Thanks Bob. It is welcome here.


And we do understand this. No one is saying that they do not have this in them and have these urges. And we do understand that it can and is often distressing.


He may have these feelings, but he can deny acting upon them. He is not an animal. If he is a Christian, then he has the power of Christ to overcome those urges. He is not trapped. I am a very sexual man. Have "needed" sex 4+ times a week for most of my adult life. Now, after my wife's affair was exposed, I went three years with 4 sexual interations with my wife. Not 4 in a week, 4 in a year. You dont think I had urges to hook up with someone? I had needs. I had never been without those needs being met. Believe me, it was VERY distressing. But, I did not act upon those needs. First, because I am not an animal and can make rational decisions that overcome my natural wants. Second, the Lord gave me everything I needed. So when I took those feelings of wanting to give up, or hook up, to Him...He provided me the strength to resist.

I now know that if my wife was paralyzed and we could never have sex again, I COULD go the rest of my life without it (did I just say that? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />). Would I want to? No. Is it fair that I would have to? No. Do I have a choice? Absolutely. And so does the homosexual.


Could be.

In His arms.

Mortarman,

I was referring to ForeverHers' posts on the "Bisexual Husband Just Found Out" thread here on GQ, which I think is the reason why this entire thread was started. HTH.

I have read it. My issue is that I am having trouble seeing where FH forced anything on anyone. He expressed what the Bible says. And pretty matter-of-fact, also. So I am not sure what part of that thread you might be referring to where he was forcing religion on someone. If you can help me find that, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks.

In His arms.

Mortarman,

With all due respect, I'm not going to go back and pick apart and quote from that thread. In essence, ScaredinGA just happened to mention a Christian counselor, and FH's first post to her spewed his own religious interpretations, which I doubt the OP was looking for. I wouldn't have found FH's post very helpful, and many other posters on that thread agreed, including JL. Go back and refer to it if you'd like. I have to leave right now. Sorry.

Mortarman,

Thank you for all of your posts here, as always, your writing style has a way of ministering to me that I rarely have the priviledge of encountering. My husband and I have benefitted many times from the sage advice and explanations that you give here. I give thanks to God for the gift He has bestowed upon you in this way. Mr. Wondering and I have often "wondered" if you are currently studying to be a counselor or minister...are you? We believe that many would be blessed by your abilities in either compacity. If you and your wife are ever in Michigan or Georgia (we're moving there this spring/summer) or if we are ever in Virginia (that's where you are right?) he and I would so love to have dinner and get to fellowship with the two of you... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

ForeverHers

I sure hope that you didn't feel like I was part of what you refered to as "FH bashing" yesterday, that certainly wasn't my intention...I would feel just horrible if I made you feel that way...I look at you as one of my valued teachers here, and seriously was only trying to understand and state my fears regarding sending a believer into the hands of a non believer...Again, I would like to reiterate that I was not offended by your statements of the scriptural truth, I am NEVER offended by God's word...sometimes the written word of we humans conveys unintended tones...I will continue to learn from your vast knowledge of the scriptures...I thank you and God for that...


KaylaAndy

In one of your posts, you said...


Do you take meds for Bipolar Disorder/manic depression? I would really like to "hear" your story about this particular struggle. My father has BPD, and chose not to take the meds until about a year ago, to the detriment of himself and my family. I am always interested in learning more about this illness, if you wouldn't mind sharing...if you would rather not post, you can contact me at the email address in my signature...I would appreciate your insight...



AR

If you are still lurking, please refer to Mortarman's post to you regarding my feelings about your level of compassion...

Also, I was surprised to "hear" you say that my reference to Satan "scared" you...it is my understanding that as an atheist, you don't believe that Satan exists...shouln't be scary to you at all, right?

In one of your posts to ScaredinGa's thread, you said...


What made you turn from God? Education is a great thing, unless you allow it to mislead you...what exactly made this happen in your life? I won't try to talk you out of it, you've made it clear that that isn't possible...I would really just like to know...start your own thread, I promise I won't post to you on it if you so desire...

Thanks to all on this thread for the open discussion...


Mrs. Wondering

Yes, Mortarman – I understand what you’re trying to say and I can see where this logically leads. It make much sense. Thanks! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mortarman, I think you have misunderstood me. Please read again what I’ve posted in my previous post:

” I consider pedophile behavior evil and from the devil. I can’t say the same about homosexual orientation though because I know some people become homosexual orientated as a direct result of the behavior of pedophiles”

AND

” Please note I was talking about sexual orientation & identity in the above context, not ACTING on those urges and impulses. There is a difference.”

Mortarman, as you can see I was talking about homosexual orientation & identity – not ACTING on the impulses and give into a homosexual lifestyle (which are clearly prohibited by God.) Therefore I believe ACTING on homosexual urges and impulses are wrong and sinful but not the homosexual orientation itself (because sexual orientation is not a choice). The homosexual orientation ONLY becomes sinful when ACTING on those feelings and becoming a practicing homosexual.

Mortarman, it’s true that God condoned no sin, but I don’t agree that he view all sins as equal and that sins can’t be ranked. Let me explain why I’m saying this by differentiate between mental and physical adultery:

Both mental and physical betrayal are very wrong and sinful, but with physical betrayal and intercourse, you actually take it one step further. Sexual betrayal and adultery is a process which originally start as a thought and temptation – then the person give in and start to dwell on the thought – then take it further and start to have sexual fantasies and get pleasure out of it – and the last stage is acting and actually having sex with a person outside marriage. When one actually gave in and having sexual intercourse outside marriage, you sin against your own body according to script.

Now, the more severe and serious the sins we commit here on earth, the more serious and severe the consequences thereof… And of course the consequences and damage of physical sexual intercourse (including guilt, shame etc.) is much more severe than for mental betrayal. For example, my involvement with FOM never progressed to a physical level or to full EA, but I did have impure thoughts and fantasies about him… These thoughts were very damaging to the relationship with my H, my relationship with my God, the way I felt towards myself, my self-esteem, my spiritual and emotional well-being etc, etc.… I paid a high price for all this and the damage was huge, BUT I know should I have physical contact or actually had sex with FOM, that would have made things much worse for everyone concerned….

Another example I want to use to illustrate this is something else: murder. It’s possible to feel so mad and outrageous if someone act a certain way, that we can actually think and feel like killing that person. If this happens, you actually commit “murder in your heart” according to Jesus standard, but do the thoughts of killing the person make you a real murderer? I don’t think so. It doesn’t minimize the fact that you HAVE committed a sin against God and another person with the evil thoughts, but you haven't committed the same 'level' and 'severity' of sin than a real murderer who have actually physically killed somebody.

The above is another example why I think there is different “scales” of sins and I do think in God’s eyes not all sins are equal. I recall somewhere in the Bible God talks about the 7 deadly sins, so this is an example where God DO view certain sins bigger than others. I have also read in the Apocrypha Books (the books taken out of the Bible years ago after Jesus’s life here on earth) about the different specific punishments unrepentant sinners will receive for certain sins in h e l l - and certain sins will receive greater punishments than other. And out of this I’ve made the assumption that God DOES differentiate certain sins from others in ‘level’ , ‘scale’ and ‘severe ness’.


Mortarman, I have concerns about the response you have posted to Bob above, so please allow me to share my concerns to you and please know what I want to say to you, I mean well and in a good spirit (from one Christian to another):

Not all people and Christians are equally strong Mortarman… Maybe YOU are a very strong and mature person emotionally and spiritually at this point of your life because of your faith in Christ, but it’s not to say that EVERYONE is at your level yet. If you are so strong and mature and secure in your faith in Christ that you KNOW you would be able to do without sex for the rest of your life should the circumstances should ask for it, you can’t just ASSUME that others WILL and HAVE to do the same… Other Christians don’t necessarily have the same strength, maturity, determination and self-discipline through Christ than YOU on this point of their lifes. Remember, some Christians are still “babies” in their spiritual and religious lifes and in their personal relationship with Christ and their main struggle is to “get” where you probably are in your spiritual life, so in a sense, Christians who are at the beginning or middle of their spiritual and religious journeys ARE “trapped” in some way until they have fully matured in their spiritual and religious lifes. And you, as a “mature” or “elder” Christian can’t tell the others what they will be able to do until they haven’t arrived at your level yet… Sometimes the “mature” or “elder” Christians don’t have patience for the struggles and problems of the “baby” or “adolescent” Christians, but this is the wrong attitude. And Mortarman, I think you must be very careful to say that should the circumstances ask for it, you COULD go the rest of your life without sex… You can’t say it until you have actually BEEN there. And the fact that you could resist for 3 years, doesn’t say that you WILL definitely be able to do it for the rest of your life. It’s easy for someone to say who haven’t been IN the situation. You can’t compare yourself to the man in Bob’s post simply because you are not in his situation and you don’t have a clue how it must feel for that man to stay celibate for his WHOLE LIFE and resist his sexual urges and impulses. Your 3 years of almost no sex is NOTHING compared to a LIFETIME of celibacy to that man who didn’t choose to be homosexually orientated.

Please don't see what I've said above as a personal attack on you. It's not and I DO mean it in good spirit. I also value and appreciate your contributions to these boards. Thanks for the discussion.

I’m going to sleep now (it’s 10:45 in my country), so I will post again tomorrow.

Blessings,
Suzet

Buttercup, I get really weary of this sort of nonsense. If you will take the time to go back to the thread you are all "worked up" about you will see that I quoted NOT ONE verse of Scripture TO ScaredinGA.

I DID quote Scripture directly to ManinMotion in answer to his post, directed directly at me.

We are having what seemed to be fairly "civilized" and "adult" conversation on SUZET's thread, regarding her questions, and along comes Buttercup slinging mud again.

I have to admit, you may get your wish. I am really weary of "fighting the fight" and the "warrior" is getting tired of the "battle."

It's "okey dokey" for anyone BUT a committed, evangelical, Christian to spout anything they want. But heaven help anyone who simply says "Christians should obey God" first.

For the last time, go back and read what I posted TO ScaredinGA, and my leaving her to HER chosen course when she chose an atheist for consultation for whatever reason she wished. I would admonish ANY Christian to seek TRAINED Christian counseling. There is NOTHING that says a Christian Counselor "Can't" counsel on the issue of homosexuality, UNLESS you want to make the assumption that choosing a homosexual lifestyle is "okay," regardless of what God has said about it.

There was even a poster who posted a link to an article (which I read but did not comment on) that was decidedly PRO liberal "Christianity" and substituting personal "feeling" for clear exegisis of the text. Twisting and turning Scripture to suit their personal agenda. Gagonon, for cyring out loud! What sort of biblical "truth" would you expect from him. The Unitarian Universalist Church as a key proponent...a totally apostate church still claiming to be "Christian."

Frankly, I tire of the "war." Were it not for a few folks who hold Christ dear, I would "walk away" in a heartbeat taking the advice to "not cast pearls...."

But Buttercup, I am really disappointed the you choose to not get your facts straight before you launch a personal attack.

Buttercup, I "quote Scripture" when it's appropriate and especially when someone tries to support opinion that is direct contradiction of what is written in the Scripture.

If you don't like what Scripture says, you don't have to read it. There are many who don't want to read it, there are many who want to twist into whatever they want it to be, including some who have denied that Scripture is inspired by God.

Enough.

Eaglesoar – Okay, let’s see if we can clarify this a bit. Do YOU consider yourself a “glutton,” interested only in food and nothing else? Or perhaps you are “overweight,” whatever that might mean to you (I am “overweight for my height” also), because you are more muscular (muscle weighs more than fat) or you don’t like exercise and don’t burn enough calories to avoid storing fat (my problem).

I agree with you that the church should not “single out” homosexuality as the “only sin” when considering someone for membership. There are churches that require membership classes before being accepted into membership and there are churches that accept people into membership solely upon a profession of faith. When it comes to open and willful sin, despite what the Scripture says, I would suggest that membership should be delayed until such time as the sin is repented of (turned 180 degrees away from) and there is evidence of the sincerity of the commitment to “leave what was a ‘life of sin’” in humble obedience to God’s commands. Let’s also be “reasonable” if we may that there ARE distinctions we make about the “severity” of some sins. While ALL sin is anathema to God, some sins can be “covered over with love” while other sins require more, as in dealing with the consequences and restoration over time. A married person, for example, who was actively engaged in adultery would likewise be “not recommended” for membership at that time if it became known that such behavior was going on. Certainly someone engaged in adultery would most likely NOT be the one to confess such activity and could gain membership “under false pretenses.” Think of it like the question asked at most marriage ceremonies, “If there be anyone who has just cause that this couple should NOT be joined in holy matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.” Suppose one of the participants in the marriage ceremony were ALREADY married. Shouldn’t they be denied marriage AT THIS TIME? If they were married and it was later discovered that they were living in willful disobedience of the laws against bigamy, shouldn’t they be “put out” until such time as they repented and “made things right?’

I would further submit that if someone was in a membership in a local body of believers and were sincerely trying to “follow Christ,” there would be “accountability partners” there to help when needed, but unless a willful choice to engage in sin regardless of what God had to say, the “discipline” would not become known “church-wide” unless a steadfast refusal to repent was encountered. Once the leaders of the church become aware of known, and willful, sin, it is their responsibility to protect the flock and not “condone” such activity by ignoring it or taking no action or not holding someone accountable for their choice to disregard God and sin anyway.

Let’s take it out of the realm of “sexuality” for a minute and look at it from another standpoint. Should someone be allowed membership, or not held to church discipline if they are already a member, who denies that Jesus Christ is God the Son incarnate and that he was physically resurrected from the dead? What if they chose to deny Christ because it “interfered” with their own personal “wants and desires?” Should they be “tolerated” in the body of believers and “no big deal?”

Consider the Churches in Revelation. Christ speaks to each of them and there is “warning” in much of what is said.

God bless.

Mortarman – Amen! Could not have said it better myself…smile. Thank you.

Alot here Suzet...let me dig in. And I first want to say that I do take your posts as a sincere discussion. There is no offense taken!!



I dont disagree here.


I understand what you are saying. And in strictly a worldly view, you are correct. But, your assumption is not Biblical. First off, what is the penalty for ANY sin, no matter how severe? The penalty that is issued by God? Isnt it not eternal damnation...death? So, the thief ends up i nthe same place as the pedofile. The "spiritual" atheist who did great humanitarian works in his life but never accepted Jesus ends up in the same place as the pedofile.

You see, man wants to look at sin the way man wants to look at it. We want to see "fairness" and "compassion." But God would not be fair and would not be holy if He did not punish sin.

As a Christian, we all know that every human has fallen short of the glory of God. We cannot even stand in His presence, while a heathen. Why? It is because even one sin makes us a sinner. And He is perfect, He is holy. It is like darkness and light. The darkness is obliterated in the presence of light. And we too would be obliterated just standing in the very presence of God in our sins. That is why we need a mediator, someone to make us sinless again. And that person has to have both the attributes of God AND the attributes of man. And Jesus turned out to be that person.

So, in order to go before the throne of God boldly and not be obliterated by His very presence, we have to be washed by the blood of Christ and become sinless. Without that, I do not care how minor or major the sin is on this earth...it receives the EXACT same penalty as any other sin that has not been paid for by Jesus Christ.

So, my ascertain still stands. On earth, sins are scaled. But in Heaven, all sins have the same penalty. The issue is who pays that penalty...Christ or us?


Okay, I do not need to have been in his shoes to understand this man's struggle. Just as others can understand mine. I understand what you are saying about baby Christians and spiritual growth. I do. I understand those less mature in their faith will stumble more often. But that does not change the fact that EVERY Christian has the power to not sin. Everyone. As a "mature" Christian, I have the same access and same power from Christ as a baby Christian. The issue isnt one of access, it is one of knowing that you have access and how to access it. That is why the church has elders. Why mature Christians are to come alongside baby christians and help them learn how to access the power they already possess.

Thus, the homosexual, who maybe was born with this urge, absolutely has the power to overcome those urges tonight.

When I say that I know I can go the rest of my life celibate if that is what is required, I do not say that lightly. You all have no idea how much SF is a need for me!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I know that I can be celibate because I know that I have the power of the Holy Spirit within me to do so. Now, I might not listen and use that power. But that is because I choose not to listen. I choose not to find the power, to find the truth. I choose to remain in my sins.

Every Christian gets that choice everyday in a confrontation with a possible sin. And there is never an excuse with God for not accepting His power and overcoming that sin. Jesus didnt say to the woman at the well "Well, I know that you now have 5 husbands, so I ask you to please try to refrain from this behavior." No. What did He say Suzet? He said "Go, and sin no more." Jesus would not have said that if He didnt think that she was capable of going and sinning no more. He didnt sugarcoat it or pat her on the head. He just told her like it was, and gave her the choice of sinning no more, or continuing her destructive ways.


I keep saying this...but I will do so again. There is a difference between simple and easy. Our problems and sins are very simple to address. But most of the time, addressing them is NOT easy. It is very simple to get saved and follow Jesus Christ. But many times, it is not easy. It is very simple not to cheat on my wife...just keep from taking my clothes off and rolling around with another woman. But sometimes, that simple thing is not easy.

I have no doubt the homosexual finds his or her position very difficult. It aint easy. But the way that God wants them to go is VERY simple.

I hope that clarifies things.

In His arms.

I for one, do not buy into the view that a loving, faithful, monogamous, same-gender relationship is immoral.


Allow me to quote from Reverend Kathryn Timpany:
"I am a Christian, and the Bible is authoritative for my life in the faith, but it is not authoritative for me the way it is fro some others. It functions for me as a kind of family scrapbook, being a collection of many books by many quthors on many topics written in many styles addressing many different concerns over many hundreds of years.
It is, as such, only a partial record of the life of God with the people of God. It is neither complete nor inclusive. It reveals something, but not all things, of God's will for God's people.....
..... And there is the example of Jesus himself, who, when asked which were the most important of all the laws in the Levitical puritay code, responded by quoting these two: you shall love God with all your heart and mind and soul and strenght, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. All other laws and the writings of the prophets were to be understood througth the lens of these two, he taught."

And to quote from Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, by Dan Via and Rober Gagnon. These are the words of a gay man who also happens to be a distinguished New Testament scholar: "Any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no debate about the fact that the church's stand on homosexuality has caused oppression, lonliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness and suicide for millions of people.
"If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation it must demonstrate, not just claim, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexeuals.
"can the church show that same-sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it really would be better for all lesbian and gay Christians to live alone, without the joy of intimate touch, without hearin a lover's voice when they go to sleep or awake?
"Is it really better for lesbian and gay teenagers to despise themselves...?
"Is it really more loving for the church to continue its worship of "heterosexual fulfillment" (a non-biblical concept, by the way) while consigning thousands of its members to a life of either celibacy or endless psychological manipulations that masquerade as "healing?"
....
"What will build the double love of God and of our neighbor?

Losttranslation, thanks for your contribution to this thread.

Losttranslation, IMHO a loving, faithful, monogamous, same-gender relationship is not immoral or wrong as long as it doesn’t include sex or sexual acts with the partner… God say it’s wrong for two men or women to “lay together” - in other words, having sex with one another. But sex doesn’t necessarily have to be part of a same-sex relationship. Therefore, IMO, a same-gender relationship ONLY becomes wrong, sinful and immoral if the couple ACT on their sexual impulses and have contact of a SEXUAL NATURE with each other. Note that I don’t consider non-sexual touch and showing of affectionate touch (like hugs, kisses (not intimate/French kisses), loving touch etc.) to be wrong between a same-sex couple who are homosexually oriented. If you check back on this thread, you will see I’ve quoted the following from a book (which is also my own personal POV):

[color:"blue"] The first Swiss Christian-psychiatrist, Theodor Bovet, has written in Sinnerfultes Anders-sein (to live meaningful as a homosexual) that love for the same sex don’t have anything to do with morality. Within his/her life context, the homosexual can live just as morally or immorally as the heterosexual within his/her own orientation.[/color]

AND I’ve also posted the following yesterday:

” Also keep in mind that two homosexual people who enter into an intimate relationship with each other and live together, don’t necessarily have to be sexual with each other and practice the “sexual act”. An intimate relationship involves much more than just “sex” and “sexual intimacy”. People tend to think that homosexual relationship is just about sex. So now I ask myself:

Where does one draw the line? What did God mean when He said two men and two women are not allowed to “lay together”? Was he only talking about sexual interactions or did He refer to the relationship as a whole? WHAT IF 2 homosexual orientated people decide to stay together and have an intimate relationship on all other areas than sex? (In other words, if they have emotional intimacy and show affection to each other, but exclude “sexual acts” from their relationship)? Is such type of involvement also prohibited by God? So, are homosexual orientated people not allow to have ANY type of intimate involvement (on other areas than sex) with someone of the same sex at all? So are they not allowed to have an intimate relationship and be life partners on friendship and emotional level with another same sex person at all? WHAT IF it's possible for the two homosexual partners to love each other in an intimate relationship but stay "celibate" (where the loving, faithful, monogamous, same-gender couple withhold themselves from each other on sexual level)? Will the church just automatically assume that 2 homosexual people who are living together and show affection to each other, also have a sexual involvement and as a result abandon them from church? WHAT IF these people are condemned and abandoned from church while they ARE stay "celibate" within the relationship but no one believes them?

I ask all these question to give people something to think about and show them that this issue is not just black and white and as clear cut as it seems on the surface…”

Lossttranslation, I do believe it’s possible for a loving, faithful, monogamous, same-gender couple to have a fulfilling relationship without having any sexual contact with each other. I think with the help and power of Christ, such a couple can stay “celibate” within the relationship and don’t give into a homosexual lifestyle with each other. I believe it is not homosexuality itself which is a crime against God, but the homosexual practises and acts (having homosexual sex). There is other parts of the relationship (like friendship, emotional intimacy etc.) a same sex-couple can focus on and embrace. Therefore, I don't think a homosexual orientated person necessarily have to lead a single & lonely life. There is a “middle-ground” and I think celibacy within a loving and nurturing long-term relationship between a same gender-couple can probably be the answer to gay orientated believers and Christians. The questions is, will the church and Christians show understanding and insight for such type of “celibate relationship” between a same-sex couple or will such a couple yet again be judged and condemned?

I would like to hear other’s opinions on this...

Thanks for your thorough response yesterday Mortarman. I appreciate the time & effort you take to respond and offer your contributions to this thread. Your last post did clarify things for me although I still don’t completely agree with you on the topic of “scaling” of sins. But I guess that’s a topic for another discussion for another day! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I want to use this opportunity to thank EVERYONE for the open discussion and the contributions on this thread so far. It’s good to have a “civil” and “adult” discussion about such a sensitive and controversial topic. Thanks! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I will see if I can find the time today to translate the other stuff about homosexuality and Christianity from the book I’ve posted from on Tuesday. I will send it as soon as it’s finished. Translation is not one of my strongest points so it might take some time. Please bear with me.

Blessings to all,
Suzet

Well, research and studies have shown that homosexual orientation can have a biological/genetic origin as well and therefore homosexual orientation CAN be called a “birth defect” in this regard. An inability to connect with the opposite sex because of the gay orientation will make marriage and sexual relationships with the opposite sex impossible. As Bob said, heterosexual relationships feel as alien to gay people as homosexual ones would feel to many of we straight people. That’s why Bob’s friend has called off the wedding and relationship with his fiancée – because he couldn’t find anywhere within him a sexual attraction to the female sex…

I 100% agree that it is the ACTIONS which is wrong. And you are correct that Biblically there is nothing wrong with sexless life, but please note that celibacy itself is an exceptional spiritual calling: In principal a distinctive supernatural existence and way of living (refer to Matthew 19:12). Human sexuality is undeniable...also the sexuality of gay orientated people.

Edited to add:

Becontent, you’ve said:

“I would agree in that we can have any sexual orientation or tendency we want…”

I don’t understand why you’ve said that people can have any sexual orientation or tendency they want because it’s simply not true. People can’t choose their sexual orientation or tendencies. Most gay orientated people don’t WANT to be this way. But I agree they don’t have to ACT on their orientation or tendencies.

Just wanted to make this clear.

The definitions in which I have posted ALL refer to NOT have the sexual organs, and that is what I was referring to in my term of Birth Defects (trying to PC here). As far as I know, homosexuals have ALL of their sex organs and have no physical birth defects. There is a medical term for those born with both sex organs and without them, but I am not going to take the time to look them up.

I would be very concerned about the homosexual being okay with having a physical, intimate relationship without sexual intercourse. The Bible tells us we can commit adultery by lust, so I would be afraid that we could "lay with a man" by lust, desire, or thoughts. There are more scriptures about thoughts and the mind causing us to sin.

JMHO

The clearest Bible teaching I know of on the subject of homosexuality is the first chapter of Romans:



What I get from this is that a person does not choose to become homosexual, but becomes so as a result of a series of choices.

I understand what you are saying, but please note I've said that such a couple should exclude ALL sexual contact from their relationship (not just the sexual intercourse). Of course someone can commit a sin just by lust, desire and thoughts but that's why it's up to the person to search his/her heart and pray for wisdom, power and strenght in this regard. Of course it will not be advisable for such a couple to share a bed becaue it can tempt them to sin. But I don't think it can be expected from gay orientated people to no have ANY loving, caring and long-term relationships in their lifes at all (which of course will have to exclude any contact of a sexual nature).

Mortarman - I understand. I was celibate for the entire 6 years of my wife's affair. I CHOSE that versus "insisting" or "forcing" myself on her OR choosing to "get my needs met extramaritally." Easy? No way. "...or for worse?", yes, as I honored my marital vows and God's commands. There was NO "grey area" there that I could see....

Could I do it again? Yes, if circumstances (like paralysis for example) made it necessary. But also with this disclaimer regarding the "choice" of celibacy...if my wife were to choose adultery again, I would end the marriage. Even if she repented, I would forgive the sin, as required by God, but I would not continue the marriage after a SECOND willful choice of adultery, "proving that the first 'repentance' would have been a lie and that surrendering her life (and desires and wants, etc.) to God was a self-serving falsehood. Since I could not, and cannot, KNOW her heart other than through what I observe as "obedience or disobedience" to God's commands, I would choose to NOT put myself into the position of more years of pain and uncertainty. I would still love her, but I would choose to not live with her. I understand and believe in Jesus' command to forgive "seventy times seven times," and I would, but I also do not have to be married to forgive anymore than I need to be "friends" with someone who has sinned against me and been forgiven, if you understand the distinction I am making.

In the face of sin, especially sin that we, ourselves, recognize in ourselves, it is up to us to CHOOSE to be obedient to God no matter what we are feeling or what society may opine about it being "normal." For Christians, God's law SHOULD supercede human societal "law" or "acceptable behavior" whenever there is a "conflict" between the two. God is Sovereign, not Man. "Sin," and what is Sin, is defined by God, not by Man and is most definitely NOT defined by what is "Politically Correct."

God bless.

Smidgen, of course people can become homosexual because of a series of wrong and sinful choices. I don't deny that and I know such things also exist. Basically in this script above you've quoted, the issue was not so much about homosexuality, but about rebellion/sin against God. Those people deliberatly wanted to sin and go against the will of God…and as a result they have started to do homosexual practices and became homosexual.

But this thread is not about such people... This thread is not about people who have become homosexually orientated because of wrong and sinfull choices and/or rebellion against God… No, this thread is about people who are gay orientated as a result of biological, psychological and/or social factors in the early years of their lifes... It’s about people who didn’t choose to be this way and people who didn’t commit a sin/action which caused them to be this way.

In Bob’s example his friend is gay orientated and don’t have ANY sexual attraction towards the opposite sex…yet he had never acted or gave in to his homosexual urges and impulses.

Suzet, okay, let's think about this a little. I get the sense that you are arguing for "political correctness" instead of "Creator correctness." I am pretty sure I understand the "distinction" you are trying to draw between "practicing" and "not practicing" homosexuals, and have no argument with that. But let's look at the difficult task we are faced with, in general, and NOT in the specific case of "one" individual or "one couple."

Homosexuality is an "abomination" according to God. Practitioners of that "lifestyle" will not be in heaven, by God's decree, not mine.

So what does that have to with your statement? "Judged," yes. "Condemned, no." We HAVE to "judge," to "discern the truth," as per God's command to "test the spirits," etc.

So the sincerity of the repentance and surrender of the homosexual INDIVIDUAL would need "outward" indication, through their "chosen" lifestyle, that they had indeed surrendered to God and "denied self," where "self" would lead to agregious sin against God, their Creator.

Though I don't happen to agree with the Roman Catholic Church's stance that ALL priests must be celibate, they do illustrate this idea of NOT living with temptation in separating Priests and Nuns. They don't "live together" even though they have both chosen to not "act" on normal desires for the "opposite sex." The implicit corrollary with putting MEN together and WOMEN together in separate facilities is that homosexual activity of any kind is FORBIDDEN by God. THAT(opposite sex attaction) is the "normal" state, "same-sex" desires is the "abnormal" and condemned by God as an "abomination."

Homosexuality, along with every other sin, entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. WHAT was that "original sin?" It was the same sin that Lucifer committed...the sin of putting personal pride and desire ahead of simple obedience to God, no matter what we happen to be feeling. It was placing "self" and "human concepts" of our "desire" as being 'politically correct' and, therefore, "god" to us rather than the one true God, or in other terms, idolatry of the self. As is often tritely quoted, "Pride goeth before the fall." It IS placing "self" ahead of God that begins, and perpetuates, the "problem,", the "sin(s)" if you will.

What you said is what I'd like us to think about. "I think celibacy within a loving and nurturing long-term relationship between a same gender-couple can probably be the answer to gay orientated believers and Christians."

How long should we "remain" in a situation, or exposed to a situation, or have access to something, that we KNOW resulted in temptation that we could not resist in the past? Should a drug addict keep drugs around the house because they have "chosen" not to do drugs anymore? Should someone previously addicted to Pornography, keep Pornography all around the house, daily visible and within "arms reach," just because they have agreed that to actually "think about it" or to actually "partake of it" is a sin and they have chosen to "Forsake" that former life of sin?

Should the partner in Adultery be kept around for "innocent contact" in the future? Should we still consider, though not "act upon," this "forbidden by God person" to be our "soulmate," or is God and our rightful spouse our true "soulmate?" Is "giving up" the person you were sinning with sometimes "hard" emotionally? Ask any WS who has gone through Withdrawal. The "tendrils" of sin are deep and can cause longterm pain and difficulty. Yet for those who have "come out the other side," they usually see the "false love" for what it was....sin, and now feel "freed by the Grace of God" and "in love" as God originally intended it.

Or is the "best course" in "forsaking" previous weakness and sin to acknowledge that, once a choice FOR God has been made, to embrace the idea that there ARE now places you can no longer go, people you can no longer see, books you can no longer read, things you can no longer allow yourself to be exposed to, etc.?

In the case of the "couple" you are using as an example, two points for consideration.

1. As in any couple, there is no way to KNOW what is going on in the mind of the "partner," be that your wife, husband or homosexual partner. They MAY be totally committed to celibacy or they may be only "acting" that way to satisfy your "requirement" for staying with them.

2. This "couple" you are "granting" the equivalence of Marriage. They are NOT married, as marriage is between one MAN and one WOMAN. "Accepting" such a "living arrangement," though perhaps "politically correct," could very easily be like the old Arab warning to "not let the camel's nose into the tent or before long the whole camel will be in the tent."

I would submit that for a "couple" as you described, the "best" course of action for a loving Christian church would be to recommend that they NOT live together and NOT attend the same church. There are more than one solid, bible believing, churches in most places, and helping "remove" the object of temptation from constant exposure would be a logical "first step" in helping someone to overcome and remain away from the particular "sin desire" that they are battling.

Okay, then, why not apply the same "thought" to a repentant Wayward Spouse and Faithful Spouse? Because they ARE the marital unit that God ordained, one man and one woman. The "lusts of flesh" are fulfilled without sin IN a marriage of one man and one woman and the temptation of "another person" IS removed from the scene. In the event that the OP might also attend the same church, it would be my opinion that either the OP or the couple would be "best served" by finding separate churches to attend and not be a "constant reminder" of the sin that happened.

Again, this is NOT "judging" in the sense of "condemning someone." This is "judging" both as God has commanded us to do and "common sense" that you don't keep things around that are known sources of potential sin through our weaknesses.

We, as Christians, need to be both sensitive to the struggles of sinners wishing to "overcome" and be obedient to God as well as simultaneously STANDING in the breech, facing the masses arrayed against God if necessary, in support and defense of GOD's commands, no matter how society or self-serving humans wish to twist and malign God's clear directives. God is Sovereign and we are "bought and paid for 'slaves' of God" by Jesus Christ. We are no longer "our own," we are the "bride of Christ." The two shall no longer be "two," but "one."

That is the essence of Sanctifiction of all sinners, to become more Christ-like in our maturity and our walk with God.

God bless.