays are screwed up and lost people.  It states over and over that gay relationships don't last.  "A gay man will go through thousands of sexual encouters through-out his whole life." Tom  I have friends who are gay. I go to a "Gay Church" The materials you have read on gays are mostly from the Evangelical right. These studies on homosexuals almost always focused on the "fringe" types.  The guys who are socially and mentally scewed up..Yet If you had observed the ceremonies that took place in San Francisco you would have heard announcments,  couples who were commited...together for 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, years!!!! i am not saying all gay relationships do last.  Imagine for a moment if you were in a relationship condemed by society, the church, your family how long would it last? Yet lets focus on people who are o.k. with themselves.  Who are comfortable with themselves. These are the people who need to be the focus of gay studies. Tom, how many gay people are you really friends with?  Do you really know any one who is gay???  Who is talking through his hat?

Mark:
I read: "This is why I keep asking the question:  How do we draw lines?  And if we have no objective criteria in which to draw lines; how far do we go in judging a behavior as bad?" And I think: Wow, that's why we were put here by that almighty creator: to judge all the bad behaviours.  Now I can die knowing that the eternal emptyness in my heart is completely filled. ::)
d

Hi Delila !

  I will take your question as an honest one and try to answer. (Even though I know you are being sarcastic).

  As a parent you probably recognize that you need to instruct your children re. what is right and wrong.  Those who grow up without a conscience end up becoming sociopaths; these become very destructive in society.

  Entire cultures can become sociopathic if they are unable to discern between what is right and what is wrong.  This is what happened to certain O.T. nations where they offered children as living sacrafices.

  As I said in my previous post, just knowing a righteous standard doesn't mean much; indeed it can lead to a hideous monstrosity like the Assembly, if one's conscience isn't honest in applying the standard to oneself first.

  The law is not to be used as a bludgeon, in an attempt to bully and control others, rather it is a means to get the log out of our own eyes first.

  I understand the last paragraph was your experience in the Assembly, and this is why you are so angry.  You have a right to be angry, and you need to know that God is angry at the way you were treated as well.  Jesus is just as much against what the Assembly practiced as He was in his severe denunciations of the Pharisees.

  I am trying, probably very poorly, to convey as best that I can, how terribly sorry that I am for how you were treated.  I do not view you as some enemy to win an argument against, but, if I could, someone who wants to extend a loving hand of help. :'(

  As much as my heart breaks for you it is nothing compared to how God's was pierced to bring you close to Him.
                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

 

From http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071405.html (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071405.html)
"...a new study has found that homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years."

"It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the "stereotype" that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous."

Arthur, LifeSite is a website that is an extremely onesided "traditional Judeo-Christian values" outreach to women who are considering an abortion.  Gee I wonder what their predisposition is towards gays? ??? ??? ??? ::) ::) ::) ::)  Why not go to  an objective site that let's you look at both sides of the issue and decide for yourself.  Oh! No! Critical Thinking!!!
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99213785

Well, they have that much right!


David, just how would you know what I have read???

So, you think UCLA is a right wing Evangelical organization.  Thanks for letting me know...they had me completely fooled.  And here all these years I thought it was a secular university.   The first study of Homosexual behavior I read was done there.  It was a huge study tracking several thousand homosexual men over several years.  All the study results I have read came from secular universities.  They all say pretty much the same thing.

I have never read any study results done by an evangelical organization.   Could you link me to some?  You seem to have done very careful analysis of the methodology of these studies.  ::)


So if someone enjoys his evil conduct, that makes it ok?  Hitler was "ok with himself"  So were his henchmen.
So, by your "logic" Hitler was ok.  Right.  

Before you start complaining that I am not being nice to you...notice that Hitler satisfies your criteria of "OK".

I choose my friends carefully Dave.


Actually Dave, you know very little about me.  I worked with homo's for years.  I was a teacher you know, and women's PE departments usually have some.

I have known some that had been "together" for a long time.  So what?  My aunt is 96 years old, and smoked for 75 years.  Would you say that that proves cigarrettes don't cause cancer? (which she has never had).  No, you would say that there are exceptions to what is true of large statistical samples.  

Get it?

We are talking about the folks who put on "Gay Pride" demonstrations and parades.  The perform sexual perversions on flatbed trucks for the benefit of the crowds.  They drug themselves and go to "bathhouses" where they have sex with multiple partners.
But, thats "OK", as long as they are comfortable with themselves.

"And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

Maybe its not as OK as they think.

Thomas Maddux

David,

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I went to the link that Arthur gave.  Did you read it?  I don't think so...look at what it says:


Did you read it this time Dave???   It says the study was conducted by Dr Maria Xiridou of the AMSTERDAM MUNICIPAL HEALTH SERVICE.  I wonder if they know that they are a one sided right wing evangelical organization.

Then you go on to mock Arthur about HIS lack of critical thinking.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools."  (Romans 1:22)

Thomas Maddux

Hi Mark,
Sarcasm, me?  Really? Seriously, I have two children too and "No." is quickly tuned out (whether you beat your kids or not - and I don't", what I have found is that re-direction works wonders.  That plug in may look pretty interesting to my two year old, so I stick a safety cover on it and direct him to his kitchen set or his plastic tool bench, play with him a while (he loves 'workin' hard!') or read him a book.  I do tell him what is hot and what can produce an owch but I dwell on preoccupying him with what is inherently more interesting, getting on with life - or play which currently is his life right now, his work, and yes, he does work hard.  I wonder why the focus on all the 'do nots' in Christianity.  I wonder if the Christain prides him/herself on what he/she does not do, on moral superiority implied in down-looking conversations about the unpatriotic or the sex-defyers or the norm-defyers, as though there were a prize for being 'normal' in the Western Context.  I wonder why there isn't a focus instead on, say, what I'm doing personally to make my community a better place and hence hoping the world feels the ripple effect.  That's where I take my leave of simply flinging verses and bible knowledge or even stats on sociological studies (and yeah, I have a degree in that but it hasn't made my life a whole lot better - it's a piece of paper, need to blow your nose?).  I think it's good to focus on what I can do, and it begins in my own home and back yard.  Getting consensus on 'moral' issues such as sexual pleasuring techniques and 'approved' participants won't make this board morally superior or correct, or powerful in any sense of the word.
d

Delilah,

Have you ever heard of trying to have your cake and eat it too?  

That is what you are doing in this, and other, posts.  On the one hand you are critical of the "down looking" statements made by Christians.  

In order to "look down" one must have a standard of measurement.  So, you don't think the Bible gives as a good standard.  After all, you can tear out the pages and blow your nose on them.

You also claim that Sociological studies are worthless.  You can blow your nose on them too.  (They don't tell us what we should do, but they do give us a good idea of what people actually do. They are being referred to to show that homo's are very dysfunctional people.)

So now, Delilah, you have rejected religion and experience as sources of values.  What do you propose to replace them with?

Looks to me like you intend to follow the dictates of Delilah. (With a little help grom Gloria Steinham)  I understand.  That is all that is left.  :'(

You criticize our (my) "simply flinging verses and Bible knowledge."  What I am doing is pointing out that your position is completely predictable in the Bible.  In fact, You, Shin, and Dave M. have provided quite a bit of evidence for the reliablilty of the Bible.

You condemn other's moral judgements, then you turn around and make them yourself!  But I understand, you have the same desire that all of fallen humanity has always had:

"...you will be like God, knowing good and evil."  (Genesis 2:5)

There are two problems with this Delilah.  First, The values you advocate are nothing more than the Biblical values with a little editing to allow sexual indulgence.

The other problem is that your subjectivisation of values makes all values the same.  You want to make your community a "better" place.  Better according to who?  Car thieves?  Pedophiles?  Members of the Taliban?  Pol Pot?  

There are lots of folks out there with their own take on values.  You seem to like Christian values with the sexual morality strained out.  But by rejecting the basis of those values, you undermine them.

How will you teach your kids not to cheat, lie, steal, and abuse other people if the only basis for such ideas is unpleasant consequences?

After teaching hundreds of kids for 33 years, I can assure you that kids raised this way come to this conclusion: "I can do whatever I want to as long as I don't get caught."

So...here comes three strikes, corruption on the courts, corruption in the law enforcement organizations.   If there is nothing really wrong with anything, why not just do whatever you want to?

Any society, or family, that is based on that kind of thinking is in trouble.

Thomas Maddux

I know you've heard us but have you ever taken the time to actually listen to us? Your posts always seem to be on the offensive/pre-emptive strike and you seem so determined to beat us down with the force of your arguments, which seem to be a little too stacked. A couple of other people do this as well, so I'm not singling you out. Other people have presented their disagreements with our positions in a very clear but civil manner so keep in mind I'm not using this particular post as a vehicle to attack your views.

So if it makes you happy, you're right*. So why all the energy in trying to prove you're right.

*sarcasm on the tone of Sheryl Crow's "If it Makes You Happy"

ugg!
d

   There is a spiritual song that was sung by slaves in the cotton fields of the American South in pre-Civil War years.  It proclaimed "Nobody knows the trouble I see.  Nobody knows but Jesus."  Pat Boone followed it about a century later with his hit, "You Got Me Singin' the Blues."

   It is natural for us to take the position that [1] Nobody understands me, [2] nobody really cares, and [3] nobody has suffered as much as I have suffered.

   Well, [1] it is true that none of us fully understands another, but in our complaint we tend to confuse understanding with appreciating.  We don't have to understand each other to appreciate each other.  I don't have to share your perspective in order to appreciate that you have a viewpoint that is uniquely yours-- and I for one do appreciate that your way of looking at things is uniquely yours, whether or not you are immersed in some general trend of thought.  It is the uniqueness of you as an individual that demands I not write you off as a mental clone.  I choose to address you as a person rather than as a member of the collective.

   [2] It seems apparent to me that the reason people are posting here, on either side of any argument, is that they do care.  What they care about and how much they care, may be in doubt, but that they care appears evident.  I have a new saying for people who stress themselves out about how others treat them:  You need to unwhine!  All the petty, pathetic sniveling about how unfairly the other party regards me has got to go!  Does anyone here actually believe that one of us can change the opinion of another?  I think not.  So let us each state his/her case, as objectively as possible, and stop fretting over whether and how it is received.
   I have followed this thread closely enough to believe that, while we each have some personal stake in our arguments, for the most part we each wish the other well.  (If I have misjudged you, and you really do hate someone here, please forgive me. ::))
   Motives here vary, according to beliefs personally embraced.  Some appear to want themselves, and others, to be understood while others seek to explain principles that will lead to deeper self-understanding.  To draw a distinction between Christians and unbelievers seems too simplistic terminology, although we are probably all aware that Jesus Christ is the dividing line between schools of thought.

   [3] Respect, and lack thereof, is a major player in such considerations.  Unless I extend myself to the point of appreciating (as described above) the individuality of another, it is impossible that I will respect him/her.  Key to this discussion is that right this moment the reader is concerned with how my message is being received by those who oppose his/her view.  My Brother, my Sister, my Friend, I am addressing YOU.
   No one can possibly realize the degree to which you have personally suffered just because you are you.  But in like manner, you cannot possibly have any idea of how the other has suffered.  Why must you think of yourself as the greater sufferer?  Such comparisons are foolishness-- get over it!
   If you want to dwell on suffering, don't feel sorry for yourself-- think about how Jesus suffered-- more than anyone before or since.  At this point, the skeptic may begin to evaluate victims of war, plagues, accidents, etc. in hopes of demeaning the sufferings of Christ.  Without going into detail, the thing that was most horrible of all about Christ's ordeal is that He alone, of all who ever lived, did not deserve such agony.  You and I have fallen far short of pleasing God, but Jesus never did-- He always obeyed the will of His Father in heaven.  He was innocent, but God condemned Him to be beaten, abandoned, and killed in our place, in order to save us from the destruction we would bring down upon ourselves, and Jesus submitted Himself to this end out of obedience to His Father and love for you and me.  
   Instead of bemoaning that my suffering isn't respected by others, I am indebted to respect the suffering that was voluntarily borne on my behalf, by one upon Whom I had no claim.  Such consideration should go a long way toward humbling me in my regard for my peers, and make me less demanding about their regard of me.

   Oh, that spiritual song the fieldhands sang concluded by stating, "Nobody knows the trouble I see.  Glory, Hallelujah!"

al

Bravo...well said.

Al,

You've got the tense wrong.  It's "Nobody knows the trouble I've seen."

You also left out the important phrase, "Nobody knows but Jesus."

There is a false teaching that seems popular lately that defines "Christ-like" as being silent when hurting.  The reason this teaching is false is that it is just a ruse.  The real meaning behind the teaching is that christians should look down on those who are hurting.  After all, you wouldn't know about it if they hadn't said something and violated the "code of silence".

The real definition of "Christ-like" is to care about those who are hurting.

Luke 4:16-22
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.  And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias.  And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.  And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.  And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.  And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.  And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.  And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

---

So far, I've refrained from answering in this thread.  It has seemed best to let those who are more patient and diplomatic answer.  Perhaps Tom is running out of patience?

John 3:19-21
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.  But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Tom, yes I  did read it! Tom and others, did you (I know you are retired.) "a Christian" who holds to "taditional values" work in a secular institution? Do other people who are Christian work in government positions?  Of course!  Now if I lead up an organization "LifeSite" and I want to premote my "tradition values" ie. "homosexuality is a sin", and Dr. Maria Xiridou holds to my "traditional views" than I am going to use her work on my site! Tom the sites main purpose  is to give women an alternative to abortion. of course they are going to post  this kind of garbage.  Tom remember the "House of Prayer"?  my brother lived about one block west on Wilshire.  He lived in the same building where Kirt Byword had his pottery shop. He and a group of guys use to rent all three units.  Tom my brother and his friends were just normal  guys.  Thy were in their twenties, not serious about careers, education etc..  yet they were serious about parties. They were serious about women!  Tom I am not lieing when I say that for any of these guys to go through 7,8,9,10,11, 20? relationships in one year was anything they considered "abnormal"   On the contrary they were "normal" they were just "Men behaving badly"  O.K. You might not want to go so easy on them.  But truthfully this is what is "normal" for a very large part of our society. O.K. I can hear it already!!!! Is it right?  Is it good?  I am not saying it is.  (Why do you think I got 'saved"?) Tom let's look at it from this perspective.  When Wilt Chamberlin writes in his book that he has had sex with over a thousand women, most men look at that as quite an acomplishment.  Of course if a woman in our society said this she would be considered a slut! a whore!  So also the homosexual.  If a homosexual has a relationship "He is a sick person!!!"  Tom you and everyone will admit that our society is filled with people like my brother and his friends.  Why then isn't Mr. LaHaye writing a book on the premise "See heterosexual relationships don't work!"  The real truth is that homosexuals are just like anyone else.  Yes, some homosexuals are unstable, confused immoral.  These men tend to be the focus of the sudies you reffer to. Are the studies completely false? No -but heterosexuals are no different, but in our society, they have an advatage over gays. As I said before, imagine if you were in a relationship where society, the church, your family and Tim LaHaye condemed it. Had laws forbidding it. How long would it last?  When the thought comes across my mind "I think I will leave my wife"  I have to consider, What will my relatives say?  What will my co-workers think?  What will Tim LaHaye say?  etc...  A few years ago I  was renting a guest house from an elder of the first Christian Church.  Every other weekend his son would come over and do the yardwork.  Now and then we would chat. He is a very conservative hard working, clean, responsable man. But he is gay!  He and his partner have been together for quite a few years. Right now they both are saving their money to retire and move to Arizona. Tom is this guy a sick and perverted man? Tom why dont you read books about gays who represnt this side of society?  Does this contradict your Biblical view of gays?  Does this man and his partner pose a threat to you?  To national security? The truth is gays are just like you and me. They have their problems just like you and me! But they have more. They live in a society that treats them the same way it use to treat blacks and other minorities. (Many people still treat blacks and minorities wrongly)  The problems are that you believe the stereotypes and you perpetuate the racism.   S-D  Hang in there!!!!! :D

Shin,

I will answer this post soon.  Got some things to do.

Thomas Maddux

David,


Dave, it is absurd to claim that something is the same and different at the same time.

You refer to scientific studies that disagree with your position as "garbage".

Have you read the study?  Have you examined the methodology?  Have you any basis other than your dislike of the results to reject it?

For that matter, have you ever read a scientific study report about this at all?

I doubt it.  David, if you wish to be taken seriously, you must get serious.  

You say that I am perpetuating "racism".   :o

Where did that come from?  Tell me Dave, just what are my thoughts on race and just how did you discern them?

Regarding the "just like you and me" claim.  Hold off until I get time to reply to Shin's post.  There will be some "food for thought" in it.

Thomas Maddux

Tom as I stated I read he book by Tim LaHaye, I also attend a "gay church" where the issue is brought up quite often. The garbage I refer to is the premise of your "science"  Homosexuaility is wrong because "scientific evidence" shows  homosexual  relationships are filled with pain, failure, disease etc... When in truth they are no different then heterosexual relationships. A fact that you are totally ignoring. Tom answer the questions,  Why are homosexual relationships threatening to you or society? When you treat homosexuals as wicked, evil, sinners based the Bible and/or this type of "science" are you not being a "racist"?  Racism might not be the correct word but it is just like racism.  Treating a Black man like he is a lazy, shiftess, etc... when in truth you might not know anything about who the person really is. This is racism.  Treating a homosexual as if something is wrong with them is  "racism". O.K. I should use "Homophobic"  but to me homophobic doesn't place enough responsability on people who mistreat gays.

David,
quick observation.  I believe what Tom was asking for was some evidence from you of your assertions - namely that "[homosexual relationships] are no different than heterosexual relationships."
In the context of one having no more adverse effects than the other, you say this is a truth, yet give no supporting scientific reasoning, or studies to support it.  The opposition to that opinion (especially on a board such as this) is such that evidence of your statement in neccessary for it to be taken seriously.

While the consequences of certain lifestyles are certainly worth looking into when considering them philosophically, I think that the most important thing that faces every christian questioning homosexuality is What does God say about it?  and  Do I believe Him?  - and finally, providing that I do believe what He says, how do I as a christian behave towards one who chooses to define him or her self by that 'sexual orientation'.

Is there a question as to what the Bible says about it?  esp in places like Romans 1?  I do not think that (according to the bible) one can make a very good case for the act of homosexual sex not being a sin.

As for my behavior towards those who are gay, there is no question that they, like me, are uniquely and specially created by God, and that he loves them in spite of their faults, even as he loves me in spite of all of mine.  I do not sit in judgement over them, but because in my depravity I saw grace, I will do my best to point them to that same grace that shines for every man and woman.  
As for the homosexual acts, I will not voice my approval, nor will I ever voice my approval for Wilt Chamberlains exploits, or those of any other act of fornication.  
I am a sinner.  For others to treat me as if nothing is wrong with me would be false and unhealthy.  I cannot approve of what I know is wrong, but I can point to the one who waits with open arms for all sinners to come.

Joseph

Joseph,

     Please allow me a couple of brief responses to your lucid & generous remarks:


     Having been personally acquainted with a number of homosexual individuals over the years, I can attest that there are those who definitely do NOT choose to define themselves by their sexual choices, just as there are promiscuous heterosexuals who do not define themselves by either their heterosexuality nor their promiscuity.  While the passage of time has made American homosexuals more open about discussing their orientations, many, perhaps most, appear to think of themselves in terms of  their individuality, their skills & talents, their enjoyments of arts, sports & other recreation, their politics, etc., while their sexual practices are personal & private as should befit the social sensitivities of any rational person.

     I bring this up for two reasons.  First, it can be excruciating to those of us who have family members who are homosexual (Cathy & I are related to two, who we love dearly and pray for) to hear otherwise reasonable Christians refer to "the sodomites" or "the homosexuals" as if they constitute a solid bloc, a collective adjoined at the brain who, with a single mind and will have joined forces to overthrow God and all decency in the world.  I am not saying that anyone on this board has displayed such extreme insensitivity or absence of thought, but it does exist, and Christians seem easily drawn into it.  There are homosexual folk supporting nearly every political position, philosophical view, and charitable endeavor that their hetero- counterparts do.  None of thes things will save anyone from destruction-- I merely point out that sexual preference is not the primary focus of every person of any persuasion.



     Yes, and this brings me to my second reason for this post:  There is none righteous, no not one.  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord has laid on Christ Jesus the iniquity of us all.  

     We who have turned to Christ are commissioned by Him to go into all the world to preach the gospel and make disciples.  We are sent to preach Christ, the remission of sins, and repentance.  We are not sent to tell homosexuals that they must quit their orientation & marry members of the opposite sex before Christ will accept them, as one of my "gay" kinsmen told me Christians preach.  It is the nature of mankind, fallen into a state of sinfulness, and not the accumulation or the nature of one's sins, which keeps a soul separated from God.  I find it significant that among the things listed in Proverbs 6:16-19 which God hates, homosexuality is not specified, and yet Christians will band together to take a stand against homosexuals while virtually ignoring pride, dishonesty, murder, wickedness, etc. as targets of concern.  It can be a very sloppy, lazy, thoughtless & heartless practice of religion.

     When we preach repentance to the unsaved, we are not merely telling them to turn from their sins.  With a flawed nature that cannot help but sin, where would they turn?  We preach Christ crucified, the power and the wisdom of God to all who are called:  only in Him are any of us able to repent.  To a believer, born anew by the spirit of God, we will minister regarding sexual misconduct & many other things as needed, but to the unsaved the only issue for us to address is their need of Christ.


     Amen, Joseph.  Thanks for your post.

al

All:
So often when I read the BB I think: "Hey, I could have written that, say ten or twelve years ago..." But really, I'm sure I did write that, much of what's been written, the tone it has been written in, with more than the number of verses with which much of this is 'padded out' to make it so bulky and full and tough and everlasting, when really, I was very small.  I still am very small, shrinking with age perhaps.  So yeah, Tom and Al and Mark, I understand you all.  I predicted what would be written even before I logged on to read responses to certain topics.  Rarely have I been surprised by what's been written.  It is not new, much of it is the old assembly line regergitated without phrases like: Now sister, have you talked to the brothers about that?  Did you get counsel?  Are you following the directions we gave?  We should check your schedule sometime.

Every once in a while I consider God as a person, seriously, but I think that demeans whatever it is that God is.  I think that the energy of life that, whether breathed into clay molded into human form or hatched from an egg dropped by aliens, is so much bigger than stacking society into groups that make some 'bad' and others justified in their almightly grand pooba anger.  I think it's wasted energy to point and poke, not to mention, bad manners.

There is something else that I want to say but ugg comes to mind again and hangs there heavy in the air.  I remember once when I thought I'd go back to the band wagon and try to convert an old boy friend.  I remember him saying:  "Delila, to me it's not about us all being on the same team and trying to convert others to our religion.  I think the bible has about as much to say as Milton or Dorris Lessing or any other writer that's really digging..." and he said more, but that's what sticks to me.  So he didn't join my team and I left my team about a year later and I look at the "Accept Jesus and be saved" group and I think: saved from what?  The same heavy handed separation games go on and though it is SAID we derive our righteousness from Christ Alone, this is clearly not the case.  So offten that righteouss feeling you get when you slam somebody, feeds you more than Jesus, it's got to.  Or you wouldn't keep doing it.
d

To Whom It May Concern,

I have said this to David M before.  Maybe the real problem is that some of you have not yet shed your 'Christian' perceptions a la assembly.  When you read the responses of individuals who have left the assembly (not the Bible) behind, it becomes the 'trigger' that causes you to hear the voices of individuals the George had assimilated.  The only way to solve the dilemna is to shut off the trigger, according to ST-Voyager anyway eh??

One person would repeatedly tell me something like, "I am praying and God hasn't yet shown me."  She had boxed God in and had decided that she would know that He had answered if and only if He answered in the way she expected Him to answer.

Thou shalt nots are a necessary part of life.  Thou shalt not molest a child.  Thou shalt not abuse thy spouse.  Thou shalt not be prejudiced against a 'gay' person just because of his 'preference'. Thou shalt not follow Wilt Chamberlin's example.  We've already discussed quite a few just on this thread.

The assembly did not actually help us to become 'overcomers'.  Each of us entered with our own sets of problems.  Most left with the same set and more.  The homosexual did not find victory over his homosexuality.  The individual with a problem with 'outbursts of anger' left thus as well.  The you-name-it left with you-name-it.  The assembly counsellors could take us apart and name our issues, but then we were left all taken apart and well aware of our sin and dilemnas, and hopeless.

Sorry, that is not the work of God, but the work of a master deceiver.

Much love to you,
Marcia

Let's hear it for the good guys.  Apparently for the time being there still are sane people in government.

California high court voids same-sex marriages

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39941 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39941)

Voting 5 to 2 they said the SF mayor overstepped his bounds in issuing the licenses.

No duh.

Another worse thing is to slander God by saying that he made you a homosexual.  Your words are worse than your actions if you say that.

Promoting the homosexual political agenda is similar in its result to what the men of Sodom did.  They surrounded Lot's house demanding his visitors.  The political activists are trying to take away the rights of parents to protect their children.  This is like demanding that parents send their children out for these predators to "find out" whether the children are homosexual.  Do you think that God won't judge for this?

Hi folks,

Here is a link to an article on the Exodus International website.  Of course, they are "one sided" in that they believe that people can have a degree of recovery from homosexuality.  

(If you disagree with certain folks, you are "one sided" and wrong.  If you agree, you are just right.)   ;)

They do not claim that it is easy.  In fact, they acknowledge that it is very difficult.

They also believe that the degree of healing varies from individual.  Some make a complete recovery.  Others have periods of temptation. Some lapse, "fall off the wagon".

 To me, this sounds just about like the problems faced by people in all addictive behaviors.

But one thing is certain.  There are thousands of people who have rejected the homosexual life and have experienced substantial healing from its devastation.

Here's the link:

http://exodus.to/library_prevention_05.shtml


Thomas Maddux

David,

When you reject studies that tabulate what real people actually do, you are rejecting reality.  

Once a person rejects reality, there is nothing left but fantasy.  If you are comfortable with opinions based on fantasies, enjoy.  I am not.

Why should I, or anyone else, pay attention to the moral pronouncements of someone who lectures me from a basis of fantasies.?

Regarding "racist" and "homophobe", you are back to name calling.  

That is not OK.  Please do not continue that.

Thomas Maddux

Al,
I agree
I made that distinction in my post because, if one does not choose to identify themselves as gay, then it definitely makes it much easier to see them for who they are beyond that.  It is when someone makes their individuality based on the fact they engage in homosexual acts that I find it much harder to get beyond that and see the person God loves.

It is the same with heterosexual fornication.  I have a friend who at times has seemed to be defined by the number of girls he can bed.  It makes me sad, because I have to really look hard just to see the remnants of who he really is, instead of the testosterone infused predator that he seems to be.

Joseph

Sorry about the name calling! Tom, when you repond to me by posting a verse of scripure that says   "Professing themselves as wise they have become fools"  isn't this name calling?   Tom the science we are discussing goes like this. "If you are a gay male who comes from a certain demographic you have a 59% more chance of contracting an STD than does a hetero male from that same demographic." It goes on and on.  Is it true?  Sure O.K. Statistics involve many variables. We can use this same science to show that "If you are black male from a certain demographic you have a 59% more chance of contracting an STD than a white male from the same demographic. It doesn't prove that they are any more "evil" or "righteous" than my brother, you me.  Which by the way is the assertion from people who are behind LifeSite and Tim LaHaye.  When I just happen to notice a pretty woman I feel an attraction for her.  Why?  I'm not sure why, but I know I am attracted to her.  These feelings have been inside of me since I was a very young boy.  Before I was born I don't remember what happened. I don't remember going down an assembly line and God asking me, "Hetero or Homo?" I just got what I got. The same for gays.  When HUELL Howser sees a guy he is attracted to him the same way you and I are attracted to women. Gays are just like everyone else. The world governments are quickly moving towards complete equality for  gays. Yet people like Jerry Falwell don't like it. Does it make Jerry feel uncomfortable?  Like Oh no! whats the world coming to?   I believe that certain societies feel threatend by Homosexuality because they don't tend to procreate. (A fundamental purpose of primitive rites.) But this is changing.  Today many Gays are having children through adoption etc..  I remember my years in the assembly.  I can remember how  guilty (the neurosis that followed) I felt because I wanted to have sex with a woman!  I can't imagine how guilty I would have felt if it was towards a man! To enncourage people to feel this way about themselves is wrong! Oh by the way, if you know of a science that proves that homosexuality really is wrong by all means share it!

Dear HUELL Sorry dude, I outed you! :P :P :P :P

Is Huell Howser really gay or are you kidding? I knew Fred Flintstone was, but Huell Howser? Really? wow.

--Joe

Dear D.  :),

  Way back when on this thread you responded to my "I know that you are being sarcastic post", and Saturday finally arriving I can now respond.

  You said quite a bit in a few sentences that I would like to respond to, unfortunately I do not have the "gift" of a sharp wit like you do, so forgive my long and rambling answers.

  We were talking about "drawing moral lines", or rules, and I took your response to be one that scoffed at such a notion as being unneccesary.  Then, I believe you argued that the Bible, and my faith in it, were no different than blindly following GG; your contention, if I have it right, is that my faith in a personal God is a narrow type of "club membership" that views life through a "straw."  Also, that Christianity is just a male created means to control others via assuming a God given moral superority over others lives.

  This thread has had some who answered some of these challenges listed above very well.  I thought that Joseph Resigner's post answered perfectly the last item about moral superiority.

  I would like to respond to your challenge to a belief in "a personal God," as all the above questions are tied together on this point.

  Prior to my new birth I believed in the Eastern religous view that God was a universal consciousness; that God was everything, and as such everthing was part of God.  Indeed, evil was part of God, as was good, and that we all existed in a kind of eternal circle of existence.

  Such belief can bring a feeling of great contentment for those plagued by their conscience.  It can also bring great relief to a feeling of frustration in struggling against the concept that God has moral expectations for my life.  

  This last paragraph was the reason for my rejecting the Christian concept of God and accepting the "god is a force" type idea.  The immediate relief I felt led me to a course of moral and psychological passivity, that travelled a path to a deep narcissism.  I was a very nice guy, and never hurt a flea, but lived life in isolation w/o any positive impact on others.  Had I been left alone I would have ended up never getting married, having children, having a productive career, and could have been a hermit to my days end.

  I lived in a cave in the mountains, and began to be oppressed by spiritual forces that I did not understand.  I now believe that these powers were demonic, but that is not the important point, rather it was a means to awaken me from the path of least resisitance that I took.

  I then cried from the heart, "God, whoever, or whatever you are; I will do what you want!"  The oppresive spiritual forces vanished and a joy that I never had came to my life!!

 This was not done in a church meeting, and I had never heard of the Assembly at that time,  rather it was a personal experience between me and God alone.  If your experiences with the Gospel were all Assembly linked, this could be a problem with your ability to separate God from a kind of group think.  There are those who leave the Assembly, and once the group controls are lifted, they realize they have no connection with God at all.

  My cry was not answered because of it's theological correctness, it was the moral component, "I will do what you want,"  that accomplished the necessary breakthrough.

  The essence of reality is not "God consciousness", but that God is holy:  "God is light", the Bible states, and "this light lightens every person that comes into the world."  This light is moral sensitivity to what is good and evil.

 Though I tried to escape my conscience via a belief that morality was not an issue, it was being forced to admit that it was an issue that led to my discovery of true peace and joy.

  My "facing of the moral issue" did not mean that I was able to change the fact of my own moral failings, but I realized instantly that the problem had been resolved.  I learned later the reason for this, and that was that God Himself, in the person of the Son, gave His life to take my sins away.

 God as a person makes so much more sense than God as a force.  The fact of creation means that there is a designer and with that design comes a purpose to life.  The fact that we do have moral awareness means that the designer gave us this attribute.  W/o moral awareness and distinctions we sink into an abyss of moral relatavism that brought to birth such "great" movements as Nazism and Communism.  This also brought the hippie generation of "free love" that brought the resurgence of almost defeated STD's and some new ones to boot! :'(  


  This salvation understanding is entirely individual and comes from an one-on-one interaction with God.  Group membership in an organization, with loyalty to a dogma, will never produce the personal enlightment that comes from regeneration via the Spirit of God.

  "Many will come from the East and West", as Jesus said, and make this personal discovery, since God has given everyone moral awareness (a conscience); this "generation of the righteous" is not going to be a narrow select group of church going members, but spans all time and the Globe!

  The foundation of my faith is not based on the moral superiority of my character, rather on a personal transformation of my heart.  This change came from conviction of my conscience and the forgiveness of sins.

  The Gospel's power to change lives is not through a gift of moral superiority to others, rather as a demonstration of God's great mercy and grace to broken and needy folks.

  This spirit of love and forgiveness was largely absent from the Assembly system, and instead a harsh caricature of the face of God was displayed.  Groups can lose their Gospel moorings and drift from "the grace of God in truth" and do great damage to people ( i.e., "destroyed faith, stumbled lives, offended little ones, etc.).

  If one is unable to separate the loving God of the gospel from the twistings of Assembly, and other group think distortions, they may have never experienced the most wonderful discovery of personal salvation through reception of the Holy Spirit.

                                               God Bless,  Mark C.

 

For quite  awhile I use to suspected HUELL was gay (However my gaydar is not very good)  but I never mentioned it to anyone. Then one day at work some people were talking about it. If you think about it when HUELL says "That's Amazing"  it kinda reminds you of Jim Nabors saying "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!  :o :o :o :o :o

Mark C  (Campbell?) Your experience in the cave can be interpretted in many ways. This does not diminish it.  It can be interpretted by what   people in A.A. call "A moment of clarity" I had/have these experiences also. I have been "Born Again".  Merton states that this is simply breaking away from ignorance and seeing life in a whole new experience.   After having one at age 15, I then "Learned" what it meant when I was directed towards Christian fundamentalist. They taught me about the moral lines or in other words "What I believe" Funny! Christians learn what they believe after they become a christian! I was taught that there were "Absolutes" that we as Christians were absolutely correct in our world view because we have the absolute Word of God, the Spirit of God, the Church of God, The mind of God, the Son of God. I was also taught that science supported our beliefs, but when science would seemingly contradict our beliefs, then we reverted to "by Faith we understand..." etc... These revelations brought on a euphoria, a feeling and awarness that I knew what it is all about and am privy to a cosmic drama about to unfold.  With great zeal I sought to convert others and to teach the Bible.  Yet, as time passed on the questions and contradictions haunted me.  If God revealed to truth about such and such why then did I learn later that that doctrine was in "error" or that choice was "Not the Will of God!" (at the time God spoke very clearly) If Billy Graham was/is so in tune with the living and moral God then why did he not participate in the civil rights Movement? (Something he deaply regrets today!)or why do Christians hurt each other in the most disgusting ways. Yes I can hear you  "Dave, Christians are only forgiven-not perfect!"  The premise that we have within our lives a perfect God contradicts the excuses I hear over and over in the Christian church..  When your children ask you "Dad, how come a lady at church got up and gave a testimony about how she prayed and God gave her a brand new car and then we heard on the news that a little girl was kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered?"  Daddy? does God care more about his ladys' car then this little girls life and family?"  "Oh child we can't understand Gods' ways"  "Some day we will all be in heaven and God will show us!"   Sorry Mark this doesn't work anymore for me!  Love, Logic and Reason must be our guides in this life. To suggest that we have it all written down in this book, we have all the answers right here!  is not true. Life is much more complex than we want to believe.  Get out and look at other people, investigate, experiment, ask questions come up with your own conclusions then start all over again!  Life is a beautiful mystery and it is the journey and the discovering that makes it enjoyable.  I am a astonomer!  Every time a new galaxy/planet/star/nebula is dicovered it fills me with wonder and excitement.  we don't know it all and haven't even begun!!!! (This thread is about Girlie men not me!)

Hi David!

 (Yes indeed my last name is Campbell, like the soup ;).)

  I understand that my personal testimony can easily be dismissed as the psychological quirk that you see it to be, but I was using it to illustrate a rational point, that being the discussion of who God is.

  We all have experiences that we can claim "are from God", but in your response to my post you don't seem to understand the point that I was trying to make, or prefer to not understand.

  Your condescending and insulting advice to me "to get out and experience life" was not appreciated.  How do you know how I live my life?!  I said that I lived in a cave when I held similar spiritual beliefs to what yours are, but I have abandoned such head in the sand escapsim.

  You believe that "love" is the first prerequisite to understanding life.  Yet, you ridicule my disclosure of a very deep and personal moment ???  

  I understand respectful disagreement, and I have tried to treat you with polite responses, but your disingenuous responses are wearing my patience thin.

  The civil rights movement (abolition) began in the Bible believing church, and in America in the black churches ( as in the Rev, Martin L. King).

  Modernist religious thought (that rejects a literal view of the Bible) in Europe ushered in the wonderful moral relativism that created Nazi Germany and Communism!  Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot provide for those "who want to get out and look around a bit" a great testimony to how a world view that rejects the Bible (and indeed was directly hostile to it) ends up!! :'( :'(

  Yep, those great minds of social science, and rejectors of the Bible, managed to exterminate 9 million, 12 million, and over a million respectively, in less than a hundred years!!  Oh, can't forget our good God rejecting scientist, Mao Tse Tung:  I forget how many he slaughtered whom rejected his "progressive" views?  It doesn't matter; at least he wasn't a Bible thumper like Billy Graham! ::) ::)  

  Free thinking is a wonderful thing, unless it involves a belief that the Bible might be true.  At least that is what I understand your position to be.  A more honest "free thinking" expression would be to have a more humble view toward others views, and to engage in more honest conversation.

  I understand that you are reacting to your past experiences in the Assembly, but that is exactly what your responses become-- reactionary; without the love or logic that you say guides your new "progressive" view of things!

                               God Bless,  Mark C. (as in Campbell)

   

Mark I always have had the highest regard for you. You were always an example of humility and grace to me. When trying to discuss Homosexuality it gets me upset that you posted an attack on my belief system. The Unitarians have always been at the forfront of civil liberties. Many "Christian" fundamentalist seem to forget the fundamentals.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"  and in my response I seem to see Mr. Falwell instead of you. Mark, guys like you got it the worst in the assembly.  You were taken advatage of by Georges dominating spirit. I would think that after 20 years this would cause you to question a personal God who loves you and answers all your prayers.  but I want to stop this.  I would rather deal with the Gay issue.  Not me.  Please forgive me if i have offended you.

Hi David!

  I gladly receive your apology and would like to explain why your post was so offensive to me.  Pardon my impatience with your post, but I trust the following will help you understand how I received it.

  Your arguments were not against my position, but against a caricature of my beliefs.  It seemed you were consciously twisting my comments into a "I hate homosexuals" kind of position.  Though I believe it ridiculous to consider homosexuality an issue of "civil rights", I believe that God loves all sinners, including homosexuals.

  You may not understand the connection between "progressive" pseudo Christian movements that I made, and in which I place Unitarian beliefs.  It would take a large essay to make the connection between "modern" interpretations of the Bible, that reject it's authority, and how that prepared the way for Nazixm and communism.  Of course individual members can be very nice people, but it is the moral relativism, failure to recognize the distinction between good and evil, and the belief that eveyone is basically good that led to agressive evil in the 20th century, certainly not Bible believing Christians!

  The suggestion that I have my head in the sand and am some kind of unsophisticated lame brain for having faith in the Bible was the most offensive inuendo that you made.  Yes, I was snookered by GG at one time, but my present beliefs are clearly at odds with his views, as numerous posts on this BB should make evident.  The attempt to draw a comparison between myself and GG are clearly an attempt to attack me, vs. dealing with the point that I was making.

  Last, the idea that believing in the Bible is not "scientific", as you put it, was not offensive to me, just silly.  The Bible was never intended to be a scientific proof of God, though I believe it is accurate in it's record re. history and science.
  The bible is used as an archaelogical guide, due to it's proven reliability, in research.

  There is not space to go into the above issue now, but any elementary Christian apology book can handle supposed "contradictions", if one is interested.

  I would ask you David if it is not you that possibly are reacting against your Assembly time by making all of Christianity some kind of blind faith, or worse yet Elmer Gantryism!? (or a combination of the two.)  Who is the real Jesus?  Maybe you have never made this discovery?

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

I fail to see how someone who restricts the marital choices of others are "good guys." I'm sure most of the posters on this BB would not see the leading brothers and GG's counsel to various members concerning whom to marry as something good. I'm sure this is seen as abusive, crossing boundaries, or better yet, a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights.

I do believe that restricting the rights of others does open it up to restrict "cherished" rights and freedoms. This is why I don't see this action as good.

Sorry if Exodus Int'l or other ex-gay groups have little credibility with me. Of course, there is the empirical information from various people who have been there done that. Doug Upchurch, who used to have the "Ex-Ex Gay website" was one such person.

Interestingly, the founders of Exodus Int'l did not "recover" from their homosexuality. Neither did the founder of Homosexuals Anonymous (maybe he's penitent now but his counseling practices, which often crossed the counselee's sexual boundaries, did more harm than good).

I've read this article. I've heard this type of rhetoric when I was in these groups before. Reading it now, I find it glib and chilling at the same time.

Heres' my favorite passage:

Tell that to the guy who jumped off the Coronado bridge and whose body was found in the San Diego bay. This was someone from one of the groups I was in.

Hi Shin,

Since you don't see homosexuality as a "moral" issue, then restricting the marital choices of gay couples can be viewed as a form of control, abusive, crossing boundaries, or a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights.  In Ottawa we had a similar issue regarding child pornography.  Someone felt that they should have the freedom and right to 'artistic expression' by producing movies and using government funds to do so (Hugh correct me on this).  I do not know what the outcome of that dilemna was, but I hope the government did the right thing they were elected to do, ie to protect and do what is best for the people.

There was a time, in the 'olden' days, when society knew that having affairs, homosexuality, and the likes is wrong.  It was usually under cover in those days.  Now-a-days everyone has the civil right to express themselves openly and freely.

It is a sad commentary indeed when the counsellors cannot effectively minister to the counsellees.  I know of a Christian couple who worked for years at a hospital and in their church counselling people on marriage issues.  Every evening they went home and could not do what they had told others to do.  They retired in their mid-60s and the wife suddenly decided that enough is enough and left her husband.  Does that invalidate their counselling??  Possibly it does, if it was 'theoretically speaking' type of counselling.  But if it was counselling from the heart and because they could relate to the dilemnas of the others, then possibly the counselling was good and could remain effective in those they counselled.

A ST-Voyager analogy.  You've probably seen the episode aired 12/2/1998 Nothing Human  -- A moral dilemma arises when the Doctor is forced to consult the specialized medical database of a Cardassian war criminal in order to save Torres' life. http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-5/voy-5idx.html (http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-5/voy-5idx.html)
Even society recognises that they have to face 'moral' dilemnas.  Of course it is likely that the author of that episode was a narrow-minded right-wing Christian Republican.  :-\ ;)

Marcia

     We will not reason our way to a meeting of the minds here.  Just as the continental divide splits the land in two (rain falls from heaven, and that which falls east of the divide flows east, while rain falling west of it flows west), so Jesus Christ divides the directions in which reason takes us.  The bible declares that natural man (who hasn't been born from above & therefore has not the spirit of Christ within) cannot receive or know the things of God (cannot correctly discern spiritual matters or values).

     For men loved darkness rather than light, we are told, because their deeds were evil.  This speaks not just of specific "sins," but of all their deeds, because they are performed from a sinful (rebellious against the authority of God) nature.  It is impossible for such a nature to produce anything that will please God or satisfy the requirements to enter into His presence.  Not just difficult, or nearly impossible, but utterly impossible.

     There is a great gulf fixed between righteousness & holiness (God) and unrighteousness & unholiness (man), and that monstrous chasm cannot be spanned from man's side.  God, in his great mercy and love for us, has bridged that gap by sending His only Son from His side to ours, where He took upon His own pure person all the filth and corruption that makes us odious to God, and with it the guilty verdict and death sentence that is justly ours.  Never has anyone suffered as He did, for He bore not just one man's sin, but the sin of us all.

     The natural tactic of man is to look around for someone worse than himself, so that he may say, "I'm not as bad as some people."  But God has said that all are included as being guilty under sin, and has given us His law to show what He requires of us if we are to fulfill our destiny; the purpose for which we are designed.  We were created to show forth the glory of the Lord, and therefore are required to be perfect even as God is perfect.  Who then can possibly be saved?  With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.  The law of God (His demands) was given us to demonstrate that we have not the wherewithal to fulfill it-- a schoolmaster, as it were, to show us our need of a Mediator.  That is why He placed upon Christ the uncleanness of us all, so that it could be removed from us forever and we could walk before Him in newness of life, unencumbered by our former burdens and curse.  To everyone who has received this gift of life, God has given the authority, His authority, to become the sons of God.

     It is reason that blocks our approach to Him (not that His plan is unreasonable, but that we misapply the God-given facility of reason).  How can these things be, we ask.  A dehydrated man, lost in the vastness of a desert, will not analyze the reasonableness of a cool drink offered him, but he will simply partake of it.  Because he understands the desperateness of his situation and the lifesaving value of the solution being presented to him.  But if the severity of his environment has corrupted his mind, he may turn away from his deliverer and hasten away into the very thing that is killing him.

     So it is with man apart from God:  There is no question that he is lost and perishing, except in his own mind.  For if he has bought into the lies of the spirit of this world, he will deny his peril and turn away from his Deliverer, looking instead to that which is destroying him for his "reason."  

     It is "natural" for the creature who has never experienced the divine cleansing to seek solutions in life that are "comfortable," for comfort is his most effective distraction from his doubts, fears, and the convictions of his conscience.  To admit to his needy state seems utterly uncomfortable, therefore he avoids that course.  The way of comfort is broader, offering so many more opportunities for him to interpret his situation.  The way of humility (the way of God) is so very narrow and unbending.  Ah, if only he could see through the veil of mist at the ends of those paths, for the broad way leads to a place of terrible destruction, while the narrow pathway leads to complete and glorious freedom.  But he cannot see these until it is too late to turn back.  He has only the voices in which to trust: the soft gentle one that urges the narrow way, or the loud raucous one that calls him to the broad path.

     We all hear the blaring voice of this world telling us how smart we are; how wise and clever and beautiful, when we reason our own way; when we choose the path of convenience and comfort.  But there will come a day when we will be reminded that the gentle voice was also once audible to us, saying "Come unto me and I will give you rest... learn of me... and you will find rest for your soul."  Those who have responded to that sweet voice will then be resting and rejoicing, but those who spurned it will regret having done so forever.  Call upon Him while you may...

al Hartman

Hi Marcia,
I have seen the Voyager episode. I have always wondered how the war criminal program slid by with the Federation experts who programmed Voyager's database. It probabably was a very banal and bureaucratic decision. However, I can't imagine the Daystrom Institute and Starfleet Academy ignoring any rumors they heard about this doctor. Especially if there was intelligence on the doctor, which Voyager conveniently had handy (even if they were were boring order records from his hospital).

I know posts on this board have used the Nazi's as a condemnation of "moral relevance" or "non-Christian morality," however, the US more or less shook hands with these people before their involvment in WWII and they more or less stood by and did nothing while Germany annexed their neighbors and committed atrocities. How many Jewish refugees were turned back to Germany prior to the US involvment in the war?

It's easy to condemn the Germany of that era now but how many oppressive regimes have the US supported and we look the other way. Many Chileans have spoken of Pinochet as if he was a war criminal yet he was in office thanks to US help, courtesy of Kissinger. And Saddam Hussein was so convenient for the US until he became a problem.

I am failing to equate the Voyager analogy and even real world examples relevant to it with the subject of homosexuality. There were some tones of "moral outrage" inherent in the Nazi's, as it was often used as a justification to condemn "degenerate art" and they systematically threw people they found sexually offensice into concentrations camps. Many of the prisoners were released by the US and allies from those camps except for homosexuals.

The doctor was operating from a medical ethic, based largely on the Hippocratic oath and ethics developed since then. His Cardassian counterpart had no regard for them.

There was a Next Generation episode, "The Outcast," where the Enterprise interacts with the J'Naii, an androgynous, genderless people. One of these people identifies "herself" as female and "she" keeps it a secret from her fellow J'Naii. "She" is outed when her flirtations with Commander Riker becomes obvious and then she is put through a hearing where her "nature" is condemned as a perversion and "she" reprogrammed at the end, having no feelings for Riker in the end. It's implications are very clear concerning the treatment of gays with how the situation is reversed. The androgynous society, strangely enough, is quite conservative and devoid of sensuality.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68540.html

Voyager never seemed to have anything touching the issue of homosexuality. DS9 had the awkward "Rejoined" in which Jadzia Dax was reuinited with a spouse from another life, Lenara Kahn. In this life, they're both women, though in the previous live, Dax was the husband and Kahn was the wife. The taboo concerning them re-establishing a relationship was called "reassociation" and it supposedly wasn't about homosexuality but joined Trills not letting go of previous relationships. The episode seemed to imply it only concerned past spouses, but it left some wondering if Trills maintaining other types of past relationships would be considered inappropritate. For example, Jadzia Dax and later Ezri Dax, maintained a friendship with Captain Sisko and she also kept in touch with Curzon Dax's Klingon buddies. The only other manifestation of homosexuality (in recurring episodes) was the Intendant Kira's (from the parallel universe) unrequited love for Colonel Kira.

"Rejoined"
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/DS9/episode/68238.html

Hi Marcia,
I do think restricting the marital choices of gay couple is "a form of control, abusive, crossing boundaries, or a violation of one's freedom and one's civil rights." Often gays have been condemned for their inability to commit to relationships by people on the right in this country yet when they seek to commit, we take the tools for them to do that away from them. Maybe not every gay man or lesbian wants to have a committed relationship but they should have that option.

Our country and this glorious state of California wants to insist on some arcane notion about marriage. Of course, marriage for many millenia wasn't about love at all. The real tradition of marriage has been the consolidation of power and resources/property. Yet marriage now isn't ideally about that even though the consolidation of property still exists. If gay men want to merge their resources through the medium or marriage, why not. It's easier than the endless consultations some go through with their lawyers when they partner and not everyone can afford lawyers.

Hi Shin, :)

The main point I was attempting to make was that homosexuality is a "moral" issue.  Child pornography is a "moral" issue no matter how much some individual would like to express their "artistic creativity" in that area.  ST-Voyager Doctor had to make a 'moral' choice regarding the Cardassian doctor and his research.

I remember the DS9 episode and, no offense to you, but I did find it "embarassing" when Jadsia Dax and Lenara Kahn carried on the way they did in the episode.

Re. marriage and commitment, I see your point.  You said, "Of course, marriage for many millenia wasn't about love at all. The real tradition of marriage has been the consolidation of power and resources/property".  Interesting observation and sometimes true.  At least male/female marriages, if not for love, have the outcome of keeping the human race going.  Even the animals know about male/female partnership among their own kind....  It is only the educated human being that enters into same sex relationships.

IMO and generally speaking, people get entangled into same sex relationships because a person of the same sex was there to meet some 'need' at a crucial point in their lives.  All girls or all boys boarding schools have a problem with this.  Circumstances lead to choices.  Choices lead to habits.  Habits lead to lifestyles.  etc...

Lord bless,
Marcia

Hi Marcia,
Marriages over the millenia have had the benefit of keeping the human race going but they have also been useful in maintaining kingdoms, alliances, trades, and even economic benefits for people of various stations. Bastards*, too, are a result of heterosexuality as well. However, these people do not enjoy the benefits people from married parents have enjoyed traditionally such as inheritance, privilege, and status. The exclusion of these people is unjust even if they have been stigmatized as "illegitimate." Yet it has been practiced for quite a long time and it has been useful in maintaining order and people's estates.

I believe gays have been similarly excluded. Wealthy women routinely enjoy the right to seek healthy alimony settlements if they get divorced (whether they rate that or not) and it is an abuse of maritial rights and responsibilities. Gays don't even have the same opportunities for abuses like that. I'm not saying anyone should but if people worry that they will frivolously use their rights and priveleges, then we need to look no further. Lionel Ritchie's ex-wife can be set for life but Rosie O'Donnel can't even legally be comitted to the one she loves.

I have heard homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom. I don't understand all the reasons for it. I found an article/book review in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

*used in the more traditional meaning of the word, not the pejorative sense.

Hi Shin  :),

  I hope that you don't mind my jumping into the discussion here with some short comments.

  Christians often make big mistakes when they try to counsel folks struggling with one issue or another.

  We say un-helpful things (I say we, because I have been guilty of this too.) like: " the reason you are not 'getting the victory' over your sin is because of some spiritual/excercise of faith/yielded heart, etc. issue!"

  All this does is further convince the one needing help that they must really be defective, or missing some crucial spiritual component in their lives.  "If only I could learn the special way to see things, or take hold, I could change my heart." And," Oh God break me and give me a pure heart!" was how I spent many years in the Assembly.  

  I want to say, that though I say the above I am not against a devotional life with God, only against defining holiness as an inner perfection created via the same.; or even holding out the carrot that such perfection is possible in this life.  I know that there are verses that some will want to bring in here to contradict my opinion, and I am aware of them, but I will wait until that is done to respond to them.

  No wonder so many, having tried and failed at changing their hearts (and see tragic results like the suicide you mentioned) just decided to accept/ reject themselves the way that they are.

  Homosexuality obviously is a very strong desire, as heterosexuality is with males.  The lack of sexual desire, the bible tells us, is a special gift.  The fact of sexual desire can not be erradicated by acts of faith, prayer, bible devotions, quoting scriptures, taking the place of victory, special moments of insight, etc.

  My point in saying all this is to say: though we can not change our desires and erradicate sin in our hearts (this goes for all sexual sins) we can control our behavior; and indeed this is all the bible asks Christians to do.  An immense pressure is put on an individual if they are told they must subdue all sinful tendencies in their hearts, when it is impossible to do so.

  As Christians we often are not honest about our struggles, and think more highly of ourselves then we should.  This leads to the kind of counsel that discourages, vs. really helps.

  Jesus has died for all of our sins, but sin in our lives' will not be gone until we receive new bodies.  We are still commanded to vigourously resist yielding to sinful behaviors in this life, for these hurt others, as well as ourselves.  It is never good to be a slave to any passion, even necessary ones like eating, and as such we have to control our appetites.

  I would like to respond more re. the topic above and to the "gay marriage" issue as well, but I promised to keep it short ;)---- well, it is short for one of my post's!

                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

 

Hi Marcia,  :)
I definitely am in agreement about child pornography being wrong. It is the product of a voiceless group of people being exploited and doesn't really have any artistic merit. I don't know if there is much merit to a lot of the "legit" pornography but there has been interesting art that has used the language of pornagraphy. Enough said about that for right now.

The Cardassian doctor is a very interesting case. He has very little regards for ethics because he feels they are an obstruction to scientific discovery. I remember Dr. Crusher and a visiting neurosurgeon had a similar discussion in TNG's "Ethics" where other doctor has no problems using risky, experimental methods without regard for "human" life. Dr. Crusher's point at the end was that discovery does take place within an ethical framework and it may take a long time in the context of real, painstaking research.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68538.html

These two "visiting" doctors in Star Trek episodes are interesting examples for ethically suspect people but I don't think it really relates to sex and morality.

The one time where sex was a big issue in Voyager was when Harry Kim meets a really cute girl from the generational ship and he experiences the biological consequences of their sexual relationship("The Disease"). Then we learn from Janeway that one needed medical clearance and permission from the captain for a crew member to have intimate relations with an alien species. Apparently Kirk must have had captain's privilege because he as a much worse offender than Harry.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/documentaries/article/4955.html

On a different note, here is a Startrek.com article on the imperfect assimilations of the Borg, such as the ex-Borg like Seven, Picard/Locutus, and even the Borg Queen, which is more a list than anything els.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/documentaries/article/4955.html

Here is a link from the stories back to 2001 that I found. The then Canadian Alliance party now merged as the Conservative Party were standing against it and some in the Liberal party were content with a partial victory saying they closed most of the loopholes.

NOTE: The links with cgi? don't seem to work right. If you copy them in the Address bar of a new window and hit enter they should work. Sorry about that.

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/26/child_porn_rule010126

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/01/18/porn2000118

This is what got the whole debate going see the article below.

B.C. court strikes down child porn possession

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/1999/01/15/porn990115

[quote from article]
Justice Duncan Shaw agreed. He ruled that possessing child pornography for private use and not for distribution was constitutional. Shaw said the charges represented a threat to privacy and freedom of expression.
[end quote]

A christian group from the US with people in Canada called Focus on the Family of Dr. James Dobson fame have an article here.

http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/news/032602.html

[quote from article]

MARCH 26, 2002
 
LATEST CHILD PORN RULING AN "OUTRAGE," SAYS REID

VANCOUVER, B.C. - Focus on the Family Canada president Dr. Darrel Reid says the verdict on child pornography handed down today by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Duncan Shaw is an "outrage."

............

[end quote]
 

And very recently we have this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childporn/

[quote from article]

INDEPTH: CHILD PORN
The Supreme Court and child porn
CBC News Online | June 22, 2004

Saving children or thought control?

.............

But the bill to amend the definition of child porn died on the ledger when the 2004 election was called. During that election, Michael Briere, the killer of 10-year-old Holly Jones, admitted that his fantasies about children were fuelled by internet child porn, leading to a public outcry on the issue.

..........

[end quote]

And here we have it in Canada the current law as it now stands. The new amendment see article for details and quote below was struck down before the election was called this June 2004.

[quoting again from previous article]

Enacted July 23, 2002, Bill C-15A brought into force child exploitation laws dealing with two main issues:

1. Child pornography on the internet
Under the Criminal Code, the following are offences, and carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail:
Transmit, or send, child pornography from one person to another.
Post child pornography on a website, or link to child pornography on a website.
Export child pornography.
Possess child pornography for the purpose of exporting, making available or transmitting.

2. Using the internet to lure children

It is illegal to use the internet to communicate with a child for the purposes of committing a sexual act. This offence carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.

This legislation, in part, satisfies Canada’s commitments to a UN protocol on the rights of the child. Ratified by 192 countries (the only holdouts being the United States and Somalia), the document is known as the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

A strength of the protocol is that it prescribes consistent law to deal with child pornography across borders. This is especially important where the internet is concerned, and international boundaries become blurred.

[end quote]

Hope this clarifies things.

Hugh

Hi Mark,  I  would like to respond to this.

 Your arguments were not against my position, but against a caricature of my beliefs.  It seemed you were consciously twisting my comments into a "I hate homosexuals" kind of position.  Though I believe it ridiculous to consider homosexuality an issue of "civil rights", I believe that God loves all sinners, including homosexuals

O.K. I know that you do not percieve your views of Homosexuals as an typical "Archie Bunker" view. Your view, of your view, is that the homosexual is a sinner, who is giving place to his sin.  Just as an alcoholic who drinks is a sinner who is giving place to his sin.   O.K. Mark I know you as a nice, fair man.  But I don't see it that way I see it as a civil rights issue.  Mark, fifty years ago an open conversation about blacks in a public place might be,  "Are blacks really human?"  Today this is absurd, yet it still goes on! Maby now it is private but it still happens.  Mark if someone were to approach you today and seriously strike up a conversation with you on the subject "are blacks really human?"  You would find it offensive.  Why because you know blacks are just like anyone else and they deserve the respect and dignity just like anyone else.  The current views about gays are no different.  Why do I feel this way so strongly.  Mark I have been a Christian.  I know what a Christian is!  A Christian is like anyone else No different! I know people who are decent and are Gay.  They deserve respect and to deny them equal status is a terrible injustice.  I believe that you are a good man and wouldn't knowingly try to hurt anyone.  I believe that fifty years from now people will look back on how Gays were treated and they will say "Man what were they thinking?"  Mark I don't want to offend you and I guess there must be a way that I can respect your views and still disagree with them. But Mark  What is it about Gays that you find threatening?  I want to know?  What?

Dear Shin,

I watched part of another ST-Voyager episode today. Episode# 206 Latent Image.  The Doctor is having to deal with the dilemna of choosing to save one crew member over another when both had an equal opportunity to survive depending on treatment.  There was only time to save one and he chose Kim.  Janeway decides to treat the Doctor as if he was a human being.  She becomes his sounding board as he attempts to figure out his dilemna.  If only there were more counsellors/ministers like her.  She recognized him as a 'person'.  She was willing to spend the time and the effort to help him even at the cost to her own well-being.  She did not criticize him because he 'was facing a dilemna'.  She truly has a shepherd's heart and a real care for each individual crew member.

Back to the ongoing discussion.  Marriage does not enter the picture if I view homosexuality as morally wrong.  However, I do care for you as an individual even though I disagree with your lifestyle.  I also understand that 'passion' is very difficult to switch off and that it does take a concerted effort to make the 'right' choices despite what one is feeling.

Much love and God bless,
Marcia

Marcia,  Pam (My wife) tells me that there is an ST episode where the social norm is same sex marriage and that heteros are the "weirdos"  is this an episode you have seen?

Could we please talk about child porn on another thread?  This thread is not about Child Porn!  Let's stay on the issue.

David,

I noticed in one of your recent posts to Mark that you claim to respect "logic and reason".  Well, this looks like a good place to start.

Your argument commits a fallacy of equivocation.  (that means that you have quietly changed the meaning of your terms)  Your argument claims that Blacks are "just like everyone else."   Then you go on to claim that Homosexuals are "just like everyone else" as well.

In the first case, Blacks are actually "just like everyone else" in our common humanity.  But no one that I have ever heard, read, or talked to has ever claimed that homosexuals are not human.

Homosexuals are not different in their humanity, they are different in their behavior, which is definitely not "just like everyone else!   So you are committing a fallacy of equivocation, which is another way of saying that in terms of logic, you are talking nonsense.


Dave,  based upon what you have posted on this board, I would have to say that I remain unconvinced of this.  You seem to have understood Christianity as poorly as you seem to understand atheism.


Here is where you begin to display your ignorance of atheism.  No God, no rules.  No rules, no evil.  No rights, other than legal rights, which change whenever the laws change.

Currently, homosexual marriage is illegal in 49 states.  So no injustice can be committed by applying the law.  

As to what homosexuals "deserve", no one deserves anything in atheistville Dave.  


In logic, Dave, this is known as an ad hominem argument.  It is a dishonest attempt to discredit someone by casting aspersions upon their character.

Since you now claim moral superiority...why don't you stop this?  The homosexuals cannot offer any argument that homosexual behavior is a postitive good.  So, as a sort of last ditch effort to defend their actions, they invented the word "homophobic", which means "an irrational fear of homosexuals."

Someone called me this once.  I challenged them to back up their claim with any evidence whatsoever.  All they could do was to sit and look at me.  

You need to provide evidence that Mark C. has an irrational fear before you make statements accusing him of it.

Incidentally, I then asked the folks who were calling me "intolerant" and "homophobic" to tell me WHY it is wrong to murder people.  Not why it is illegal, why it is WRONG.  

Being athiests, and actually understanding what that means, all they could do was sit in silence.  FIVE master's degree level teachers in their 30's.  THAT I do find frightening.

Thomas Maddux

You are right Tom it is a behavior vs race issue.  but I don't know how else to explain it.  Tom I like to look at women!  I marride one!  I  like to hug her, kiss her.  If a man feels this way towards another man why is that to be condemned?  Tom when I was a christian I was taught that I could never judge anyone else but you have no problem telling me that I wasn't a true Christian?  I have no respect for this comment!  Do me a favor and stop making these comments!  What do you mean homosexuals can't offer any positive statements about their sexuality?  Where do you live? Tom did I say I was an Atheist?  No you keep saying it!  Stop it!  Why do you accuse me of "acursions?"  No Tom stop judging me! I just honestly wanted to know why he felt threatened!  Tom Murder is justified in some cases!  Tom stop judging me!  How about stop replying to my post and let me have my own conversations.  If you would read them you would see that they work themselves out.  I don't like the way you judge me.  Stop It!  

Dave,
I mentioned this episode in one of my replies to Marcia:

There was a Next Generation episode, "The Outcast," where the Enterprise interacts with the J'Naii, an androgynous, genderless people. One of these people identifies "herself" as female and "she" keeps it a secret from her fellow J'Naii. "She" is outed when her flirtations with Commander Riker becomes obvious and then she is put through a hearing where her "nature" is condemned as a perversion and "she" reprogrammed at the end, having no feelings for Riker in the end. It's implications are very clear concerning the treatment of gays with how the situation is reversed. The androgynous society, strangely enough, is quite conservative and devoid of sensuality.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68540.html

David,

Simple.  Male attraction to women is a normal, natural part of healthy human experience.  Of course, it must be controlled and ruled by moral values.  Men have the capacity to feel sexually attracted to almost any female.  But it is destructive to both individuals and societies if this attraction is not held in check, controlled, and channeled into legitimate forms of expression.

Homosexuality is about NOT doing this!  Now, you have said,

If a man "feels this way" his feelings are evidence of a dysfunctional personality.  The human body is not designed for male/male sex.  So, if your emotions drive you to want this unnatural union, that is dysfunctional.  

Some homosexuals try to claim "I was born homosexual."  If this were true, (there is little scientific evidence to support this, and what exists is very inconclusive), then homosexuality is nothing more than a birth defect!

It is impossible to argue for homosexuality by appealing to evolution, since the failure to reproduce constitutes a death penalty for one's genetic line.  No offspring, no evolution, even for those folks who accept Darwinism as true.

Many homosexuals argue that they were "born this way" on the basis of their having felt this way in their earliest memories.   Actually, many normal men report that they had this type of feeling as children.  The homosexual, for various reasons, has become fixated on the undifferentiated sexuality of childhood.  The reason this happens is not completely understood.

No one denies that homosexuals have these feelings.  The issue is what they do with them.  There are millions of normal men and women, Christian and non-Christian, that live as single adults without having sex with anyone.  Although I suppose that there are some that do this, I have personally never heard or read of a homosexual that controls himself in this way.

My church, (E. Free of Fullerton), will recieve people with this problem into membership.  All they have to do is to observe the same moral standards everyone else does.  No sex outside of marriage.


I will continue my answer in another post.

Thomas Maddux

David,

Actually, what I said was,

Dave, I stll remain unconvinced.  What you posted about "judging" is another evidence, (as far as I'm concerned), that you never understood Christianity.


Dave, you need to read what I actually said.  I said that no argument can be made that homosexuality is a positive good.  Sure, a homosexual can declare, "I like sodomy".  That however, is not what I am talking about.  I am talking about establishing, by clear arguments, that homosexual behavior is a good thing.


Dave you claimed in a recent post to Mark Campbell that a personal God does not exist.  Sounds like atheism to me.

There aren't that many options.  Monotheism, Pantheism, Polytheism, Atheism....and what else?   Where do you fit in?

Oh yes, these days there is another option....New Age Anything I Like Is True And Anything I Don't Like Is Not True Mysticism.

So, Dave, if you are not an atheist, just who, or what, is God?


Please explain what you mean by "acursions?"


David, I am well aware than in the circles you run in that this lie is widely accepted as the explanation for opposition to homosexual behavior.  What you are doing is making a lying accusation against Mark C., and you made it against me several posts back.

Either give evidence to show that we, in fact, DO feel threatened, or stop making these accusations.  It is nothing more than a disguised form of name calling.   Stop it.


Since murder is the illegal taking of human life, when is it justified?


Dave, you are posting in a public forum that you choose to come to.
As long as you are not abusive you are welcome here.

However, if you wish to have private conversations with Mark, or anyone else, I suggest you use PM's or e-mail.

Thomas Maddux

If it is genetic, then people whose genetic dispostion is homosexual may have been reproducing for millenia since many of them may have honored social obligations to marry and reproduce. And I made a point earlier about the grand tradition of marriage was to consolidate power and resources/assets. There certainly wasn't something that required someone to be attracted to their wives. There have been a couple of homosexual kings in medieval England who apparently had heirs from their marriages. And the genes may have been passed on by various people in the 20th and even the 21st centuries through marriages (to the opposite sex) and even arranged pregancies for lesbians.

So what I hear you saying is that if we allow gay marriage and teach genetically disposed homosexuals to resist the artificial hedrosexual-based social mores places upon them, over time the genetically tainted gender of homosexuality will be naturally erradicated?

Shin,

"If", "May have" are terms used in speculative statements.  If homosexual desires are caused by kissing frogs then the recent rise in homosexual "outings" may be related to an increase in frog kissing.

Not a very meaningful statement, is it?


Actually, what you made was an assertion, along with committing a fallacy of composition.  (ascribing a characteristic of particular members of a class to all members of the class



An interesting theory.  However, it depends on finding that there actually is a genetic component to this behavior by identifying the particular gene.  If this were the case, genetic engineering could possibly correct the condition.  Or, more likely in this age, babies testing positive for homosexual tendencies would simply be killed.  

It also depends on establishing the materialists claim that mind is produced by the interactions of matter according to physical laws.

Until such things are established as highly probable by research, it is mere speculation.

Concerning the "homosexual kings".  I do not know what you are basing this on, so I cannot comment.  But it seems to me that you might be using the term "homosexual" too broadly.   Personally I am of the opinion that homosexual behavior has multiple causes and degrees of severity.  There is a difference, IMHO, between a debauched hedonist who will do whatever it takes to get his jollies and some guy that wants to dress up like a bride or walk around in high heeled shoes and hot pants.

Thomas Maddux

No. It could be recessive. Your phenotype may not manifest the trait and you could be a carrier. But I don't know if being gay is genetic or not so I'm not really invested in this.

Kissing frogs - horrible abuse of a syllogism.

Second item quoted: huh? I think not. People love to appeal to the tradition and sanctity of marriage when they define it as between a man and a woman. Arranged marriages have existed in many cultures for millenia. Dowries and bride prices have also existed in various fashions, pointing to the political-economic nature of marriage.

     Marriages in the bible (anyone on this thread remember that book? :D) certainly reflect a broad spectrum of motives, from the "political-economic" to that of love.  Surely the bride of Christ was courted for love, and she was purchased.  The bride had no dowry to offer, and the dowry the Groom provided, although exactly what the bride's wicked father demanded, turned out to have ramifications he had never anticipated.  It is the bride's good fortune that she also got a new Father as part of the exchange!

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow,
al

Tone of Handel's Messiah and Revelation: If "the kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdom of our Lord" then perhaps there is a socio-economic transaction in the marriage of Christ, as the "kindgdoms of the world" would serve as the Bride's dowry. Or a bride price was involved as many hymns such as "I will sing of my redeemer" talks of him purchasing us with his blood.

Yes, the motives for marriage vary in the Bible. The king of Persia married Esther out of lust (after selecting her from a group of women) and because he didn't want to lose face (the queen embarrassed him and she was no more). David did marry for political reasons, such as his marriage to Michal, Saul's daughter. Solomon had hundreds of wives to seal political alliances with many of his neighnoring kings. He had hundreds of concubines as well and that's just being greedy. Isaac does marry Rachel out of love. When Isaac pays the bride price by seven years of labor, Laban does the bait and switch and gives him Leah's hand in marriage and Isaac must work seven more years to marry Rachel.

The following was first posted on another thread, and is NOT in direct response to any of the most recent posts on THIS thread.  But it is applicable here, and so I present it...

al




     It amuses me that the title of (the) thread, "Control Room," and its initial post, have never been responded to.  I personally have not seen the film, but I have glanced at viewers' comments, addressing various and conflicting viewpoints, enough to know that I won't be watching it in the near future.  Those who have seen it seem as divided and controversial as commentors on M.Moore's work.

     However, the title word "Control" seems quite appropriate for the "Any and All Topics" thread of this board, as there seem to be some prominent issues of control at present.

     It is common these days to speak of individuals "having control issues."  Pop psychology, don'cha know.  But the issue of control is really HUGE.  Think about it:  In everything from politics to road rage, great turmoil is traceable to discontent over questions of whether or not one is in control of one's own destiny, whether immediate or long-term.

     Those agnostics and atheists who post here in hope of proselytizing from among the redeemed, please indulge me for a moment while I point out that personal control is the fulcrum upon which our eternal destinies are levered:  Don't you know that you are not your own?  You have been bought with a price.  We who accept this fact rejoice in it, realizing that we lack the wherewithal, both in wisdom and power, to know, choose, and implement all the decisions life requires-- We are eternally grateful to be owned by Someone who can, will, and does control these things for us.

     You who neglect so great salvation are left in the unenviable position of having to attempt to effect the impossible: know the unknowable and do the impossible, or else founder hopelessly at the mercy of the elements.  But I am among the first to admit that the inner urge to self-determine is powerful:  It ruled me for much of my life, and still attempts to insinuate itself at every opportunity.

     As applies to posting on this BB, the distinction of control is a little clearer:  This board exists for a specific purpose, and is moderated by certain individuals to protect those who use it from abuse.  Those individuals are called "Moderators," and THEY are in control, which is to say that, in any dispute THEY have the final authority, which they have exercised faithfully.

     I speak from personal experience in saying that relinqhishing control to someone with whom you disagree can be frustrating, distressing, exasperating.  But in a situation such as this, it is also necessary, and is a good discipline to learn.  If a moderator instructs you regarding your posts, follow the instruction.  These men can be approached through other channels to discuss anything not permitted in the public forum.  Before you even think about controlling your destiny, learn to control yourself.

God bless us all,
al Hartman

Shin,  Not to be too technical,  but Jacob was Married to Rachel. She's the one who stole the Family Idols, interesting. And when Laben catches up to them she's sitting on them lying to his face. And Jacob says the one who stole them will die, and she later dies in childbirth. And then Jacob ends up buried in the Family Seplecure with Leah the un-loved one. Don't forget when you mentioned David that he did have Uriah killed in battle. It always seemed like David would of just let Uriah think that was his child, and that would of been the end of it, but because he would'nt go down to visit his wife David felt he had no other choice but to have him killed. Interesting to me that Soloman is born of this union. and yes 700 wives and 300 concubines, I'm sure a few others that did'nt make it. Yet It does say his wives turned his heart away from the Lord. Wine and Harlotry take away the heart.(somewhere in I think chronicles) Proverbs 6 Six things the lord hates,Seven are an abomination to him...A proud look, A lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood....I wont type it all out because anyone from the assm probibly knows it all by heart... Just shows we've 'All sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God' and there is no one  Rightous no not one...I myself am on the Grace and Mercy Plan...I have a Story to tell you sometime of my Employer who was Gay...He was a Good Boss I was with him almost 3 years and ran his business one of the best jobs I ever had...Summer

Forgot to mention it is thought that King Cyrus was from the union of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Queen Esther the one that helped bring back the captivity re: Ezra and Nehemiah. God does work in Mysterious Ways.

Hi Summer :)
Concerning Jacob--oops! I am rusty on my OT and I looked it up too quickly. And Bathsheba's case is interesting. From what I understand, David tried to send Uriah home from his post so he would lie with his wife and believe the child was his. Somehow, I have the feeling the child would have had some give-away trait of David's. Nonetheless, Uriah refuses to leave his post so David resorted to that. Is Solomon one of the youngest of David's children?

These people's stories would make good plots for novels. Or tragedies in the style of the ancient Greeks. That's my perspective as a writer. When I taught creative writing last semester, I used an excerpt from the Song of Solomon to teach imagery in the poetry section. I also taught a couple of stories by Flannery O'Connor. Some of my students could not relate to any of that all (there is a lot of Christianity in her work). I also had some gay writers and poets in my curriculum and they didn't really connect with that either.

I'd like to hear about your boss sometimes.

Shin

Warning: this is a blunt answer.  Homosexuality is an abomination.  God created us male and female for a very good reason.  This is not just about not hurting another individual, rather it is an offense to the human race.  Even the animals do not have same-sex partners.  I know that many marriages have problems, but that is a separate issue from the homosexual one.

Marcia

 Marcia.

Animals do have same sex partners sometimes.  Chimps and baboons do it at times.  Homosexuals sometimes attempt to argue that since chimps do it, it is normal primate behavior. And since people are primates too, it is normal human behavior.

When I encounter this I usually answer in three ways:

1. So you believe that whatever animals do should constitute morality for human beings?  How do you know this?

2. In primate societies the dominant male beats up all the other guys and has sex with all the females.  You feel that we should use baboons as our moral guides, so therefore in favor of all the females being forced to have sexual relations with the strongest male.  Would you vote for such a law?

3. Chimps and baboons occassionally murder and eat weak members of their groups.  Do you believe that we should do this as well?

For some reason they never bring this one up again.   ;)

Thomas Maddux

Joseph,
I appreciate your posts regarding homosexual behavior and promiscuous heterosexual behavior, but I find your choice of words "testosterone infused predator" to be rather offensive.  

It's hard to imagine that any man could be considered to be a "predator" in these days. Women just simply are not victims that are "preyed" upon by men; most are willing participants, if not "predators" themselves.

It's a shallow way of life, but there are many factors behind that kind of behavior, just as there are for homosexual behavior.

Moonflower2

moonflower,
I realize that there are many reasons for such promiscuous behaviour, but my words were chosen carefully and from specific examples.  I am glad you find it hard to imagine, perhaps you have other experiences or knowledge of examples that cause you to think otherwise.  However, while many situations exist where women have gone on the offensive, the man(men) I speak of are predators nonetheless.
you were offended?  I am sorry for offending you.  Are you male or female? just curious.  do you know me?  I wish I had some better reference by which to gauge where you were coming from.
Joseph

I'm a woman, not a predatory one.  ;)

Testosterone is the difference between men and women, and the levels of such also make for differences in men.

Your choice of words, although descriptive, is derogatory.

Moonflower2,
please explain - i'm not sure i understand how my choice of words is derogatory.
Joseph

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/oukoe_crime_necrophilia (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/oukoe_crime_necrophilia)

Arnold signed a bill to outlaw necrophilia.  The reason I put this link here in "Girlie-men" is to ask the question, "If gay is ok, then why not this?"

There were two instructors for the sex-ed classes at the local junior college I went to.  Both were gay, one was a man the other a woman.   The class I attended was taught by the gay man.  His philosophy was so amoral that he told the class that if some people want to include feces and urine in their sex we can't judge them.

See where no morals leads you?  Who in their right mind would eat their own poop--or have sex with a dead person?  Likewise neither would a sane person have sex with another person of the same sex--do you think one guy doing things which I'd rather not mention or think about with another guy is ok?  You're sick.  Homosexuality is as morally wrong as necrophilia, pedophilia and beastiality.

Arthur

Arthur,

     With all due respect, Brother, while I agree with your conclusions, you are spitting against the wind with your post...  See Matthew 7:6.

     The lost are already condemned; what good to torment them before the time?  Perhaps through love and prayer, some may be won into the kingdom... See Matthew 7:7-8.

God bless,
al

I have a question that I have been entertaining of late that I was wondering what folks thought.

First, I think if you walk into any conservative, take-the-Bible-for-what-it-says church in America, most everyone in the room will affirm that homosexuality is a sin as with any other sin.  So, we don't need to keep beating that one to death.

Second, I don't want to get into the "is it psychological vs. choice vs. genetic" debate because there is no hard scientific evidence proving either way and if there were folks would continue to believe what they want to anyway.

Third, I think the church may be right concerning homosexuality, but is ultimately losing the argument.

So I began to wonder about a different tact.  It seems to me that homosexuality is a thirst for intimacy.  I'm not talking about kinky-weird stuff.  It is a desire for deep, human relationship that motivates us deep within our being to get married, have affairs, look at pornography, hang out at bars or visit prostitutes.  While many of these things I mention are illegitimate means to that end, this primal longing is much deeper and more powerful than intellectual arguments.

I am convinced that God in Christ has met my entire intellectual needs.  I have read many books on the subject and feel I have some grasp on a world view that, for the most part, works.  But does Christ meet our intimate needs as well?  Is God indeed the great lover of our soul?  Do we truly live that almost-sensual song we used to sing, "loved with everlasting love" where we are "pillowed on his loving breast?"   What do we have to offer the homosexual?  Does God offer a deep experience of intimacy that will transcend the broken cisterns?  Or is Christianity merely intellectual (don't do that because the Bible says so)?

----
Disclaimer:  This is not a response to any particular post.  I have been questioning the whole tact we take to gay marriage, homosexuality, etc. for some time now.

Dave S, you said, "Does God offer a deep experience of intimacy that will transcend the broken cisterns?  Or is Christianity merely intellectual (don't do that because the Bible says so)?"

This is a good question re. any issue we face.  The churches that fail, fail when the Bible becomes a 'rule book' apart from reality with God.

Specifically re. homosexuality and adultery, they are sins that arise out of 'passion' and a desire for intimacy.  Passion fades in time and people find themselves entangled in an immoral relationship that they wish they had never gotten in to.  OR they keep the flames going and keep themselves entangled not caring for the harm and destruction it does to their lives and to those around them.  That is why the Bible as God's Word can keep us from wrong choices.  However, there is grace for the repentant sinner.

Arthur did raise an important point in that the gay 'teacher' will promote his bias in the way he presents the subject he is teaching.  I do not believe that churches should focus on addressing the homosexual issue, however the truth needs to be told, especially when asked.  The Christian who loves God will be sensitive yet truthful.  Sometimes the 'fire and brimstone' type message might actually help some poor sinner wake up from his reverie.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Do they always? According to Romans 1 (and I realise that it does not say there are no other reasons), those who fall prey to the sin of homosexuality do so because of a rejection of the truth. The sense I get from the passage is that God removes His restraint and allows fallen human nature to take its desired course...
I strongly agree with you Marcia that we do need to excercise great wisdom as we tackle this issue. I am personally quite conflicted about the entire matter.
One almost gets the impression from reading Romans 1 that God is saying to leave this alone.  "God giving them up" is pretty terrifying to me but does that mean the believer takes the same posture?
Clearly we cannot entirely avoid the issue as we are all affected, and we have a responsibility to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
Sadly, a Biblical perspective on this subject will today earn you the label of "hateful" or "homophobe".
As to Dave's question reagarding intimacy, God invented it!
Just read the song of songs.
As with every kind of sin, sexual sin is the perversion and or misuse of a God given faculty...

Verne

     Romans 1, introduced as a missive to all of God's people in Rome, sent with grace and peace from God (v.7), leads us into Romans 2, which presents such statements as "thou art inexcusable... that judgest... (v.1), ...the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance... (v.4) and ...God... will render to every man according to his deeds...(vv.5-6).  While the Lord's outlook toward sin and its ultimate end is unmistakable, His timetable is less clear.  Does He always hate sin as vigorously?  Yes.  And is His giving over of the sinful to pursue their lusts His judgment?  Yes again.  But at what point, and how permanently?

     Psalm 145:9-10 tells us "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.  All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD, and thy saints shall bless thee."  Note the use twice of the word "all."
     By this we understand that God is being good to those whose conduct is deplorable in His sight, and in tender mercy He is surrendering them to their own wicked ways.
     Verse 16 explains, "Thou openest thy hand, and satisfiest the desire of every  living thing."
     How greater can He bless someone than to grant them the satisfaction of their desires?

     Yet we know that thieves, murderers, adulterers, and even homosexuals have turned to Christ and their lives have borne witness of the new birth and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
     The Psalm continues and concludes " The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.  He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.  The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.  My mouth shall speak the praise of the LORD: and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever."(vv18-21)
     So all of God's creation is blessed by Him, and shall ultimately praise and bless Him, but in the greatness of His love to us in Jesus Christ, He extends the way of redemption.  Man must praise and bless his Creator, but man may know his Redeemer and praise and bless Him as such.
     The unregenerate are lost in sin, following their lusts, given over to their wickedness, and even so they are enjoying the blessing of God and are glorifying Him.  But they may repent, and receive and know Him-- an infinitely greater state of existence.  If God may grant one repentance from such a former state unto the latter, please, let us not give up on them...

     The search of the lost for intimacy is the quest to fill what has been described as the God-shaped vaccuum in the heart of every soul.  Sex, booze, drugs, success, power, money, fame, are all painkillers to take the edge off an empty life.  We as Christians have nothing to offer the unsaved that is comparable to these things.  Our Christian "rock" will not satisfy the musical desires of the libertine.  Christian coffee houses are no substitute for the bar scene...

     What we offer is Jesus Christ, and in Him, an entire new existence.  Being born from above is incomparable to anything the natural man has known.  The intimacy one has with God in Christ is on an entirely different plane than anything previously known or even imagined.
     Do we have such an intimacy to offer?  Without question we do.  The question, rather, is:  Do we know what it is we have?  We can only offer what we know.  I have spent most of my adult life seeking to "experience" my faith; to sense my Savior.  I was, in essence, searching my yard for something that was already in my house.

     If we doubt what we have to offer sinners and seekers, then we must ask our Lord, importunately, to open the eyes of our hearts, that we may be strengthened within, to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge, that we may be filled with all the fulness of God. (see Ephesians 3:16-21)  Hallelujah!  What a Savior!

al

Dave, thoughtful question.
All people need and seek a relationship with others because as we know, God made us that way (in his own image and likeness, and seeing as how he is an eternal relationship of three beings in one, made a creation to commune with him, and is love itself--no wonder we are as we are).
What does Chrisitanity have to offer the homosexual in terms of intimacy?

Since God made us, God also made the means to fulfill our desires.  His design as spoken in Genesis and quoted by the Son of Man was a man and a woman joined together. Homosexuality is an abomination and a willfull rejection of God's design.  God does not offer anything to fulfill it, rather he condemns it.

The songs you spoke of are not sensous but spiritual.  And here may be the answer to your question.  What is there for the homosexual?  
Let him repent from his sin, deny himself, take up his cross and follow Jesus.  Do all physical cravings need to be given into?  Could not a person forsake such things for a higher purpose?  Jesus said, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."  We are more than animals who do it in the street, do it in the road, we have a spiritual nature.  Jesus also said that some are made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, which many Catholic priests have taken to heart :)  

Jesus is not a mere intellectual fulfillment.  He is El Shaddai.  He continually meets all of our needs.  A man who lives by faith, such as Abraham did, learns this by experience.  A homosexual is one who denies God--his goodness, his provision, his commandments--and seeks to take for himself whatever he can, even that which is not lawful.

Perhaps God would give a repentant homosexual a wife and family, perhaps he would give them friendship among other believers.  God would provide.  

Arthur

The question was raised earlier in this thread, "Have you even ever known a homosexual?"

I'd like to tell my story about a young man that I knew years ago who was my friend.

When I was 16, I was very much into computers and BBSing.  Before the world wide web was a big thing, computer-inclined people would commune on BBS's.  BBS stands for Bulletin Board System, and it was a computer that a private individual set up with a modem for the purpose of allowing other people dial in and chat, upload/download files, play online games or post messages much like on this board. In the Modesto area at that time, there were about 20 or so good boards that I knew of and frequented.  

I learned of one board that was run by a homosexual.  I thought I'd be smart and try to infiltrate his board and cause some havoc.  So I went on there and posted some stuff about not being sure about my sexuality, seeking etc.  I happened to attract the attention of the sysop (systems operator--the guy who owns and/or runs the BBS) and he pulled me into a chat.  We chatted for a bit and he ended up giving me full access to everything on the computer.  I went on the next day and I didn't feel right about messing things up too much, but I wrote some flaming messages on the inner board which only members can see.  The sysop happened to be on at the time and pulled me into a chat again and asked me what's going on.  I continued with my flame against him.  

He surprised me.  He didn't retaliate but reasoned with me in a calm manner.  I was ashamed of my juvenile behavior and told him as much.  I don't remember exactly how the converstation went, but I told him that I believed homosexuality was wrong because of what the Bible said.  He told me that if I was a Christian, why would I do what I did.  I said that he was right, I shouldn't have done that.  As we got to talking, Michael (his name)seemed to me like a real guy, and not some weirdo.

The next day we talked again and Michael asked me more about the Bible and why homosexuality was wrong.  He then explained to me his life and how he became homosexual.

"I am 19 years old and I'm alone in my house.  My mom died recently and my dad left home when I was 12.  Even when they were around I felt alone.  My mom was a bank president and my dad was a commercial airline pilot.  They were rarely home and when they were their friends would be over for parties and they didn't have much time for me.  When I was 13 years old, a group of homosexual men older than me preyed upon me and introduced me to homosexuality.  I didn't have anyone else to turn to.  

I've gone to the hospital and tested HIV positive and can hardly think straight because of all the drugs they have me on. I was married for a short time and my wife left me and now I can't see my kid because of the drugs."  He sounded very depressed.  

This poor guy had a messed up life.  We talked on the phone for 4 hours that Sunday night after I got home from church.  I told him about Jesus and the good news.  He was very interested to hear about it. I don't know why, but I lost touch with him after that night.

A year later out of the blue I got a phone call and it was Michael. But it was a different voice.  This guy was happy.  He said that he got saved and that his whole life had turned around.  He left all the homosexuals and that lifestyle.  The HIV had not turned into full-blown AIDS and he was feeling much better.  And he was able to see his kid again.

This was 12 years ago and a lot (the assembly, etc.) has happened since then. I wonder how Michael is doing today.

Arthur

Thanks for the input and allow me to chatter on a little more about this.

Homosexuality is indeed a sin.  Further, I have no time for those in the homosexual movement who want to push their values on others.  Those who use the courts to try and force the Boy Scouts to allow homosexual men to sleep with our children in the woods and then when homosexual men molest young boys in the Catholic church they deny any responsibility saying "it's a Catholic problem, not a homosexual one."  This and the movement to try and force their values upon the public schools enrages me.  So don't think I am trying to minimize the perversion or the concern to society.

On the other hand, they are people.  And many of them are not caught up in the homosexual "movement" as much as they are ensnared in sin and think of themselves with the homosexual identity.

Of what I understand, the Evangelical church position seems to be this:  They may come fellowship with us if they repent.  They don't necessarily have to be cured (we have ministries to help in that area), but they at least have to acknowledge what they are doing is wrong and be willing to want to change.  Anything short of this, our only word for them is "what you are doing is wrong and you must repent."  No church membership, fellowship, communion, etc.

The problem as I see it is that there are extremely few homosexuals who will begin to agree to those terms.  They honestly don't see themselves as doing anything wrong.  Yes, we can wax rhetorical about them being in willful disobedience and being deluded.  But, in their gut they honestly don't feel that they are sinning in this area.  In fact, many feel as one homosexual said, "I want to be a Christian, but I don't want to be 'born again' because it is those 'born again' Christians who hate me."

Now I realize that many homosexuals and liberals are like spoiled teen-agers who never grew up and say spiteful things about any authority in their lives.  Nevertheless, we have a big divide her.  We have people who we will never realistically reach unless God produces some sort of miracle or we change our tactics and attitudes.  Isn't it we who have to attempt to be the bridges and peacemakers?

Of course, I am half-tempted to take the extreme Calvinistic position, "those homosexuals who don't repent are probably vessels of destruction anyway, so why worry about them?" or "Hey, they choose to reject Christ.  We did all we did in testifying to the truth of God's word."   But what if it becomes personal?

What if you had a son or daughter or friend who is gay?  Would you say, "we really have little to talk about until you repent?"  Would you quote Romans 1 to them whenever they came over?  Of course not.  Or would you come to a point where you still had them over for Thanksgiving and invested in their lives hoping that over time they will be ready to face the sin in their lives?

I don't have boys who are gay, but I do have sons who do often have ideas and attitudes that are sinful and wrong.  I can press the point until they are exasperated.  But sometimes, I realize that I have to drop the issue for a while and wait for them to mature and for God to do a work in their lives.  At all costs, I have to keep communication open.  I can't win the battle while driving them away in the process.

This is why I am wondering if our "culture wars", "us vs. the homosexual enemy" model that the church often falls into is really working.  It seems so, well, Assembly-like.  Author's story is really encouraging as it seems to show a model and tactic that may have some real potential.  Maybe all that I am saying is this:  I really need help in learning how to lower the drawbridge of my fortress church, come out from behind my shield of Scriptural justifications and learn to love people who I would normally look at as vile, contrary and unlovable.

Dave,

When you said, "But, in their (homosexuals) gut they don't feel they are sinning in this area." I have never found that to be true of any of my gay friends. It is the guilt of their sin--that undeniable gut feeling like the rest of us have when we sin--that causes them to strain so much to deny it as sin. Unless their consciences have been "seared with a hot iron" you can pretty much see them follow human nature. I have found the best appeal to them is like you said, like any other unsaved person. Be their friend. Talk to them about God, Christ and sin. In that order. I personally have never led anyone to the Lord by zeroing in on their most egregious sins as a starting point.

 

Of course you would not.
I believe there are two fundamental questions for the believer in dealing with this issue.
1. How do we think about it?
2. What do we do about it?
While it is true that right thinking does not always result in right action, it is fairly certain that wrong thinking will in all likelihood lead to wrong action.
My citing Romans 1 was for the specific reason of showing what I believe to be a flaw in the thinking of many on the matter.  I strongly agree with Jem that that notion that people who engage in this sort of activity have no sense of wrong-doing is not Scripturally defensible.
The remarkable political and other capital expended to forcibly normalize what the vast majority of even non-Christians consider aberrant is I think quite revealing.
Our thinking about homosexuality has to be predicated on the teaching of the Word of God, not some sort of sympathetic speculation that seeks to make the case:

 "These individuals cannot change what they are by nature"

Scripture clearly states that this kind of behaviour is unnatural.

If this is true, we as Christians need to not only acknowledge it, but this has to be the starting point for any strategy, born of a love for our fellow man, that would seek to affect them for good.

We must begin with truth.

If Scripture is correct, there can be no recovery for a person in this situation who does not begin by acknowldgeing the Almighty. God's Word states that it was His rejection, as a proximate cause that resulted in their condition.

We certainly must be gracious, we certainly must be civil.
If howerever, any Christian believes that compromise and accommodation on this issue is in the homosexual's best interests, I would suggest that our thinking, and therefore in all likelihood our consequent action will be futile...
Verne

Just to be clear.  My post was not a reaction to your post so don't feel attacked or that you have to defend it.  I too camp in Romans 1 for the best description of God's attutude towards the degernation of man.   I am simply using the board as a sounding board for my "thinkings out loud" and I appreciate your perspective.

Verne,

     Please don't think me contentious as I press you to be more specific...
     Cathy & I have two close family members who are homosexuals.  One of them claims to be a Christian, attends church and participates in church programs.  I don't know specific details about whether that church openly accepts and/or encourages homosexuality.
     The second one practices "religious science," acknowledging the Almighty in vague, mystic, unscriptural ways.  So when you say:  ...I would appreciate more detailed exposition.  
     We love both these kinfolks dearly, and would not wilfully do anything to stumble them, whether by way of condemning or compromising.  Neither would we in any way detract from our Lord's testimony.  We fully understand and accept that they may be left behind...
     We are separated from them both by many miles, so we have little contact with either of them.  We pray for their deliverance and watch for opportunity.  Any help you (anyone) can offer will be appreciated.  Your prayers are always welcome...

God bless,
al

Thanks for the clarification Dave.
Your question has really set me to thinking about this.
I believe those of us that have learned in some measure what it means to have a serious and committed relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ need wisdom to speak the truth in such a way that hearts  that are receptive may indeed benefit.
There is no one who walks in the resurrection power of the Lord Jesus Christ who has not known a personal struggle with some easily besetting sin.
Even after God has "commanded the light to shine in our hearts", there is still "evening and morning..."
Who of us have not come to the place of realizing our own powerlessness to calm the restless seas that roar within?

Establishment of boundaries is God's business.

We have discovered, to the praise of His glory, that God does not so much ask us to conquer our sin, as He asks for us to confess it. The problem arises over our unwillingness to agree with Him, not His power to deliver.

I believe that Christians who take the position, that having sexual desires for members of one's own sex in any context, is justifialbe, are serously mistaken and not being faithful to the clear teaching of God's Word.

"If we confess our sin, He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins..."

Too often we forget the rest of the portion of that Scripture also promises cleansing!

Herein lies the problem. There is an element of defiance in gay activism that will under no circumstances surrender the field to God. They will never agree with Him as to His assessment of their condition. The battle cry is:

I'm simply gay
And I'm here to stay

That is the disposition to which I think the first chapter of Romans speaks.
In my humble opinion, in the face of that kind of obduracy, Christians have no recourse but to pray and leave the consequences with God. For a person who has rejected truth, reason is an impotent strategy.
I do not believe that there is any besetting sin, no matter how enslaving, that is beyond the power of the Son of God.
Is it possible that not everyone wants to be delivered...?

Verne

Is it O.K. I respond in open forum? Or would you prefer a PM?
I am comfortable with either...
Verne
p.s. I feel fairly confident in presuming that your family member who claims to be a Christian and homosexual does not accept the Bible as the final arbiter on these matters...

Verne,

     Bless you Brother for being so considerate.  I asked on the open forum because I suspect others may profit from this discussion who would not otherwise have access to such counsel.  So by all means answer here.

     As to your P.S., I do not know this person well enough to say whether the obstruction is rejection of the scriptures or merely ignorance of them.

Gratefully,
al

Arthur's story is worth a thousand Posts!

  I have been thinking about how to answer Dave's question re. how the church should respond to homosexuals and up comes Arthur's story!  Perfect picture of how we need to look at the situation.

  Remember the situation in I:Cor. with the immoral guy who was sleeping with his stepmom?  Paul was upset with the church because they just ignored the situation.  The church must have over reacted because in 2 Cor. Paul tells them to lighten up on the kid.

  I think the moral to that story is that we must be intolerant of sin, but also make the effort to help others find the mercy and grace available to recover from that sin.

   Gal. 6: talks about "restoring" those who fall into sin, but with a cautionary note from Paul:  he warns those "ministering" (the church) to do so with humility, less we also fall.  We are only effective in helping others when we realize what hopeless sinners we are apart from God's gift of grace ourselves.

  Jesus touched the "untouchable lepers"; when the church thinks that we are somehow superior to the unwashed society around us, instead of honestly who we are, we become like the Pharisees who possessed a God given moral standard, but were like "open graves." :P

  I am not saying that we should abandon standards, but recognize as Jesus did that it is our mission to see the recovery of folks, not their condemnation.  For the saying, "hate sin, but love the sinner", to have an effective force in the church we can't just see others as "the sinner" and ourselves as somehow above such things.

  Now, most of us are not tempted at all by homosexuality, and probably find such inclinations very repugnant, but we all possess certain inclinations that God condemns as immoral.  Can we find "complete victory" from these kind of inclinations, or must we fight an up and down battle throughout  our lives?  Does God "heal" the immoral?  And, as Dave's first post on this mentioned:  are these problems emotionally based and Jesus wants to meet our real inner need, thus delivering us from our inordinate affection?

  I think much differently about these questions above now, but will wait to hear what others think first before replying.

                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

 

 

Dave, you have a way with words, and I love your perspective on various matters.

I can so indentify with this needing "to lower the drawbridge of my fortress church, come out from behind my shield of Scriptural justifications and learn to love people...".
When 'things' happen it is quite a challenge to question in the form of an inquiry rather than a judgement call.

Re. my kids.  On matters of interpretation of Scripture where we've discussed it and do not see eye to eye, then I wait it out.  On sin issues, then I choose to forgive and love them.  On lifestyle choices that are sinful,  we probably would have some animated discussions on the matter and then if neither budged from their stance, then likely I would assure them of my love even though I disagreed with their choice.  I have told my kids (16 and 19) that they are old enough to know right and wrong and it is their relationship with God that suffers if they make sinful choices.  Realistically speaking, I cannot police their every move.  I do what I can in the home, but other than that...

Lord bless,
Marcia

P.S.

I would argue that the moral state of American society suggests that the American Church in this century has lost its savor. When we have to appeal to legislators to forcibly enjoin minimal standards of decency and humanity on the populace at large, we have already lost the war. The strange thing is that many of those who clamor the most loudly for Government mandated morality, have themselves failed to uphold that standard in their own lives, and in the lives of their families. This I believe to be the core problem.

The greatest fear of every parent who loves Christ, is that their child will ultimately depart from the Lord. The only fear I have known for now many years, is fear for my children.
For those of us who have children that we believe are erring in their choices, I believe the only important question to ask ourselves is what can and should be done that is in that child’s best interests.
I have very mixed feelings about children of Godly parents who go astray.
I listened to Jim Cymbala a few years ago speak with great power about the way one of his daughters left his home to pursue for many months, a wayward and debauched lifestyle.
Is it possible for a parent to do all that God requires and still loose their child?
I have come to believe that it is.
As someone on this BB has pointed out, God was a perfect parent, Adam and Eve rebelled.
Nonetheless the thing that struck me the most about Cymbala’s story is his heart-breaking confession:
I got so busy with ministry…I took my eyes off Cindy…”

I think Al’s query is important and thought- provoking..
All the relevant data clearly show that at the present rate of Christianity’s growth in this country, as compared with other religious faiths, Christian parents are failing to effectively evangelize their own children.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect holiness from unbelievers.
What I find troubling is the standard that professing Christians are willing to accept.
This would bring me to the first and most important question.
Is it our position, whether as parents, siblings, or friends of homosexuals, that having sexual desires toward members of the same sex, ( homosexuality defined in its most basic terms) is permissible within a Christian world view?
I would submit that unless we can answer that qustion with certitude, we are not truly prepared to have an impact...



At this stage of young adulthood, character formation is essentially complete. The best teaching and training opportunities for parents at this stage have long since passed.
In fact it seems as if these are the years in which a remarkable penchant for doing and being everything the parent disaproves of develops. If their own internal spiritual compass is not firmly aligned with the Lordship of Christ, parents unsually have to look to others to exhert the influence they can no longer...
In general though, spiritual growth at this point will very much depend on the person's ability to find spiritual sustenance without the incessant prompting of others...
It is my fervent prayer and desire that my two precious girls will have a positive love of holiness long before they reach teenhood...

Verne

     When Cathy & I left the assembly in 1980, it was under a cloud of failure, guilt and shame, imposed by the leadership, but in which we fully believed and participated.  The truth is that, while I had earnestly strived to be all that I thought I was supposed to be as a disciple of and worker for Christ, I was a phoney, only fooling myself and anyone else willing to believe me.
     After a feeble, and failing, attempt to find fellowship in Ohio, I reverted to assaying to live as a "good person" for the next 20-some-odd years, with little thought and less involvement with Jesus Christ.  My prayers were to God and were in earnest, that He would make of me what He would, but my perspective was that I had "tried" Christ and been unsuccessful.  I marvel that it took over two decades for me to get to a place where I could see Jesus Christ for who He truly is, and not just the mental picture that religion had helped me paint of Him.  What amazes me even more is His loving patience with me, and that He never deserted me nor even withheld from teaching me (though I did not recognize it at the time).

     While I was living an outwardly "good" life, within I was corrupt, self-centered, without anything sound to offer my family.  I have no claim to the promise of Proverbs 22:6, for I did not train my children in the ways of God, and today none of the four of them is following Him.  I pray for them and for my grandchildren, knowing that whatever God's answer will be to those prayers will all come from the depths His mercy and lovingkindness, owing nothing to me.  My consolation is in knowing that, had I been the best kind of faithful parent, their wellbeing would still be all of grace and not of my invention.

---

    As re: Verne's remarks:
 ...I am not entirely sure that desire defines homosexuality any more than it defines any other habitual practice.  Rather, what is done with the desire is crucial.  Granted, there are those stirring testimonies of men and women whose conversions were accompanied by complete cleansing from every evil lust.  But far more frequently, the new saint is faced with decisions to be made in light of God's Word regarding their former behavior.  And frankly, those spectacular conversion stories can make the new life in Christ harder for "average" new converts to understand and enter into.  Our sanctification is entered into as we turn ever more toward Christ and away from our former ways. (cf 1Thes.4:3-4,7)

---

    Of the two homosexual relatives I mentioned, the one with whom I am more familiar is also a recovering alcoholic.  The argument has been proffered that "God made me this way (homosexual)," based upon "scientific findings."  I don't argue about the science part because, even if I presented proof positive that homosexuals are made, not born (which evidence I have not seen), it would be refuted out of hand.
     Rather, I ask "Aren't you also genetically inclined toward alcoholism?"  Assent to this point is readily granted.  "Then," I contend, "If you believe that God made you with a predisposed addiction to alcohol but you confess to know that He wants you to abstain totally from drinking, WHY would you presume that a predisposition toward homosexuality would necessarily need to be followed?"  
     That is as far as we have got, because this is the one who studies "religious science" and believes that the Bible is one book among many by which "god" speaks, and that it has been repeatedly mistranslated and misunderstood.  In my thread "A Brief Word About the Word," I outlined why this argument goes nowhere for the one who would  support the validity of the scriptures.  They are indefensible to the unregenerate mind.  Rather, the Word, alive and powerful, speaks for Himself, dividing the soul unto the uttermost parts of its being.  So I do not defend the Word of God-- rather, I speak it and trust to His working...

al

This is a good point. I like it.  :)

I'm interested in your answers to the questions you posed, Mark.


Biblically speaking, the Lord Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more."
In reality, I still get annoyed at the way people drive, at my kids, etc.

Marcia

Hi Marcia,

  The verse that you quoted, "go and sin no more", deals with behavior, and not my inner life.

  There is much that I don't understand about predisposition toward sin, and I'm still trying to figure out how to put it into words, but there are some aspects of this that I think I am clear on.

 1.) Since we are taught in the Bible that there is a struggle in our lives between the "old man" and the "new man" (Rom. 7, etc.) I believe we will carry with us unto death certain sinful inclinations.

 2.) As Christians we are to focus on attitudes and behavior, not purifying "our hearts."  God "purifies our hearts", and Paul tells us not to judge others motives, or as in this issue we are discussing, even our own motives.  We are to judge behavior only and leave to God matters of the heart.

 3.) God does not provide spiritual life via the Spirit directly to our emotions.  In other words, when we are tempted to sin God does not fill us with a counter emotional (spiritual?) surge to combat the negative feelings we have.  It is a much larger question to answer how our emotions do fit into a healthy Christian life, but suffice it to say for now that the answer for these needs are to be found in relationship with others, and not via a direct emotional connection to God (I am not saying we don't have an emotional relationship with God, and so the operative word above is direct).

  I know the above paragraph can easily be misunderstood, but Jesus made a very big point about telling his disciples to "love one another", in His absence.  Relationships in the family and church are designed by God to meet one anothers emotional needs.  As Karey said once, "she met Jesus with skin on", via a Christian friend who went out to her.

  In the Assembly the means for this emotional support was not only absent, it took on an opposite negative abusive aspect that damaged the emotional life of believers.  This area then for us is the most important aspect of our lives to recover from, if we left with our faith in Christ intact.

  To expect God to magically take all the pain away, and make us strong and joyful in our inner life in a moment, is not how recovery will happen.  Not just the pain, but the deep seated reactions to years of abusive psychological pressure will be difficult to face alone.

 The purpose of this BB (in my mind) is to provide loving help to one another and thus be God's means to sharing one another's burdens.  Hence, threads like, Wounded Pilgrims.

                                               God Bless,  Mark C.  

There are sins of passion, and there are sins of presumption.
The Bible places sexual sin in a special category as compared to sins outside, as it were, the body. It is unique in the sense that the person who engages in it sins against himself! ( 1 Corinthians 6:17).
It is important to think very carefully about this.
It is quite evident that the arguments marshalled in favor of normalising homosexuality have adopted a strategy of incrementalism.
It is especially employed in the context of whether or not it is acceptable to people of faith.
We are told that while  homosexual acts may be wrong ( the so called non-practicing gay person), being gay is not. After all, God made them that way.
It is remarkable intellectual contortion and sophistry at its most elegant.
The attempt to establish equivalence between what the Bible calls fornication, and is generally viewed as illicit heterosexual realtions, and homosexual acts have in my view also clouded the argument somewhat. They are not treated the same in Scripture. Scripture ascribes the word unnatural to the latter.
Christians who buy this argument do not understand the meaning of holiness.
To accept this kind of reasoning is to completely miss the power of the gospel and the reason for Christ's death- our freedom!
Freedom not only from sin's penalty but its power as well.
Christ is able to deliver not only from ungodly decisions, but also ungodly desires...the gospel ultimately reunites intellect and instinct, affections and acumen. Is that not a glorious truth...?
There is coming a day in the new creation when there will be no night... I had better quit before I start to really get excited... :)
bye' all
 
p.s
Mark is right on the money here. Certainly God does not begin with our emotions. The first place of visible work of the Spirit of God in the regenerate soul is in the will.

(I use the word visible advisedly. Technically the first place of the Spirit's work is to give light to the understanding, often in Scripture depicted by the heart. This is a work not necessarily visible to others).

  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.   John 3:19

(This verse solved a huge theological problem for me - whether God could justly condemn those who never heard the gospel. This verse clearly states that in some way shape or form, every one does!!! Think about it people.)



 
In fact,  it often comes as a startling surprise to the believer who is being filled with the Spirit that he finds a new power to make decisions contrary to feelings.
This is the power of Godliness.
It is the power of dominion over self and mediated only throught the agency of the indwelling Spirit...

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.  Romans 6:14

This is the best-kept secret of a joyful Christian walk.
God does not stop there howerver.
He unites our affections with our intellect.
A sure sign of God's maturing work in the Christian is that he begins to develop a hatred for sin, and a positive love of holiness...believe it people...believe it!
Thanks Mark! O.K now I'm done....
Verne
 

Al,

I have a secret desire to write a devotional book called Encouragements for Lousy Parents.  I am not calling you (or me) a lousy parent.  The title is intended to be a tounge in cheek statement that things don't always go well in regard to parenting.  I always have to chuckle when I see a book with the cavalier title What the Bible says About Child Training or Growing Kids God's Way.   If you look at the majority of Bible characters and the nation Israel as a whole, one would have to question God's "parenting skills" as most didn't turn out very well.   Further, there was one Son that turned out exceptionally fine.  However if we did to our kids what God did to him, social services would immediately be involved.

I know I am joking around a bit, but my point is that most parenting books I've read are written by the strong and gifted to be implimented by the weak and broken.  They often fail to acknowledge some basic things:

1.  Kids eventually make their own choices on whatever basis they choose.  You can't prevent that.

2.  These books generally don't acknowledge the baggage we parents bring into the relationship.  We unconsciously overcompensate for things we found wrong in our parents.  Struggling with our issues often clouds our judgement or causes us to lack consistancy with our kids.   Sometimes we think a certain perspective is true and Biblical and we operate under that assumption.  Years later, we discover we were mistaken, but the time is already past.  Even the differences of perspective, personality and temperment between spouse, which takes years to understand and work out affect how we relate to our kids.

3.  When you get to specifics, there are vast differing of opinion on exactly what to do - How far do you let them engage in popular culture and how much do you shield them from?  Their are pitfalls either way.  There is no absolute answer.  We can quote verses of course, but when faced with the "should I rent this movie or not" or "should I let this kid be my kids friend or not" we have to make a snap judgement.  We sometimes choose wrong.

4.  The church often gages success if you have a squeaky-clean kid who is involved in youth group, listens to Christian groups instead of secular ones, and wears agape t-shirts to school.  But, some of them can't critically think their way out of a box.  Is it success or is it simply being a part of subculture?  Our chuches are often wired towards Christian conformaty.  Kids who move towards the edge are often rejecting a Christian subculture.

5.  Sometimes we parents just don't get it.  I remember a situation where a wife was supposed to impliment something with the kids in a certain way.  She could articulate what she was supposed to do.  In fact, she told others that "this is the way we do it".  However, when it came to carrying it out, she did something different than what she was saying.  The husband would point this out and she would try again.  It took years for her to begin to catch on.  It wasn't that she was trying to be rebellious.   She just had this "gap" between her mental process and her actions.   We all process things differently.  While some accountant types can easily say, "the Bible says this so - boom - I do this."  For others, it takes a while to make a connection between statement and action.

I have seen kids who grew up, and the parents were consciencous Christians and seemed to do everything right.  Suddenly, the kid went bezerk and went off the deep end.

I have seen kids who grew up in homes where the dad was a deadbeat alcoholic and they end up being a missionary at a Christian camp.

In fact, I have probably seen just about every combination.

I am not saying that there is nothing a parent can do.  I am saying that those strong writers who write the "do this and your kids will success" books don't have the whole picture.  Yes, there are things you do when they are young - obviously.   However, as they grow older, I found that my only tool left is to get them to realize that their choices are their responsibility and to do everything I can to keep communication open with my kids.

Sorry for my rambling.  I think by writing and I don't have any other outlet at this time.

Thanks Mark.  I thought along much the same line as well.  There is no santification silver-bullet that I have ever found - in the Assembly or out.  Paul's basic argument to the churches seem to follow the pattern "since you are in Christ, you should really try to act that way."

In being born-again, God constitutes within us a desire for holiness.  But, the reality will only be a progressive approximation of Christ until we receive our new bodies in heaven.  Having said that, I won't deny great discouragement and cynicism at times at the things that are still stuck in my life after all these years.

Al, You may have answered this question a few times. But for the sake of clarity are you saying you returned to the Lord after the collapes of the Assembly??? That this set you Free...Learning God was'nt this harsh task-master that the Geftakys made him out to be....And for 20 years you beat yourself up racked with guilt...and sort of gave-up on Christianity so to speak???? Summer

 

     As far as I'm concerned, Dave is welcome to "think" on the BB whenever he wants to...  We all profit by it.  The book for parents is a great idea-- some posters may have ideas to contribute toward it.

     As I have posted before, Billy Graham once said that parenthood is the most important profession on earth, and God has put it entirely into the hands of amateurs.  After all our best-thought efforts have fallen short, we will finally resort to prayer.  Isn't that a lot like "When all else fails, read the directions?"

---

     We are not splitting hairs to point out the difference between lust and sin:  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.Jas.1:14-15  The span of time involved in this process may be long or it may happen in a heartbeat.  The point is that there is an option open to resist temptation by denying lust its free reign.  Lust is not sin, and we are not doomed to be victims of our lusts.  Jesus Christ died and rose to deliver us from that fate, and whoever calls upon Him when in such straits will be saved from falling.

---

     The thing to bear in mind when dealing with "besetting sins" is that the Christian cannot remain static.  I do not say we should not, but that we cannot-- it is impossible.  The lie is that "here we go again... same old--same old... I haven't changed... I still commit the same sin(s)."  Don't you believe it!  Eternity holds promises of wonders we cannot imagine, but right now we exist in the framework of time, and time progresses!

     If you have committed the same sin a thousand times, and every time you have confessed that sin with the prayer and intention that you will never do it again, but then you do it again, that is NOT the same!  That is the 1,001st time.  No, I'm not joking: God is looking at your heart, not at a scorecard-- this is not a game, but life for real and in earnest.  You are NOT where you were the last time.  You have progressed!  You may have failed again, but again God shows His faithfulness, and again you trust in His mercy and loving kindness, and have hope in His promises, which He keeps again.

     There is one who delights in discouraging you, and his favorite (and easiest) tactic is to get you to look at yourself:  My sins, my failure, my doubts, my shortcomings, my unbelief, my faithlessness, my-oh-my-oh-my!!!  You will always be disappointed by looking at yourself until you learn to see yourself as Jesus sees you, and you will only learn to see as He sees by looking at Him.  
     Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
               Look full in His wonderful face,
                    And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
                         In the light of His glory and grace.

     I do not belittle the power of sin nor that of the enemy of God's throne; rather I magnify the power of God, whose grace is poured out unto us through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ:  Grace that is greater than ALL our sin!

---

     Finally, to answer Summer's question:  It was not the collapse of the house that george built that was directly responsible for my return to Christ, but the timing worked out that way, and it was a factor in my recovery, primarily through this BB.  During that 20-some years I learned to cope with guilt, shame, depression, anxiety-- I use the term "learned" advisedly-- I am still learning, and I don't expect to attain sinless perfection any time this week ::).

     Yeah, I "sort of gave up on Christianity."  That was because my idea of what Christianity consists of was flawed; because my concept of who Christ is was wrong-- I had seen an inkling, but had lost sight of Him in a flurry of religious activity and regulations.  When all of that came to nothing, I thought that Christianity was awash.  But Christianity was fine; it was I who was astray, and carrying a lot of baggage.  My journey then became like that of the settlers moving west in their wagon trains: I kept having to lighten my load to get across the rivers and over the mountains.  I didn't know then what I know now: that Christ was with me all the way.

God bless,
al



     

Mark et al,

In the sermon on the Mount the Lord speaks of guilt associated with what goes on in the heart apart from outward actions.

According to what you are saying, the homosexual cannot help his 'feelings', but he should not act upon them.  Am I correct?

Marcia

     As the al in "et al," :D I'll take a stab at that:

     As we read in Matthew 5:1, Jesus looked at the multitudes that followed him, then went up into a mountain and sat down.  After that, his disciples came to him, and he spoke to them.  It is important to know that Jesus' words in these three chapters are addressed to his disciples.  Even though his words sometimes affect others, they are not directed to others.  "The people" also heard him speak, and were afterward astonished at what he had said (7:28-29).

     Because he spoke to his followers, we find no mention of homosexual lust or sin in this "sermon," because among them the condemnation of sodomy was a foregone conclusion by virtue of God's Law as expressed in the scriptures, and Jesus makes plain that the Law stands firm (5:18).  But as this message has been preserved for all time, we still have the question supposing a homosexual person receives new birth in Christ but doesn't lose those "feelings"-- what then?

     The answer may be drawn from 5:27-30, wherein Jesus deals with the lust of a man for a woman.  Jesus does not declare lust to be sin, but he condemns intentional lust.  Men are not told they cannot look at a woman at all, but that they are to hold a tight rein on their imaginations (cf 2Cor.10:5), and not pursue evil thoughts.  He does not say that a man's hand or his eye does offend him, but that if it did, it had better be cut off.  How much more essential then the cutting off of all offending actions of the mind!  Jesus doesn't advocate physical maiming, but illustrates the essentiality of violence toward sin to combat the violence of sin (cf 11:12).  Lust is to be recognized as the gateway to sin-- it is to be banished, not entertained.

     The "sermon on the mount" has probably been as misunderstood in New Testament times as were the old covenants before it:  The standard of perfection is established, not because God ever expected that man could achieve it, but so that man could see how great is his need of grace, without which he can never hope to satisfy God's demands.  The natural man uses the Law of God to condemn God as being too harsh and hard, unreasonable, unacceptable.  God uses adamance to press proud, arrogant man to the point of necessity and willingness to accept the gift of almighty love.

     See how much of these three chapters addresses prayer (6:5-18, 25-33; 7:7-11).  At the very root of obeying God is seeking him.  How else shall any (you; I), being imperfect, become perfect unless God perfect him?  The natural man (the old man) cannot fathom this reality, and looks at the words of Jesus as a standard to which he can rise.  Any failure to do so is summarily dismissed or excused.  The spiritually reborn knows-- both acknowledges and accepts-- that he can do the will of God only by the grace of God (Phil.4:13).

     The natural mind sees Jesus' words "Come unto me..." (11:28-30) as representing a long uphill trek; a struggle to do, in the strength of one's own power, all the things that must be done to satisfy God.  The concept is one of working one's way to God.  But the words were not shouted from afar.  Rather, it is a gently stated invitation-- not a struggle but a simple facing movement: Turn your eyes upon Jesus...  He is Emmanuel: God with us.  When by sin oppressed, come to him for rest: Our God is able to deliver thee.

al

WORD...!!!    :) :) :)   'NUFF SAID!
Verne

Hi Marcia, and "et al" (with possible reference to my posted shark pic. ;))!

  Very good question Marcia, and one that I hoped someone would ask.

  Al did a good job of explaining how we might look at all of these "Kingdom" standards of righteousness that Jesus was teaching on in the Gospels.  It is important to put these verses in the context of the NT to get a balanced view.

  Specifically, in light of the verses from the Sermon on the Mount that you mention:

   But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

  Personal honesty is as important as any other tool of interpretation we might use in our Bible study.
 
 Most normal men (including regenerated ones) have a naturally strong visual attraction to good looking women; it's the way we're made.  Is Jesus in the vs. above asking us to change that basic instinct?  Should the Christian seek to totally repress any such natural response?

  Honesty will answer the above question easily for most men, as we will have to admit to this built in attraction.  It is much better to honestly admit this then to play the dishonest game of denying the truth, even if the denial is based in a desire to obey God's command.

  So why did Jesus teach this?  The best answer that I heard came from a Jewish man on the radio who explained the Hebrew concept of the heart, and thus the correct definition of terms re. this passage.

  The Jewish understanding of the word "heart" did not mean just the natural desire within alone to want something, but along with this a willingness to achieve the end of that lust.

  Examples:
  A man desires to seek revenge on an individual by shooting him, and plans it out "in his heart", but on firing his gun it jams.  He didn't murder, but it was in his heart to do so, and thus falls under the definition of equal guilt that Jesus provides in the above vs.
  Another example of this would be a yet unrealized desire to commit adultery that is constrained by the fear of punishment, so I constantly fantisize my lust.  This is a form of pornographic addiction that is very damaging to the soul and would fall under Jesus use of the phrase, "in his heart."

  I am cut off on the freeway by some idiot who flips me off when I honk my horn at him (an almost daily experience for me) and then this guy has to suddenly break and the thought comes into my mind, "maybe I'll just not try to avoid running into the back of him by braking, etc.", but intstead of my strong emotions decide to change lanes quickly, thus avoiding him.

  In the last (very true) scenario my heart was actually in the right place, even though my emotions were surging toward murder within, because my choice was to do what was right.  

   In other words, choice determines where one's heart really is at, and spares most men the negative title of "adulterer" because of their instinctive attraction to the fairer sex.

   "Self control" is one of the fruits of the Spirit in our lives.  If at salvation, or at a later stage on the Christian journey  ;), I am supposed to have attained to a completely pure heart, why is there the need to control anything in my soul?  

   Human desire is normal, and can not be erradicated except by death.  As Christians we have all the same human desires that the unregenerated have.  Because of inherited sin natures these desires can develop into unhealthy inclinations, of which homosexuality is one.  It is next to impossible to change those aberrant tendicies, and this why the homosexual is in such a difficult situation.

  For Christians to contanstly pound the drum of, "God demands that you become normal" in re. to the homosexual only drives them further away from the help they desperately need.  Yes, God calls this sin, but this is exatly why Jesus came and died for man!

  What then of the regenerated homosexual who still has these same desires, but is able to control them via the Spirit?  I would say that this would put such an individual in the same boat with the hetero. who avoids adultery "in his heart", by choosing not to obey it's temptations.

  There is a difference between the two above, in that one desire is normal, and the other not so, and because of this help should be sought to deal with these desires.  I will also say, that the same kind of help should be sought for those addicted to hetero. porn, etc.  

  There needs to be more explanation provided for how I see the treatment in the above paragraph, because it does deal with "inner life", and I don't mean to leave the impression that we should ignore our emotional health.

  My point in the above post is an attempt to understand what Jesus may have meant by the vs. in question re. the often erroneous conclusion drawn from it.  To labor under guilt concerning one's normal human feelings is not a burden that Jesus wants us to carry through our life.

                                  God Bless,  Mark C.

     Verne, I have to confess to a "control issue"-- I can't control the urge to say that your quote, above, is "AMEN !!!" in KJV. :) ;) :D

     We three seem to be in agreement, and Mark has gone far in covering details that I have not.  His point about Jesus' meaning in referring to what a man does in his heart is validated by these words later in the same "sermon":  Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven... For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matt.6:19-21     By treasuring the wonderful Son of God, who gave himself so lovingly and freely for us, we focus our hearts on him and, thus, upon the things that please him.  As we continually offer him our hearts, he accepts them and remakes them into reflections of his own great heart: pure, righteous, holy, and pleasing to our Father in heaven.

     To further clarify another point, Mark said:

     Because the word "normal" is used so arbitrarily, and its definition is so oft disputed, I point, instead, to Paul's use of the term "natural" within the same context of which we speak. (Rom.1:26-27).  The clear point is that homosexual desire/behavior defies God's design for human nature.  In other words, even the natural (unregenerate) mind, when functioning as designed by its Creator, will acknowledge and accept the purposeful destiny of gender.

     Finally, in reference to Mark's suggestions that and I will express my opinion that, while there may be similar elements, each case involves an individual and therefore requires individual solutions.  By this I mean that there is no "cure" for homsexuality, nor for any other condition of the soul, except for the personal intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ.  How one decides and proceeds to be related to the Son of God will determine the rate and degree of deliverance received.  Jesus has done the work already.  It has only to be applied.

     Any saint who would endeavor to help someone through such a situation must proceed humbly, prayerfully, and without preconception of how God will work, but asking and fully trusting that God will work.  Expect great things-- we serve a great Lord God.

al

Mark C et al,

Thank you.  Driving that truck actually benefits us, because you have all day (and sometimes all week) to think up answers to the hard questions we pose eh??  One thing I know, don't cut off a transport truck because they hate having to downshift once they have gotten up to speed, and they have a very long breaking distance. :)

Anyway, that was a good clear response to the discussion, and I for one, appreciate it.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Me, too.  :)

Thank you Marcia and Moonflower 2 !

  I greatly appreciate the questions as it gives me something to think about other than the guy who is trying to cut me off  ;)!

                                   God Bless,  Mark C.  :)