Thread: Ex-gay ministries Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028512

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
This is picking up some questions from the Peterson Toscano thread in Heaven that deserve some space for a good discussion of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Amiyah:
quote:
Originally posted by peterson toscano:
quote:
Originally posted by Amiyah:
Peterson was brilliant last night in Bradford - funny, moving, enlightening...
I only regret not asking him the couple of questions I wanted to - didn't quite manage to put my hand up!

Soooo, I see that hand, what is your question? :-p
Let's continue the discussion we started in Bradford.

Well the things I wanted to ask were...

In your experience, were the ex-gay programmes keen on 'headship' type theology as well - ie were the women being trained to be led by their future husbands and vice versa?

You talked about the way that the ex-gay ministries focussed on the gender-expression of the members of those ministries - ie getting women to act in a way that the ministry considers to be more feminine, and men in a way that they consider to be more masculine. What did they make of femme lesbians - or didn't they apply to join?

What would lead a straight person to marry someone who had recently come out of an ex-gay programme, do you think - I mean, not to be so fearful of the person 'reverting' to being gay that they avoided such a relationship?

I don't really bump into many Christians who say that ex-gay ministries can change peoples' sexual orientation, and for example the True Freedom Trust doesn't really seem to promise this, but to hold out an ideal of celibacy for gay people. Do organisations still seek to change people from gay to straight? Do you think that LGBT people are damaged as much by organisations holding out celibacy as organisations which sought/seek to make people straight?


 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I read somewhere that one piece of advice given to those 'struggling with homosexual temptation' is to avoid museums.

Why?

Does culture make you gay?

Or are museums full of people cruising for sex?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why?

Some find art...disturbing.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Size isn't everything.
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why?

Some find art...disturbing.
[Eek!] Well that's cheered up my afternoon.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
I suppose it isn't that surprising that in my social circles I rarely (or more accurately, never) meet anyone who claims to be a successful product of the ex-gay programs. I've known several who were successful ex-ex-gays...

They are a mixed group--a lot of them manage to work through the issues and seem to be able to form long-term lasting relationships without permanent damage. Some of them remain fairly neurotic, but the extent to which that could be blamed specifically on the ex-gay programs is debatable in my mind--I suspect they were neurotic before ever attempting to change.

The one thing all the stories seem to have in common is that there seems to be more "opportunity for sin" within the program than at the local gay bar on a Saturday night.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
From my limited experience of hearing the testimonies of ex-gays (look, mom, no scare quotes!), they all seem to have spent their former years living in a rather more interesting suburb of Babylon from the one I inhabit. You have to applaud them really - the sheer quantity of sin and depravity they claim to have been involved in takes time and commitment. And skill.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
It sort of sounds like people in AA who say you'll drink again if you don't go to meetings. The only ones you know about are the ones who DID drink and then came crawling back. So I suppose if someone were successfully reprogrammed then he's busy out there making babies, drinking beer, and going to ball games, with only the occasional stop in the airport men's room like Senator Larry "I'm-not-gay" Craig.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
At least the people in AA aren't being locked up in a room with a full bar...
 
Posted by Wiff Waff (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From my limited experience of hearing the testimonies of ex-gays (look, mom, no scare quotes!), they all seem to have spent their former years living in a rather more interesting suburb of Babylon from the one I inhabit. You have to applaud them really - the sheer quantity of sin and depravity they claim to have been involved in takes time and commitment. And skill.

A TFT person of some note lived in my patch when I was still working for my living and I spent an afternoon chatting to him one day and ALL he talked about was the adventures he had when cottaging [tearoom trade to our North American friends] - I think I gave him a real nostalgia trip, or perhaps just a listening ear. He was definitely quite neurotic about it all. When I left I felt I was leaving quite a disturbed and needy person. My colleagues in other areas of sexual health work locally felt very much the same about him.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
And now for something a little more serious...

After re-reading the OP, I certainly agree with Alan that these are fascinating questions. I'm less certain, however, that the Ship really has anyone who could address them fully--certainly I don't recall a body of members who have outed themselves as ex-gay or ex-ex-gay. My own more germane post (as opposed to the smart-ass comment) was based purely on the remarks of a few friends through the years sharing their own experiences.

Of course, lack of any real basis for our ruminations has never stopped us before...
 
Posted by Amiyah (# 11989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
And now for something a little more serious...

After re-reading the OP, I certainly agree with Alan that these are fascinating questions. I'm less certain, however, that the Ship really has anyone who could address them fully--certainly I don't recall a body of members who have outed themselves as ex-gay or ex-ex-gay. My own more germane post (as opposed to the smart-ass comment) was based purely on the remarks of a few friends through the years sharing their own experiences.

Of course, lack of any real basis for our ruminations has never stopped us before...

I'm flattered that you think that these questions are fascinating, Organ Builder! I agree that it would be optimistic to expect a 'body' of ex-[ex]-gay Shipmates to jump in with their thoughts. However, I bet that Peterson Toscano has an equally fascinating perspective to share on possible answers to these questions, given his 17-year involvement with the ex-gay movement, if he feels moved to contribute his ideas. And there may be people who have less direct experience of ex-gay ministries with interesting things to say in response.
Fingers crossed.

[ 27. May 2009, 18:35: Message edited by: Amiyah ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why?

Some find art...disturbing.
Quite.
 
Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
certainly I don't recall a body of members who have outed themselves as ex-gay or ex-ex-gay.

If you look at the original heaven thread you will find that the questions were being addressed to a shipmate with all the right credentials for the discussion. We're just waiting for him to turn up.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
When I was a student at Azusa Pacific University in California and struggling with my sexuality while attending that conservative Wesleyan school, I briefly got involved with one of the local ex-gay ministries - Desert Stream. This was back in the 1980s when most ex-gay ministries still claimed that "healing" meant a complete transformation of someone's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. (Since then, most of the older ex-gay groups' claims have become more vague. "Healing" now can mean celibacy with little or no change in sexual orientation.)

As far as they were concerned, the basis of "same-sex attraction" (often abbreviated as SSA) was the Freudian dominant mother/passive father theory and/or same-sex bullying, abuse or molestation. They did a good job at convincing everyone that they had this in their past (and who hasn't been teased or bullied by another boy or girl at one point in their childhood?) You were corrected if you used the word "homosexual", "gay" or "lesbian" because that suggested identity and they believed that using those words was confusing and impeded healing.

Anyway, it worked a lot like an AA program where people expected to detach from "homosexual culture", get plugged into church culture and slowly work their way into dating members of the opposite sex with the goal of marriage - which was claimed as a success. There were milestones for not acting on your SSA like not going to a gay bar, having sex or masturbating for 1 month, 6 months, a year, etc. You had a prayer partner who acted like a sponsor that you would call if you were lonely and tempted.

I don't remember being told that we shouldn't go to museums or art exhibits. As long as it wasn't a "gay" venue or involved alcohol, our freedom wasn't limited. The participants ranged from effeminate men to masculine men who loved sports and trucks but happened to be gay.

Even at the time I wasn't convinced that anyone's sexual orientation was really changed by this ministry. Perhaps some of the men were bisexual and could repress their homosexual side in favour of their heterosexual side, but for people like me, who are Kinsey 5 or 6's, nothing changed. But some still got married out of a sense of obligation to God, or to please family.

Most people dropped out after a few months or a year. There seemed to be a high turnover rate, which was accepted by the group. The ones who were successfully cured seemed to be the people who made ex-gay ministries their life's career. It seems obvious that the cure could only be sustained in an ex-gay environment and that people who returned to the real world usually relapsed.

As I mentioned, my heart wasn't into it. I was raised Episcopalian and never saw homosexuality as a heinous sin, but wanted to try all my options before accepting it. About that time I had already started attending All Saint's Church in Pasadena, CA, which had an active gay and lesbian group, and was starting to reconcile my faith and sexuality there. So after a few months I moved on.

While at All Saints, I met someone who was involved with Evangelicals Concerned Pasadena (http://www.ecpasadena.org/aboutus.html) and went to a few of their Bible studies and potlatches. I would say that at least half of their membership were ex-ex-gays in various stages of recovery from their experience. Some were still very guilt ridden for "failing" God, and some were better able to move on.

Anyway, I don't consider myself an ex-ex-gay because I was never a bona fide ex-gay to begin with. But I did get that chance to peek in the door.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...to masculine men who loved sports and trucks but happened to be gay.

Gee. What a cruel joke God played on them! No wonder they were trying to change. (As opposed, one assumes, to the effeminate ones who loved Barbies and show tunes and only got what they deserved.)
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by geroff:
If you look at the original heaven thread you will find that the questions were being addressed to a shipmate with all the right credentials for the discussion. We're just waiting for him to turn up.

I have followed the original thread--and enjoyed the contributions of a man who joined the ship just a few months after I did and (when I checked yesterday) has a grand total of 40 posts. As the Heaven thread makes clear, he is a busy man with a lot of committments. As hard as it is to believe I think he must have a life that doesn't leave a lot of time for staring at a computer screen typing responses, then checking back in a few hours to respond to the responses to his response...

In addition, it takes more than one person to have a "discussion" (except when I'm talking to myself, but I try to shelter Shipmates from that particular neurosis).

My scepticism was expressed before ToujoursDan made his contribution--which I was happy to see because it at least gives perspective on North American ex-gay groups. I learned a long time ago that things don't necessarily work the same way on both sides of the Atlantic, even when we use the same words...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why?

Some find art...disturbing.
Quite.
Quite, indeed - especially as I have sat on his penis - we had a picnic! (You'd better click on the link to the Cerne Giant before you report me to my bishop!)

As for the museums, I told a gay man in our church that they were supposed to be dangerous and he told me he'd by down there as soon as it opens tomorrow morning with a thermos flask.
 
Posted by John Donne (# 220) on :
 
Well we've got at least 1 active ex-gay poster on the Ship. I notice he is married now (to a woman I assume) and training for ordination at an Evangelical college. Praps he can be ferretted out for comment.

Years ago there was someone briefly recruiting for ex-gay programs on board but they got a bollocking and left.

When I first came across TFT's (True Freedom Trust) website they seemed to be pursuing the celibate ideal for poofs and lesos in a fairly gentle way. But after The Courage Trust (Ex-program which decided in about 2002 'we've been doing this for over 10 yrs and you know wot, it hasn't worked) broke with EA 'cos they wouldn't insist on sexual celibacy they seemed to go up an order of magnitude in hardline.
 
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From my limited experience of hearing the testimonies of ex-gays (look, mom, no scare quotes!), they all seem to have spent their former years living in a rather more interesting suburb of Babylon from the one I inhabit. You have to applaud them really - the sheer quantity of sin and depravity they claim to have been involved in takes time and commitment. And skill.

Flippant aside no 1: does this imply that when you've amassed this quantity of sin and depravity, the only place to go is ex-?

Flippant aside no 2: this (and threads like it on the Ship) must be the best place to find Google ads for both gay dating websites and stairlifts.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Is a man ex-gay if he fancies Hugh Jackman or Patrick Stewart?
 
Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by geroff:
If you look at the original heaven thread you will find that the questions were being addressed to a shipmate with all the right credentials for the discussion. We're just waiting for him to turn up.

I have followed the original thread--and enjoyed the contributions of a man who joined the ship just a few months after I did and (when I checked yesterday) has a grand total of 40 posts. As the Heaven thread makes clear, he is a busy man with a lot of committments. As hard as it is to believe I think he must have a life that doesn't leave a lot of time for staring at a computer screen typing responses, then checking back in a few hours to respond to the responses to his response...

He certainly is a busy man and as he is on tour at the moment his time online is limited (plus I believe his laptop has been playing up a bit.)

However, as Peterson spends a significant amount of time online I am sure he will be along here as soon as he is able. He spends plenty of time online but sometimes other things take priorities.

However, I will drop him a line to point him in the direction of this thread... he may scurry over then.

Auntie Doris x
 
Posted by peterson toscano (# 12935) on :
 
sorry gang that I've been out of pocket. Was in Belfast, then Cardiff, London today, Sweden tomorrow. Hopefully by Tue I will have some time free to give a proper response.

:-)
peterson
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Would the Roman Catholic program "Courage" count as an ex-gay ministry?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
When I was a student at Azusa Pacific University in California and struggling with my sexuality while attending that conservative Wesleyan school, I briefly got involved with one of the local ex-gay ministries - Desert Stream.

Both the name and your description of the ministry make it sound very much like 'Desert Stream' is closely related to 'Living Waters', which I was involved with for a period of 2 years. Not entire years, but a course that lasted roughhly 6 months.

I'm not sure I ever got far enough towards being 'ex-gay' to label myself as 'ex-ex-gay' now. Perhaps I'm just 'ex-attempted-ex-gay'.

Ironically, my Living Waters experience did achieve one important thing: it made it possible for me to talk about my feelings and attractions without struggling for breath and bursting into tears. This was actually an important milestone towards coming out as homosexual.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
In looking around teh Googles it looks like Living Waters is a ministry of Desert Stream, but I don't recall that term being used when I was there.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From my limited experience of hearing the testimonies of ex-gays (look, mom, no scare quotes!), they all seem to have spent their former years living in a rather more interesting suburb of Babylon from the one I inhabit. You have to applaud them really - the sheer quantity of sin and depravity they claim to have been involved in takes time and commitment. And skill.

Flippant aside no 1: does this imply that when you've amassed this quantity of sin and depravity, the only place to go is ex-?

Flippant aside no 2: this (and threads like it on the Ship) must be the best place to find Google ads for both gay dating websites and stairlifts.


 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Hmph. Bloody internet ate my witty and clever post. Well, it's forever lost to posterity now ....
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
There is a Canadian group called "New Direction" that started out as an ex-gay ministry but seems to be taking an even softer approach now. They believe that homosexuality is a sin, though not a major one, and never claim it can be cured, but seem more interested in reaching across the divide and having conversations with gay people with the intent of "winning them over to Christ" and letting the Holy Spirit work in them - which may or may not mean celibacy or a transformation.

They have a blog here: Bridging the Gap

If these groups have to exist, I would like to see them take this approach.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
"New Direction"

... *snigger* ...
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There is a Canadian group called "New Direction" that started out as an ex-gay ministry but seems to be taking an even softer approach now. They believe that homosexuality is a sin, though not a major one, and never claim it can be cured, but seem more interested in reaching across the divide and having conversations with gay people with the intent of "winning them over to Christ" and letting the Holy Spirit work in them - which may or may not mean celibacy or a transformation.

They have a blog here: Bridging the Gap

If these groups have to exist, I would like to see them take this approach.

I've a hunch that, as homophobia becomes more socially taboo while the old guard of the religious right begin to die off (not to be morbid or anything) we're going to see more of this.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
"New Direction"

... *snigger* ...
Ditto. In the plural.
... *snigger* ... ... *snigger* ...
 
Posted by Loveheart (# 12249) on :
 
Qoheleth, that is brilliant!
 
Posted by John Donne (# 220) on :
 
OMG! That is priceless! Could they have possibly called it that with full knowledge of the elided homonyms?

[Killing me]

Totally made my day.
 
Posted by cqg (# 777) on :
 
I doubt it. I think it was entirely accidental.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Hmph.

Strikes me like a typical piece of adolescent male humour -- I think I first ran into it 40 odd years ago (and we won't talk about how odd some of those years were). I'd guess every sports team with over-15 (say) males has giggled about it for at least those 40 years. I wasn't at a single-sex school, but my UK friends who were, way back then, implied to me that this kind of thing was fairly common.

John

[ 10. June 2009, 05:44: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by cqg (# 777) on :
 
Not exactly speaking for Peterson (I'm sure he'll be along presently -- he's currently relaxing in Sweden) but from my experience/observations:
quote:
Originally posted by Amiyah:
Well the things I wanted to ask were...

In your experience, were the ex-gay programmes keen on 'headship' type theology as well - ie were the women being trained to be led by their future husbands and vice versa?

This is an artifact of the typically American fundamentalist/evangelical view of the proper role of genders in a marriage (and, by extension, the idea of the proper function of the "weaker sex" in society), so yeah ... it's common.

quote:
You talked about the way that the ex-gay ministries focussed on the gender-expression of the members of those ministries - ie getting women to act in a way that the ministry considers to be more feminine, and men in a way that they consider to be more masculine. What did they make of femme lesbians - or didn't they apply to join?
Ex-gay ministries largely used to (it's more nuanced these days) operate on faulty psychological premises -- that same-sex attraction was an outgrowth of confusion over gender and the outworking of gender roles. So "butch" (so-called "straight acting") gay men and femme lesbians do throw a bit of a wrench into the works. However, people convinced of a particular framing of reality despite evidence to the contrary rarely allow that to bother them.

quote:
What would lead a straight person to marry someone who had recently come out of an ex-gay programme, do you think - I mean, not to be so fearful of the person 'reverting' to being gay that they avoided such a relationship?
The language of "faith" and "as you believe, so it is". Straight spouses who involve themselves in these relationships would view recalcitrance on their part as "lack of faith".

quote:
I don't really bump into many Christians who say that ex-gay ministries can change peoples' sexual orientation, and for example the True Freedom Trust doesn't really seem to promise this, but to hold out an ideal of celibacy for gay people. Do organisations still seek to change people from gay to straight? Do you think that LGBT people are damaged as much by organisations holding out celibacy as organisations which sought/seek to make people straight?
Perhaps it's a bit more nuanced in non-American settings. Because of the intertwining with the right-wing culture war in the US, being nuanced is often a victim of the overarching agenda. The message is: "you're especially broken and you need to be fixed". This message coincides conveniently with the feelings of the person experiencing same-sex attraction struggling with the life-long cultural programming they find themselves at odds with.

When one feels "broken" and trusted voices confirm that, one commonly fails to prudently consider the fine print.
 
Posted by TiggyTiger (# 14819) on :
 
Can someone please explain the acronym joke to me - I can't see the particular acronym you're laughing at. Was it in that Bridging the Gap article?

At the church I go to in the morning, the leadership say that they accept homosexual people and that they are welcome at their church. At the same time they refer to homosexual sex as 'an abomination' and they hope that the Holy Spirit will convince the homosexual person that they are doing something wrong.

I wonder how they'd feel going to a church where their married relationships were described as 'abominations' and that everyone is waiting for them to realise how wrong they are. They have a strange idea of the word 'welcome'.

My evening church is gay.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Hi TiggyTiger

I assume it's the name 'New Directions'. Try pronouncing the second word with a short i as in 'bit', rather than pronouncing it like the famous Welshman, Dai Rections.

Then run the two words together ...

Oo-er missus.
 
Posted by peterson toscano (# 12935) on :
 
I have not forgotten this thread! I have returned from Sweden, hung out in Philadelphia for a week at a transgender conference, bought a new laptop (because mine is ill-not dead, but ill) and NOW finally have a little time to devote some proper attention to this thread. I will read through all of what has been said and add some thoughts. I am so glad there is so much interest in this topic.

more later...
 
Posted by peterson toscano (# 12935) on :
 
I will answer the questions above at a time so that other ex-gay survivors and interested parties can respond. I have taken part in five different ex-gay programs in the US, UK and Ecuador. Each program runs differently with various treatments plans and philosophy. I have met well over 1,000 ex-gay survivors including over 200 in the UK. As someone who spent a lot of time sincerely looking for "help" from these programs, ministers and practioners, I have concluded that ex-gay treatment does not work, is unnecessary and causes more harm than good.

First Question
quote:
In your experience, were the ex-gay programmes keen on 'headship' type theology as well - ie were the women being trained to be led by their future husbands and vice versa?
About the headship teaching, this came up a few times. Much of ex-gay treatment is geared towards men, something women complained about through the years, so programs offered little content specifically for women.

At Love in Action, a residential program I attended for two year, they had a section about submission in their workbook:
quote:
According to scripture, we are to submit (first of all) to God, then to whom God has placed in authority over us, such as Pastors, Christian elders, then husbands, employers, brothers and sisters in Christ and to civil authorities (when they are not in conflict with God)
At Love in Action (LIA) I learned that submission and accountability are the cornerstones for a successful “ex-gay” life. Each participant in the program was assigned a staff member to whom we privately confessed our daily sins–including masturbation. (When I first entered LIA, we admitted our masturbatory setbacks during the Tuesday night “Rules Rap”, but this stimulated fellow participants leading to yet further masturbation.)

Since we had lived "shady" gay lives for so long, staff instructed us to be honest and bring our current struggles to the light during our accountability sessions. Initially I felt refreshed and relieved by the freedom of confession. Suddenly I had nothing to hide; I could bring my deepest most shameful secrets and desires to a trusted leader and receive compassion, support, advice–accountability.

Of course this leader had a leader over him to whom he reported not only his shortcomings but also all of mine. Ultimately, I learned that in the “ex-gay” movement, honesty is not the best policy. After two years of intensive dehomosexualization, I was expected to be better–-less gay, less attracted to men, more in control of my urges. In some ways I was, but my carefully stitched together “ex-gay” existence barely held together no matter how much I trusted in the Lord and my spiritual leaders.

I confessed one sin too many, and got ratted out. The chain of command issued a directive to cut me loose before I unraveled in front of everyone.

Many “ex-gay” leaders and workers, often the products of “ex-gay” programs themselves, live under this kind of constant surveillance. They carefully confess their sins one to another in an elaborate code, with the fear that the powers that be will one day find them out. Isolated in a climate of cover-up, surrounded by operatives who can turn them in, these “ex-gay” leaders fight the good fight desperate to share their struggles and questions, but terrified at the consequences.

With a word, they can be cast out of their positions, lose their most intimate relationships and their church membership only to then become prey to a gay media who often ruthlessly dives on the fallen then picks the “ex-gay” bones clean as they hold the fallen up to the spotlight.

Sometimes I think that “ex-gay” leaders must be the loneliest people on earth.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
The "sins" of the ex-gay movement seem obvious and worthy of condemnation. But do you ever resent and address the "sins" of some of the gay media? Are you aware of any members of the politically-incorrect-gay-bashing media who have eventually opted for compassion rather than sensationalism and beaten their sledge hammers into saute pans?
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
This is a great thread.
 
Posted by peterson toscano (# 12935) on :
 
Next Question
quote:
You talked about the way that the ex-gay ministries focused on the gender-expression of the members of those ministries - ie getting women to act in a way that the ministry considers to be more feminine, and men in a way that they consider to be more masculine. What did they make of femme lesbians - or didn't they apply to join?
God looks on the heart, while some ex-gay programs look at your accessories.

Most ex-gay programs are designed for men. The teaching that women get in many of these is not very different from what they have gotten from their churches for many years.
Sound familiar?

If say a "lip-stick" lesbian joined an ex-gay program, they would affirm her on her gender normative behaviour and likely press her into service to sort out the less fem gals among them.

One female-specific teaching that they will receive that one does not typically get in churches is in regards to relationships with other women. Many of these programs believe that gays and lesbians cannot have proper relationships with people of the same sex.

They assume the guys will end up in bed with other guys and encourage/insist that we ONLY had straight male friends.

For the women it gets more sinister. They believe that ANY and ALL relationships with any woman (bisexual, straight or lesbian) will likely end in an emotionally dependent relationship. They love to call these enmeshed relationships. They stress that a woman should not get close to other women because it will just get unhealthy and co-dependent.

They overlook the reality of inter-dependent healthy relationships.

In essence they insist that women only have intimate relationships with their husbands and children. Otherwise they should consider themselves like the "woman with the issue of blood" UNCLEAN and forbidden to get close to others.

Christine Bakke, a lesbian friend who also went through lots of ex-gay treatment like I produced some art and wrote about this for an article on our Beyond Ex-Gay website. She states:

quote:

The biggest problem I still face is fear of close relationships with others - especially women. Fear of "emotional dependency" or "enmeshment." Fear of needing someone. Fear of...I don't know. Just fear, and now just a consistent inability to wholly participate in friendships with others.

I know that it's not true - that while some relationships can be unhealthy, most are not. And closeness and yes, even at times emotional dependency should not be demonized. There are times when we all need others, and to be shamed for relationships that we had while ex-gay, those that others deemed unhealthy; relationships that may have been getting us through some of the tougher moments in our ex-gay process...it is a great harm and a great disservice to us at a time when we were the most vulnerable, and the most laid bare, needing others around us.

Perhaps you begin to get the picture that much of the ex-gay movement is not simply anti-gay, it is also anti-female.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
PETERSON!!! [Axe murder] OMG!! I didn't know you were on the Ship!!! I've got to tell Cubby!!!

[Axe murder] [Axe murder] [Axe murder]

David
met Peterson at a Quaker gathering with Cubby once or twice -- he's really cool!!

PS: Just told Cubby and he says, "Oh, how COOL!" Will try to get Cubby to post again on the Ship. We've been away too long... [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 18. July 2009, 19:55: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 
Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
Here is a bit of news from the dreaded Anglican Mainstream site which is kind of predictable seeing what is being discussed over in Purg re Greenbelt and all of this.

What do we know about 'Transforming Congregations' and 'One by One'? Apart from that we don't want them here in the UK.

(I notice that the comments section for this blog post is turned off - I wonder why?.....)
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
the dreaded anglican mainstream ?

http://roedjakpetis.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/reog24.jpg
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have just finished 'Straight to Jesus' by Tanya Erzen. She spent six years working alongside an ex-gay ministry. Her work is important because conservatives claim that LGBs can be 'cured'. Her sustained research shows this to be untrue. Even the ex-gay leaders say this is untrue and they object to the way the moral majority misquote them for their own agenda.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
I try to say to my fellow Christians that teh gays are alright, but if I wished to try to help change attitudes would joining the LGCM be a good idea? I'm straight so am I sticking my nose in and being patronising kind of thing or not?
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Join, and don't worry. The gay and lesbian congregation I used to belong to was greatly enhanced by the straight people who came along. Or at least, I thought so.

There are prats in every setting, including gay and lesbian groups - when I left the church for good the straw that broke the camel's back was the separatist beliefs of a group of lesbians.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Another gay Christian echoing this. By all means join LGCM if you want to. Can't hurt [Smile]
 
Posted by Pretty Butterfly (# 15024) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
I try to say to my fellow Christians that teh gays are alright, but if I wished to try to help change attitudes would joining the LGCM be a good idea? I'm straight so am I sticking my nose in and being patronising kind of thing or not?

I know very little about LGCM, so I can't say whether joining that particular organisation would be a good idea or not, but I don't think most people would find it would be patronising.

One of the things used to dismiss the often well-reasoned and carefully considered arguments for equal rights and recognition for same-sex relationships is the notion that these arguments arise only from the selfish desires of gay people trying to excuse their own sin. Having heterosexual Christians visibly standing with GLBT Christians shows that this is not the case.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
One of LGCM's straplines is:

quote:
Lesbian & Gay Christians and our friends
(my bold)

Changing Attitude has a particularly strong campaigning focus, and has many straight supporters - which may interest you if you are an Anglican.

[Edited to fix URL]

[ 13. November 2009, 19:13: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
i think there should have been a "k" at the end of that link, Qoheleth.

Also, echoing Liopleurodon, I say go ahead and join LGCM. Though I can see Arabella's ponit about separatist groups, I see LGCM as more of a subgroup (like a little circle of "people who don't think beign LGBT is a bad thing" inside the big circle "Christians" on a slightly surreal Venn Diagram).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
One of LGCM's straplines is:

quote:
Lesbian & Gay Christians and our friends
(my bold)

Changing Attitude has a particularly strong campaigning focus, and has many straight supporters - which may interest you if you are an Anglican.

That's if you can get anyone to notice you. I tried to join it about 3 years ago but my cheque was never cashed. All e-mails to national HQ and to the local branch secretary went unanswered.

[Edited to fix URL]

[ 13. November 2009, 19:11: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
i think there should have been a "k" at the end of that link, Qoheleth.

Indeed so. Apologies for the error. Perhaps a passing Host might assist, please?

Thanks

[Done as requested]

[ 13. November 2009, 19:14: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's if you can get anyone to notice you. I tried to join it about 3 years ago but my cheque was never cashed. All e-mails to national HQ and to the local branch secretary went unanswered.

3 years ago was a long time ago. Why not try again....?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Because I had tried over a longer period. Indeed, I met Colin Coward at a conference of AffCath who said he's sort it out. Then I never heard again.

I am fed up with uncashed cheques littering up my band statements for 6 months.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Thanks for the replies. You've given me food (yum) for thought. And I do believe in truth, justice and the Anglican way.
 
Posted by Nicolaas (# 15325) on :
 
Im new here so im just curious is all but isnt there a priavte board for these topics? it just amazes me (not that i have a problem with it but)

The moderators seem to be so strict on where things get posted yet anything like this seems to go just fine on any board pretty well.

Also that ie spell check dont seem to work for me anyone know where i can get one that would work with windows 7?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolaas:
Im new here so im just curious is all but isnt there a priavte board for these topics? it just amazes me (not that i have a problem with it but)

The moderators seem to be so strict on where things get posted yet anything like this seems to go just fine on any board pretty well.

Also that ie spell check dont seem to work for me anyone know where i can get one that would work with windows 7?

Hosting

Dear Nicolaas,
I dont think you have the hang of these boards at all. If you want to discuss moderation or what goes on which board or how the boards work, then that belongs on The Styx board. Also this is not the board for your technical queries, but you might get help for that in The Styx too.
cheers,
Louise

Hosting off
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
is there a non-denominational group to join? Or does it have to be anglicans cos other branches are clear about 'ok' or 'not ok'
??
 
Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
is there a non-denominational group to join? Or does it have to be anglicans cos other branches are clear about 'ok' or 'not ok'
??

Sorry, a non-demonimational group for what?

Auntie Doris x
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
Well nothing is impossible for God. Personally I suspect only God can effect a change to any sexual orientation. The new life in Christ comes through a change in heart and mind so that although one is still tempted and one may fall short, one no longer desires and seeks it. This is why organisations such as LGCM are not Christian organisations, having not had a change of heart and mind as the main raison d'etre indicates that.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Rubbish - a 'change of heart' can be a change from self-hatred to self-acceptance, based on accepting that God's love is unconditional. Such a belief comes about by a leap of faith - faith that God is not the homophobe some portray him as and won't be assigning them to hell because of whom they love.

I know many members of LGCM because the local branch meets in my church- their holiness is deep.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Well nothing is impossible for God. Personally I suspect only God can effect a change to any sexual orientation.

Any sexual orientation you say, bms?

Perhaps we have here the lost verse from Isaiah? Something about making the gay straight and the straight gay, yea and keeping faith with the transgendered?
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Perhaps that's what he meant by 'And (make) the rough places smooth'. [Biased]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Rubbish - a 'change of heart' can be a change from self-hatred to self-acceptance,

To leo,

Rubbish! So say you but the word of God is clear.
2 Corinthians 10:5 “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
Romans 12:1 “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

God’s love and mercy is unconditional and His grace leads us to seeking Him in joy and gratitude.
God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes shall not perish but have eternal life, if you think the gift of life is homophobic do you hate God?
quote:
because of whom they love.
Human ideas of love seem to be at odds with true love which is God and comes form God. Many Nazis did what they did for the love of the fatherland. To love ones neighbour as oneself one must love God with all ones heart and mind
Mark 12:30 “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
quote:
their holiness is deep.
Holiness in found in Christ, not in us. Such as statement isnt even selfrighteousness as it is an indentity in sin.
1 Corinthians 1:30 “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”
See also Romans 1:14, 6:22, Eph 4:24.

This is the essence of the problem with this gay theology, it isn’t just same sex error but the vast range of disbelief required behind it to attempt to justify it; hence why we see pluralism and the like prominent in the TEC as well.


[edited to insert proper quote code - L]

[ 21. December 2009, 13:53: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
bms quoted Romans 12.2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

It seems to me that this could be paraphrased as: "No longer follow the world in hating those who are different from you, but learn to love as God loves - without boundaries." which would rather undercut her/his argument.

(And bms, why have you chosen a name that links you to Lucifer? Have you not read Isaiah 14.12?)
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Dear brightmorningstar,
If you're quoting other people's posts, then please learn to use the quote function.

When you look at a post, you'll see a row of little icons at the top - the one at the far right next to the little pen and paper icon shows inverted commas. Click on that to quote someone's entire post with attribution to that person.

To quote little bits of text, wait till you're already typing your reply, and then look below the reply window and you'll see the third button down on the first column of code buttons is marked 'QUOTE'. Click that button and then type what you want to put in quotes between the two tags in square brackets.

To get the hang of this and to practice- jut go to the UBB Practice thread in the Styx.

We ask people to learn to use the standard conventions of the board software because we have posters with disabilities and it makes it easier for them to read posts (and for everyone else!) if posts are formatted correctly.

So please learn to use the quotes function.

Many thanks,
Louise

Dead Horses Host

[ 21. December 2009, 14:07: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin.
quote:
bms quoted Romans 12.2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

It seems to me that this could be paraphrased as: "No longer follow the world in hating those who are different from you, but learn to love as God loves - without boundaries." which would rather undercut her/his argument.

On the contrary once again it seems people are unable to look at anything objectively but always subject to who it might involve.
If one looks at Romans 12:2 one sees it refers to hating what is evil and clinging to what is good and testing what is good from the renewing of the mind to God. Once again therefore we go round in circles. The fact is the test is that God created male and female to be in union or celibacy Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7 from Gen 2 etc and prohibits same sex relations 1 Cor 6, Romans 1 etc., that’s the renewing of the mind that acknowledges that.

There is no mention in Romans 12:2 of God having no boundries, on the contrary it is exactly about the boundaries God has.


quote:
(And bms, why have you chosen a name that links you to Lucifer? Have you not read Isaiah 14.12?)
No that’s the morning star, see bright morning star in Revelation which links to Christ. I have noticed that every time this is pointed out it is the Isaiah that is cited and by those who disagree with the scriptures about same sex.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
priginally posted by brightmorningstar

No that’s the morning star, see bright morning star in Revelation which links to Christ. I have noticed that every time this is pointed out it is the Isaiah that is cited and by those who disagree with the scriptures about same sex.

And, pray, what conclusion do you draw from this observation?

[ 21. December 2009, 14:55: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
Well I could only make assumptions, have you any idea why posters who disagree with what the Bible says about same sex relations see the morning star link to Lucifer but not the bright morning star link to Jesus? The name means nothing to me the truth would still be Jesus and His teaching even if a poster called Lucifer posted it. After all Lucifer knows scripture and even demons shudder. Jesus quoted the word of God to Satan when Satan tempted Him, its the word of God that counts not who is speaking it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
bms quoted Romans 12.2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

It seems to me that this could be paraphrased as: "No longer follow the world in hating those who are different from you, but learn to love as God loves - without boundaries." which would rather undercut her/his argument.

(And bms, why have you chosen a name that links you to Lucifer? Have you not read Isaiah 14.12?)

You beat me to it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
the Bible says ..... After all Lucifer knows scripture and even demons shudder. Jesus quoted the word of God to Satan when Satan tempted Him, its the word of God that counts not who is speaking it.

The Bible does not SAY anything at all. It is a collection of books, not a human being with a tongue.

As for the devil quoting scripture, that cuts both ways.

As for calling some people evil, that might well be the sin against the holy Spirit so take care what you say.

You can quote proof texts all you like but have you ever met a gay Christian and heard his/her testimony?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
So, bms, you take one of the titles of Christ and apply it you yourself, and are happy to call anyone who disagrees with you "Lucifer"? That does seem deeply humble of you.

As for:
quote:
its the word of God that counts not who is speaking it
I am (once again) confused by your argument here. In the Temptation Jesus was not the only one to quote scripture, the Devil did as well. So what point are you making?
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To leo,
quote:
The Bible does not SAY anything at all. It is a collection of books, not a human being with a tongue.
A book never has been oral, I don’t see your point.

quote:
As for the devil quoting scripture, that cuts both ways.
So where did you get the idea of the devil and the devil quoting scripture, from me or the Bible?

quote:
As for calling some people evil, that might well be the sin against the holy Spirit so take care what you say.
I haven’t said anyone is evil I have made a specific point of distinguishing the acts people may do that are error and wrong.

quote:
You can quote proof texts all you like
I know I have nad you haven’t and cant, that’s why there is no such thing as a gay christian, its an oxymoron, and their testimony is subsequently error as well, though there are Christians who do have same sex attractions but they are Christians and have their identity in Christ.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
quote:
and are happy to call anyone who disagrees with you "Lucifer"? That does seem deeply humble of you.
That does not seem very honest of you as I have never called anyone Lucifer and wouldn’t be happy to. Are you interested in debating or merely discussing me?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting

A reminder that any personal arguments should be taken to the Hell board - thanks! An argument about a username doesn't belong here.

cheers,
L

Dead Horses host
/hosting
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Another good resource for gay Christians is gaychristian.net

There are discussion boards for different denominations, prayer and support boards, boards for "Side B" Christians (those who believe God calls us to celibacy) as well as "Side A" Christians (those who believe a monogamous relationship is morally acceptable) and all kinds of other resources.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I should add that I also believe God can change someone's sexual orientation. However, given the nearly universal inability to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, prayer or healing, it seems that God's answer to such a request is "No".
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To leo,
quote:
The Bible does not SAY anything at all. It is a collection of books, not a human being with a tongue.
A book never has been oral, I don’t see your point.
Really? Try harder. The verb 'to say' refers to an action of lips, mouth and tongue. The Bible has none of these.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To leo,
quote:
As for the devil quoting scripture, that cuts both ways.
So where did you get the idea of the devil and the devil quoting scripture, from me or the Bible?
You bought it up. We are both, presumably, thinking of the account of Jesus's temptations in the wilderness. You are sure that you are quoting Jesus rather than the devil but I suggest you may have got it wrong.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
there is no such thing as a gay christian, its an oxymoron, and their testimony is subsequently error as well,

That's very convenient for you because it means that you will never have to listen to anyone whose life experience is different from yours. You'll never have to be upset into rethinking your prejudices.

In fact, you seem to know the mind of God so well that I propose that God had a day off and you can take over his role. Then, perhaps, just perhaps, you'll see how complex things are from His point of view because He knows what is in all our hearts and He, alone, knows the faith experience of LGB Christians.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
I try to say to my fellow Christians that teh gays are alright, but if I wished to try to help change attitudes would joining the LGCM be a good idea? I'm straight so am I sticking my nose in and being patronising kind of thing or not?

Good suggestions above (LGCM, GayChristian.Net, ChangingAttitude). I would add to it Ekklesia and SoulForce.

GCN doesn't advocate, per se. It's more of a support ministry and embraces Christians with a range of belief, as Dan has noted and aptly described. Non-queer folk are active and welcome.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
that’s why there is no such thing as a gay christian, its an oxymoron

I'm gay. I'm a Christian. Your erroneous assertion now rebutted with example. I know hundreds more counterpoints as well.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Gay Christian here too.

God has heard and responded to my prayers and transformed my life. That transformation made me a gay Christian that I am today, a sinner trying to be more Christlike.

(And there have been many times where I have wanted to chuck the whole thing but God keeps calling me back.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Straight Christian checking in here to say: I have known many, many gay Christians, not a few of which were far better Christians than I. Being a Christian has to do with being in a certain relationship to God. Being a good Christian has to do with loving God and loving one's neighbour as oneself. None of which precludes being gay.

At bottom, I've not yet met any gay Christians who were a third as judgmental and uncharitable and unchristlike as people who say they don't exist taken as a group.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Straight Christian checking in here to say: I have known many, many gay Christians, not a few of which were far better Christians than I. Being a Christian has to do with being in a certain relationship to God. Being a good Christian has to do with loving God and loving one's neighbour as oneself. None of which precludes being gay.

At bottom, I've not yet met any gay Christians who were a third as judgmental and uncharitable and unchristlike as people who say they don't exist taken as a group.

Good post - and thanks to all above who have given their testimonies above, whom one of our posters calls 'oxymorons'. I have been given a hostly warning so I have to be careful not to use the word 'moron' about anyone.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Sorry but I have probably overstepped the mark
here - but in a worthy cause. It is really good to read the testimony of LGB Christians and the way their faith has been tested against the trad. teachings.

The problem with this 'inclusive church' shit is that we have to include homophobes too.

I find that difficult because I know with whom I would rather party.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
leo, doncha recognize a WUM when you see one? Happy Christmas [Smile]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
If a Tony or Louise has to post another reminder about making personal attacks, leo and Jahlove, you're going to be suspended.

Happy Festivus.

-RooK
Admin
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I am a gay Christian, in my daydreams I may also be Spartacus.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I am gay though I am probably not a Christian and would certainly not claim to be one. I once spent a cheerful[?] afternoon with a leading light of the British ex-gay ministries movement whilst he reminisced about his cottaging career - it was not an illuminating time though I gather he rather enjoyed his trip down memory lane. I wonder now if he writes smutty tales for internet story sites.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To leo,
quote:
You bought it up.
If as you say it cuts both ways then you must believe it too, so my questions remains, where did you get the idea from apart form the Bible and how come you expect me to think the texts mean what is written when you don’t with the passages that exclude and condemn same sex sex?
The trust of my argument in the post in question has once again been ignored. its the word of God that counts not who is speaking it.

quote:
That's very convenient for you because it means that you will never have to listen to anyone whose life experience is different from yours. You'll never have to be upset into rethinking your prejudices.
I am always listening to peoples experience that is different from mine both from believers and non-believers. Are you in the slightest bit interested in God’s purposes or just te promotion of same sex and remarks about what I do and think?

quote:
In fact, you seem to know the mind of God so well that I propose that God had a day off and you can take over his role.
I do know the mind of God where God’s mind has been revealed in scripture, if you don’t where do you get your ideas about God and its no wonder you don’t know the mind of God.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
Gay christiam is an oxymoron, its like blue orange. Christ affirmed that God created male and female to be united and gave celibacy as the alternative. In Adam we die and in Christ we live that means all people fall short in sin, and are forgiven in repentance through Christ. There is no more a gay christian than an adulterous christian who seeks adultery, a theiving christian who promotes theft and a lying christian who thinks lying is perfectly ok.
The identity of those in Christ is in Christ, not in sexual desires or sinful desires.
gay and lesbian is a movement of sin in the church, it is a core departure from the gospel.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
The "Cracked Record" technique is really useful within Assertiveness skills but it gets rather wearing in a supposed discussion forum as it means that the person using it is not entering into any form of discussion.

However, foolish as it may seem and as I am not a Christian so have nothing to lose, I would ask why does quoting stuff from the Bible have any relevance to this discussion? What we are talking about is damaging a person's psyche so that they can better meet the expectations of others - surely this is not a very Christian way to behave.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
The link provided is again wrong. There is no problem for any Christians who have same sex attraction, they are Christians, the problem is people who want to be gay christians, that suggests they are not yet Christians. The latter have bought into a lie and are looking at the gospel through the lie. There is no straight or gay concept in God's creation, just male and female. Heterosexual and homosexual are meaningless. Heterosexual is as meaningless as homosexual as adultery is also sinful and is heterosexual.

So in the site given we have the idea that God blesses gay relationships, which God actually detests as error and against His creation purpose.
We also have the idea that gay people as opposed to straight, neither of which exist in God's eyes, are called to be celibate. Thats a sexually based concept, people ae called to follow and worship God, not identify themselves according to their feelings and make God's creation adapt.
The person who has same sex attractions is no different with God than anyone who has opposite sex attractions. The whole thinking has nothing to do with excluding people who has same sex attraction, its about a sinful concept attacking the truth.
 
Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :
 
Non-heterosexual male Christian checking in to say Happy Christmas to gay and straight Christians and even the Pharisees and to add that I think I am probably called to celibacy (not because I like the idea but because I'm not cut out for faithful monogamy and nobody could bear to live with me) but not everyone is and it takes time for people to grow and discover how best they can serve God.

It is grossly unreasonable to require gay people to "change" (although they may change anyway) or to accept celibacy straight off. Chastity is very difficult and celibacy needs to be discerned and worked at.

Christianity is not in the instant results business; it is (as the late great Neville Ward put it) a faith rather than a washing powder.

Thank you for your attention.

Please adjust your dress before leaving.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
Hi ciltern_hundred,
There is no such concept in God’s creation purpose as heterosexual or homosexual.
If it grossly unreasonable for gay people to change then I see no reason why thieving people and lying people should change either. However God’s word shows, and there are people to testify it, that believers are those who have changed their minds and hearts in obedience to Christ.
 
Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :
 
I see no reason why people who are attempting to discern, by God's grace, the difference between love and lust and to grow as mature human beings should be equated with thieves and liars.

Theft and lying are acts of deliberate choice; sexual attraction and falling in love are not.
 
Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To leo,
quote:
The Bible does not SAY anything at all. It is a collection of books, not a human being with a tongue.
A book never has been oral, I don’t see your point.
Perhaps a minor point in the context of this whole discussion, but a significant portion of the Old Testament existed solely in an oral tradition before being set down in writing, so I would dispute your assertion that a book never has been oral.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
You are right - damn!
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Chiltern_hundred,
quote:
I see no reason why people who are attempting to discern, by God's grace, the difference between love and lust and to grow as mature human beings should be equated with thieves and liars.
another indication of two different religions. Jesus NT makes it quite clear we all fall short. To whom do you think He was speaking to when it says the disciples
Matthew 15:19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” I think as a disciple it is to me, I ma compared with a murderer.

quote:
Theft and lying are acts of deliberate choice; sexual attraction and falling in love are not.
To gays yes but not to cleptomaniacs, and not according to God’s purposes.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
Anyway I do wish you all a happy Christmas.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
No one, especially gay Christians, believes that gay people don't sin. I sin all the time. I often don't treat my neighbour like Christ. I pass by a homeless person without helping. And I am aware and confess many other sins to God. So quoting that passage misses the point.

Secondly, murder, theft, etc., are wrong because they harm people. You don't have to open a Bible to figure that out. Whether they are innate conditions or not doesn't matter. The harm they do to others outweighs that.

At best the prohibition on homosexuality is a purity code. Being in a gay relationship does no objective (or measurable) harm to others in the way stealing or murder do. Jesus didn't think highly of purity codes. In fact, he broke them as often as he could. Saint Paul wrote in Romans 13 that the only command is to love neighbour.

And the whole appeal to nature to argue against gay relationships is silly. Gay relationships (and all kinds of other forms of bonding and sex) are found throughout nature.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
another indication of two different religions.

And how.

I will take the Christianity of the Great Commandment, of Micah 6:8, of the Beatitudes, of the completion sacrifice of Christ once and for all.

You can have the Christianity of the pick-and-choose fixation on the no-longer-for-Christians-effective purity code, of the misreading of Paul's rhetorical devices and murky cultural context to fit your own, judgemental pre-conceived notions; that refuses to deal with people and their circumstances as those made in the image of God but as some kind of "problem to be solved", somehow especially broken and without access to the boundless depth and breadth of the mercy and love of Christ -- just as your ideological forbears attempted to rationalize the purity of the races and the oppression of women on the same basis. Your reading and understanding of scripture is suspect on that basis, not mine.

And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
What an excellent post.
 
Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power.

[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

iGeek... I love you. I really do!!!

Auntie Doris x
 
Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power.
This is a very good point which I don't recall reading previously, but wholeheartedly support.
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power.

[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

iGeek... I love you. I really do!!!

Auntie Doris x

Hear hear!! [Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
I'll join the list of igeek's girlfriends [Razz]

Bloody gorgeous, mate!
 
Posted by urbanbumpkin (# 13505) on :
 
You know what - maybe I've had a little too much tipple or something, but I came on here and was beginning to feel somewhat incredibly hurt by BMS (out of interest, why do you come to this webiste?) Then I read your post Igeek. Another one of your fanclub logging in to say thanks [Smile]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To ToujoursDan,
quote:
No one, especially gay Christians, believes that gay people don't sin. I sin all the time. I often don't treat my neighbour like Christ. I pass by a homeless person without helping. And I am aware and confess many other sins to God. So quoting that passage misses the point.
That’s providing you aren’t addressing other people who don’t think passing a homeless person is a sin.
This is like the rich young man in Luke’s gospel, who thought he could justify himself by keeping all the commandments so he could the one he couldn’t sacrifice for. One can easily decide which sins one wants to confess and which sins one wants to avoid…. I think that’s what the Pharisees did.

quote:
Secondly, murder, theft, etc., are wrong because they harm people. You don't have to open a Bible to figure that out. Whether they are innate conditions or not doesn't matter. The harm they do to others outweighs that.
As I have pointed out 1 Cor 6 describes all other sins are against others but sexual immorality is a violation of ones own body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit. What you are saying is humanism and disobedience to God’s purposes.

quote:
At best the prohibition on homosexuality is a purity code.
That’s just your humanistic view, once again no scriptural support, God created male and female to be in union, even non Christians can see the species has two sexes for sexual intercourse and reproduction.
quote:
Saint Paul wrote in Romans 13 that the only command is to love neighbour.
that’s the word of God, Paul records it elsewhere as well, and Paul records not to indulge in sexual immorality in Romans 13, and Paul records men with men instead of women is error and turning away from God in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
BMS, have you tried to read any of the long thread here in Dead Horses that is directly on homosexuality and Christianity? There you will find plenty of evidence that it is possible to interpret the texts you are so fond of citing in different ways. You will disagree with some of the conclusions, of course, but Christians can come to different conclusions in good faith.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
My point is there is no evidence provided to support homosexuality and Christianity my friend, just plenty I and some others have provided to exclude and condemn it as outside God’s purpose. This is why I have provided it and why once again you give a baseless opinion of your own.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
Evidently some Christians believe that Christians can differ on this issue but the majority dont. The majority see the issue as a core departure from the faith in Christ, and indeed not the root cause of the disbelief but rather a prominent example.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Robert Armin,
My point is there is no evidence provided to support homosexuality and Christianity my friend, just plenty I and some others have provided to exclude and condemn it as outside God’s purpose. This is why I have provided it and why once again you give a baseless opinion of your own.

Have you read the thread that Robert refers to?
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Have you read the thread that Robert refers to?

A simple YES/NO answer will suffice, thank you.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
He's been gone a long time - perhaps he has read the DH thread and is now repenting.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Would this be a good time to mention a real estate opportunity involving historic wetlands?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
bms:
quote:
My point is there is no evidence provided to support homosexuality and Christianity my friend, just plenty I and some others have provided to exclude and condemn it as outside God’s purpose.
The "evidence" that you have provided have been a string of Bible verses that you think support your point of view. No one disputes that those verses exist, but different Christians interpret those verses, quite honestly, in different ways. That is why I asked if you had read the original DH thread.
quote:
This is why I have provided it and why once again you give a baseless opinion of your own.
I'm not sure I have given you my opinion on this matter yet (though it isn't hard to guess, admittedly). Certainly I did not express it in my last post; I merely asked if you had read the older thread.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes - and BMS STILL hasn't replied.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
quote:
Have you read the thread that Robert refers to?
Yes
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
[quote] The "evidence" that you have provided have been a string of Bible verses that you think support your point of view. [quote] Well the Biblical testimony is the word of God and the truth, are you now implying you don’t recognise the Biblical testimony as the truth?
If you do recognise it as the truth then why would I not provide a string of Bible verses which say what the say?
The question is where is the string of Bible verses which others think countenances same sex relationships, until that appears there is no debate.

Most Christians don’t accept one can interpret something excluded and condemned as meaning it is countenanced. Most Christians see that as disbelief and not interpretation.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
quote:
Have you read the thread that Robert refers to?
Yes
A story for you, bms.

Some time ago, I was converted away from the church. I felt it right to chat with my minister about it (it had nothing to do with him). We met and I took about 15 minutes to share my pilgrimage, during which time he did not 'interupt'. We then spent an hour (yep, no exageration) chatting about his problems - not a single tiny reference to what I had shared. And he never has referred to it.

He would claim that he had listened to what I'd said. But he hadn't, because listening entails some sort of response / acknowledgment.

You say you have read the thread - what is your response (and quoting obscure Bible verses is not a response).

You seem more like the other person with whom I shared my story - he asked 'What about your salvation'. Thus showing that he was more concerned with his own viewpoint than with anyone else's.

Just interested in how you justify your non-listening! You don't seem to appreciate / understand that others who are posting here have been through the Biblical 'evidence' you quote and have come to a different reading of it.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Mark Wuntoo,
I don’t think you read or listened to my posts.
Robert Armin wrtote the following ..
quote:
BMS, have you tried to read any of the long thread here in Dead Horses that is directly on homosexuality and Christianity? There you will find plenty of evidence that it is possible to interpret the texts you are so fond of citing in different ways. You will disagree with some of the conclusions, of course, but Christians can come to different conclusions in good faith.
My point is it is not possible to interpret scriptures the opposite of what they mean or no-one would be able to agree anything about God or Christianity, and that is the position for most Christians as seen by the fact the churches are splitting on the issue.
Robert Armin has merely repeated the conclusions of the evidence presented which excludes and condemns same sex relationships, the question is there is nothing to countenance same sex relations so one can’t conclude the exclusions and condemnations aren’t valid. Its called disbelief.

So no for most Christians, Christians cannot come to different conclusions where it is disbelief and indeed that is not the same faith.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Mark Wuntoo,
I don’t think you read or listened to my posts.
Robert Armin wrtote the following ..
quote:
BMS, have you tried to read any of the long thread here in Dead Horses that is directly on homosexuality and Christianity? There you will find plenty of evidence that it is possible to interpret the texts you are so fond of citing in different ways. You will disagree with some of the conclusions, of course, but Christians can come to different conclusions in good faith.
My point is it is not possible to interpret scriptures the opposite of what they mean or no-one would be able to agree anything about God or Christianity, and that is the position for most Christians as seen by the fact the churches are splitting on the issue.
Robert Armin has merely repeated the conclusions of the evidence presented which excludes and condemns same sex relationships, the question is there is nothing to countenance same sex relations so one can’t conclude the exclusions and condemnations aren’t valid. Its called disbelief.

So no for most Christians, Christians cannot come to different conclusions where it is disbelief and indeed that is not the same faith.

The 1 million dollar question is whether or not the scriptural passages that condemn instances of same-sex genital conduct should be taken as a blanket condemnation of homosexual relationships entirely. No one who reads the story of David and Bathsheba condemns all forms of heterosexuality from that text.

To argue that your theological opponents on this issue are motivated by lack of faith is a cheap shot. I might argue conversely that your view of this issue is coloured by your initial assumption that homosexuality is wrong.

To make it clearer, it goes something like this:

1) Person believes that homosexuality is wrong
2) Goes and reads Scripture
3) Concludes that Scripture condemns homosexuality.

Your interpretation of Scripture is to be frank, coloured by your preconceived ideas and assumptions. You are free to argue that I do the same thing, though I humbly say that I try to read Scripture through the lens of charity and justice, which IMHO are the basis of Our Lord's Gospel.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
As an outsider looking in on this discussion, it seems to me that an awful lot of people are using up an awful lot of time and brainpower to prosecute a non-discussion that clearly isn't going to go anywhere ...

Or does that statement mean that vitriol will now be flung at me from all sides (if that is what one does with vitriol)? I sincerely hope not!
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As an outsider looking in on this discussion, it seems to me that an awful lot of people are using up an awful lot of time and brainpower to prosecute a non-discussion that clearly isn't going to go anywhere ...

Or does that statement mean that vitriol will now be flung at me from all sides (if that is what one does with vitriol)? I sincerely hope not!

Trolls can be attractive sometimes.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
bms:
quote:
To Robert Armin,
[quote] The "evidence" that you have provided have been a string of Bible verses that you think support your point of view. [quote] Well the Biblical testimony is the word of God and the truth, are you now implying you don’t recognise the Biblical testimony as the truth?
If you do recognise it as the truth then why would I not provide a string of Bible verses which say what the say? (emphasis added)

Yes. I do accept the Bible as truth, as it bears witness to Truth Incarnate - our Lord Jesus Christ.

Having got that out of the way, I also find the Bible a very complex document at times. My position, for what it's worth (and I have no idea if anyone else on the Ship shares is this) is that the Bible has nothing to say directly about homosexuality. Out of the thousands of verses it contains only a handful possibly refer to this issue, and all of them are the centre of debate, quite apart from the issue at hand. I do not see a condemnation or an endorsement of homosexuality in the Bible - the topic isn't raised as far as I can tell.

Now there are plenty of issues we face today which are not directly in the Bible. To my mind a useful parallel is abortion, which was certainly around in Biblical times but is never tackled directly. Therefore Christians today look for general Biblical principles when considering the issue, and come to different conclusions (there's a surprise). In the same way, lacking direct Biblical teaching, Christians have to look at the overall thrust of Jesus' teaching to see how to deal with homosexuality in abstract and homosexuals in concrete. For me the overriding principle is "Love your neighbour as yourself", and I would argue for acceptance and welcome. However, I do recognise that other Christians, in good faith, come to different conclusions. Much as I would like them to agree with me, I have to accept that theirs is also a Christian response - but not the Christian response.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting on

Troll is not an acceptable term outside of Hell but a personal attack. All accusations or implications of trolling on this board will be treated as breaches of Commandment 3, so can I suggest that people drop that word right now.

Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Apologies. I did not realise that 'troll' is a pejorative term, thinking it was purely descriptive. I live and learn - and accept the telling-off.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Anglican_brat,
quote:
The 1 million dollar question is whether or not the scriptural passages that condemn instances of same-sex genital conduct should be taken as a blanket condemnation of homosexual relationships entirely.
As I said it isn’t possible. Why make an assumption that is not supportable, why not seek to follow Christ’s NT teaching for man and woman or celibacy. That alone as God’s purpose indicates same sex was not God’s purpose otherwise why create woman to be with man. Furthermore men with men instead of women is equally clear that condemns same sex relationships as opposed to man woman.

quote:
To argue that your theological opponents on this issue are motivated by lack of faith is a cheap shot. I might argue conversely that your view of this issue is coloured by your initial assumption that homosexuality is wrong.
It’s not a lack of faith, its showing faith in same sex relationships, but its not the same faith in the NT testimony of Jesus Christ.

quote:
Your interpretation of Scripture is to be frank, coloured by your preconceived ideas and assumptions.
Actually it isn’t as before I came to believe and trust in Christ I didn’t think it mattered that much. But the scriptures speak for themselves, if one believes and trusts in Christ one comes to address what the scriptures say and mean.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
quote:
My position, for what it's worth (and I have no idea if anyone else on the Ship shares is this) is that the Bible has nothing to say directly about homosexuality. Out of the thousands of verses it contains only a handful possibly refer to this issue, and all of them are the centre of debate, quite apart from the issue at hand. I do not see a condemnation or an endorsement of homosexuality in the Bible - the topic isn't raised as far as I can tell.
homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality is same sex attraction. How do you suppose passages such as Matthew 19 and Romans 1 does not have anything to say about homosexuality. Men with men instead of woman is either homosexual heterosexual or bisexual, what other sexes are there apart from male and female.

quote:
Now there are plenty of issues we face today which are not directly in the Bible.
That assumes the Bible has nothing to say about homosexuality which I think is unsupportable.

quote:
Christians have to look at the overall thrust of Jesus' teaching to see how to deal with homosexuality in abstract and homosexuals in concrete.
Again that assumes there is no exclusion or condemnation, and in fact all instances of countenance is man and woman or celibate and all the condemnations of sexual immorality and desires of the sinful nature implicate homosexuality included as well.
quote:
"Love your neighbour as yourself", and I would argue for acceptance and welcome.
Well that’s only half the story the other half is love God which according to what He detests rules out same sex relations as loving.
quote:
However, I do recognise that other Christians, in good faith, come to different conclusions.
Well I don’t, like most Christians I recognise this as a departure from the faith once delivered.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
As I said it isn’t possible. Why make an assumption that is not supportable, why not seek to follow Christ’s NT teaching for man and woman or celibacy. That alone as God’s purpose indicates same sex was not God’s purpose otherwise why create woman to be with man. Furthermore men with men instead of women is equally clear that condemns same sex relationships as opposed to man woman.
Celibacy is a calling that only a few people are blessed to be called to. It includes both heterosexuals and homosexuals who may feel called to the distinctive vocation of celibacy. To mandate it on an entire group of people and disregard whatever personal discernment they have done on this issue is foolhardy and wrongheaded.

Does Scripture really condemn same-sex relationships? What of the relationships of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi? Before you argue that neither relationship included sexual activity, may I argue indeed that at the very least, Scripture recognizes that it is possible for two people of the same gender to show true affection, love and intimacy for each other.

quote:
Actually it isn’t as before I came to believe and trust in Christ I didn’t think it mattered that much. But the scriptures speak for themselves, if one believes and trusts in Christ one comes to address what the scriptures say and mean.
*Getting personal alert. I have to say that I have had a relationship with Jesus Christ since I was a young boy. And I have always treasured the witness of Holy Scripture and honestly affirm that it indeed reveals the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. In that journey, I have come to believe that faithful and loving relationships are sacramental, whether between a man or a woman, two men, or two women. The Scriptural passages commonly seen as condemning homosexuality never condemn same-sex relationships based on genuine love, mutuality, affection and fidetity. How could it, because such relationships (both heterosexual and gay and lesbian) reveal the love of Jesus Christ, and in their own way, point us to the inner love of the eternal Trinity.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Anglican brat,

quote:
Celibacy is a calling that only a few people are blessed to be called to. It includes both heterosexuals and homosexuals who may feel called to the distinctive vocation of celibacy.
Well let me stop you there. Who says? Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 for example show that the only choices are faithful man and woman or celibacy, there is no mention of homosexual or heterosexual in the Bible, just marriage celibacy and sexual immorality. Besides adultery is heterosexual and so is faithful man woman marriage. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about what God’s purposes were, what you think doesn’t fit in either.
quote:
] To mandate it on an entire group of people and disregard whatever personal discernment they have done on this issue is foolhardy and wrongheaded.
Well you are entitled to your opinion, but again there is no concept of an entire group of people being victimised in God’s testimony, whoever believes may receive eternal life, and need to repent.
quote:
Does Scripture really condemn same-sex relationships? What of the relationships of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi?
Well what of them, how would that be any different to what Moses allowed with divorce that wasn’t God’s purpose in the first place. Besides David and Jonathan loved each other but David saw a naked woman and slept with her and committed adultery, so yes just for starters I will argue there was no sexual activity between David and Jonathan.
quote:
may I argue indeed that at the very least, Scripture recognizes that it is possible for two people of the same gender to show true affection, love and intimacy for each other.
I agree and its also possible for two people of opposite sex to show true affection love and intimacy so there is no need to distinguish it by sex or sexual attraction.
quote:
*Getting personal alert. I have to say that I have had a relationship with Jesus Christ since I was a young boy. And I have always treasured the witness of Holy Scripture and honestly affirm that it indeed reveals the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. In that journey, I have come to believe that faithful and loving relationships are sacramental, whether between a man or a woman, two men, or two women.
Then I would say that’s error and not the Holy Spirit witnessing because the promised Holy Spirit guides and reminds of what Jesus taught and did. It is the Holy Spirit that reminded the NT writers and reminds me that Jesus NT teaching is for faithful man/woman marriage (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc) or celibacy (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and specific condemnation of same sex relations (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1)
quote:
The Scriptural passages commonly seen as condemning homosexuality never condemn same-sex relationships based on genuine love, mutuality, affection and fidetity.
No, they condemn same sex relations full stop, and the only relationships countenanced are faithful man/woman unions.
quote:
How could it, because such relationships (both heterosexual and gay and lesbian) reveal the love of Jesus Christ, and in their own way, point us to the inner love of the eternal Trinity.
Different gospel I am afraid, there are no such relationships described in the Bible revealing anything except turning away from God as Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 all testify. This is what pagans and people who turn from God believe in and do.
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Leviticus 20:27 "A man or woman who is a medium...shall be stoned to death". You mean that Leviticus chapter? So, just out of interest, have you done any stoning to death of mediums recently? Or do you pray that people who don't believe in stoning mediums to death repent of their unbelief?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
And what about divorced and remarried people? Christ calls them adulterers. Paul says that the only moral options for them are reconciliation or celibacy. Yet there are many people in the church that persist in adulterous relationships and have adulterous sex.

quote:
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord) 7 a wife should not separate from her husband and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife.
1 cor 7:10-11

Are people who remarry, whether they are Christian or not, adulterers? Must those people give up their second marriages, which are adulterous, when they become Christians?
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Amber,
quote:
Leviticus 20:27 "A man or woman who is a medium...shall be stoned to death". You mean that Leviticus chapter? So, just out of interest, have you done any stoning to death of mediums recently? Or do you pray that people who don't believe in stoning mediums to death repent of their unbelief?
Leviticus 19 says love ones neighbour’ have you done with that OT stuff or do you love your neighbour and stone people for wrong doing?
No, I follow Christ who is the fulfilment of the law.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To ToujoursDan,
quote:
And what about divorced and remarried people? Christ calls them adulterers. Paul says that the only moral options for them are reconciliation or celibacy. Yet there are many people in the church that persist in adulterous relationships and have adulterous sex.
Lets see the scriptures. So are you saying divorce and adultery are alright as well because Christ says they are wrong as well as same sex relations?
quote:
1 Cor 7:10-11
I agree.

quote:
Are people who remarry, whether they are Christian or not, adulterers? Must those people give up their second marriages, which are adulterous, when they become Christians?
Yes they are adulterers, I was an adulterer before I became and Christian and got married and having adulterous thoughts from time to time since as well. Who said they are to give up their second marriage, is it not a marriage then?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Why should they not have to give up their second marriages? They are persisting in an adulterous relationship, are they not? Every time they have sex with their second spouse they would be committing adultery against their first, logically.

True repentance from sin would mean stopping it, which means ending the adulterous relationship and embracing celibacy.

Does your church allow people in second marriages to join? Doesn't it demand they end them and embrace celibacy?

[ 29. December 2009, 15:10: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
quote:
Have you read the thread that Robert refers to?
Yes
What all of it?
Hundreds of pages?
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To ToujoursDan,
quote:
Why should they not have to give up their second marriages? They are persisting in an adulterous relationship, are they not? Every time they have sex with their second spouse they would be committing adultery against their first, logically.
Why should they? Did Jesus tell the Pharisees to do so? No. Does the scripture not say divorce and remarriage commits adultery, is it not already done when one enters into the second marriage? Do you demand non believers to give up what God hasn’t ordained?
What God has ordained is faithful marriage between a man and a woman, this is grace and not the law, there is no reason to legalistically justify one sin by another.
quote:
True repentance from sin would mean stopping it, which means ending the adulterous relationship and embracing celibacy.
Or true repentance would mean committing the marriage to serve God. Besides if you don’t recognise what Jesus teaches about same sex relations why expect others to?

quote:
Does your church allow people in second marriages to join? Doesn't it demand they end them and embrace celibacy?
Marriage is ordained by God in His creation purpose, same sex relations aren’t, the scripture says because of sexual immorality if not celibate each should have their own husband wife.

The truth is that marriage is a faithful relationship bewteen man and woman, thats what the truth is and same sex realtionships are contrary and error, it doesnt matter how different people might fall short the truth remains the same. As Christians we should be encouraging each other in the truth... thats not what some are doing here by promoting the error.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To ToujoursDan,
quote:
Why should they not have to give up their second marriages? They are persisting in an adulterous relationship, are they not? Every time they have sex with their second spouse they would be committing adultery against their first, logically.
Why should they? Did Jesus tell the Pharisees to do so? No. Does the scripture not say divorce and remarriage commits adultery, is it not already done when one enters into the second marriage? Do you demand non believers to give up what God hasn’t ordained?
What God has ordained is faithful marriage between a man and a woman, this is grace and not the law, there is no reason to legalistically justify one sin by another.
quote:
True repentance from sin would mean stopping it, which means ending the adulterous relationship and embracing celibacy.
Or true repentance would mean committing the marriage to serve God.

How very convenient - so LGBs have to repent and forsake their relationships. divorced people don't.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Why should they? Did Jesus tell the Pharisees to do so? No.
What again are the moral choices Paul gave in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11?

Oh yeah, reconciliation or celibacy. I don't see where a second relationship is allowed unless there is infidelity in the first. Do you?

quote:
Does the scripture not say divorce and remarriage commits adultery, is it not already done when one enters into the second marriage?
No. You are supposed to be "one flesh" with the first spouse. Scripture calls the second marriage "adultery". This means that a second relationship is an "adulterous" relationship. Every time they have sex, they are committing "adultery" against the first spouse. The adultery doesn't just disappear over time. They are persisting in sin and true repentance means stopping the sin.

quote:
Do you demand non believers to give up what God hasn’t ordained?
God said that whoever remarries for a reason other than infidelity commits adultery. The adultery doesn't stop because you say so. An adulterous relationship is an adulterous relationship unless the relationship itself ends.

quote:
What God has ordained is faithful marriage between a man and a woman, this is grace and not the law, there is no reason to legalistically justify one sin by another.
Interesting double standard here.

It makes about as much sense as saying if someone repents of the act of stealing they can keep the loot.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Besides David and Jonathan loved each other but David saw a naked woman and slept with her and committed adultery, so yes just for starters I will argue there was no sexual activity between David and Jonathan.

How very, umm what's the word I want here - naive? of you. [Two face]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To leo,
quote:
How very convenient - so LGBs have to repent and forsake their relationships. divorced people don't.
Jesus doesn't mention LGB's, He taught about man and woman in union. LGB's dont have to do anything Christ teaches, only disciples have to.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To JoannaP,
quote:
How very, umm what's the word I want here - naive? of you.
on the contrary, there is no mention, no evidence and every implication there was no sexual activity. The only sins mentioned in the whole of the story were muder and adultery by David, yet they all knew Leviticus 18 and 20 prohibitions on same sex. The sexual activity when described is David sleeping with a woman, David isnt described as sleeping with Jonathan. Can one really be so naive as to think that wherever Jesus and His disciples or anyone else in the Bible embraced and kissed and loved each other they were in a sexual relationship?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
So LGBs cannot be disciples? Are you really saying that bms?
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
quote:
So LGBs cannot be disciples? Are you really saying that bms?
that does seem to be what you are thinking. What I said was Jesus doesn't mention LGB's, correct? He taught about man and woman in union, Correct? He taught that disciples seek to obey His teaching and do it. So you tell me who are LGB’s according to Christ’s teaching and how they can fit in?

Bear in mind that the concept of straights/heterosexuals doesn’t necessarily fit any better to what Christ taught His disciples. SO I would say disciples are those who seek to follow Christ’s teaching and thus not heterosexual or homosexual.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
I would add, if there is neither male nor female in Christ, that which God created, there certainly isnt any heterosexual nor homosexual in Christ, that whcih God didnt even create.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
there certainly isnt any heterosexual nor homosexual in Christ, that whcih God didnt even create.
Can you seriously, definitely, absolutely, incontrovertibly, indubitably be 100% sure about that?

[ 30. December 2009, 11:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Baptist Trainfan,
Only as much as I believe the Biblical testimony. Can you be sure even without God's Biblical testimony, if so how?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Only as much as I believe the Biblical testimony
Absolutely - but belief always implies a measure of provisionality and unsureness, not absolute certainty. That's what the word means!
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Baptist Trainfan,
But can you be sure even without God's Biblical testimony, if so how? Otherwise what is the point of the question?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To JoannaP,
quote:
How very, umm what's the word I want here - naive? of you.
on the contrary, there is no mention, no evidence and every implication there was no sexual activity. The only sins mentioned in the whole of the story were muder and adultery by David, yet they all knew Leviticus 18 and 20 prohibitions on same sex. The sexual activity when described is David sleeping with a woman, David isnt described as sleeping with Jonathan. Can one really be so naive as to think that wherever Jesus and His disciples or anyone else in the Bible embraced and kissed and loved each other they were in a sexual relationship?
I agree in doubting a sexual element to David and jonathan, though some Hebraists point to a meeting outside the Cave of Adullam where an orgasm is hinted at.

So it it possible to be an adulterer and/or a murderer and a Christian but not possible to be a gay Christian?

[ 30. December 2009, 15:55: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
To Baptist Trainfan,
But can you be sure even without God's Biblical testimony, if so how? Otherwise what is the point of the question?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to ask me. [Confused]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To leo,
quote:
So it it possible to be an adulterer and/or a murderer and a Christian but not possible to be a gay Christian?
None of them. It is possible to be a Christian who has same sex attraction, of course. And it is possible to be a Christian and fall short by committing adultery and same sex acts, but what Jesus has done is wash cleanse and sanctify from sin so we are hidden in christ and conforming to Him. 1 Cor 6, Col 3, we are tranformed and used to seek those things. Those who are in Christ have their identity in Christ rather than sinful desires.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
Colossians 3 shows us what a marvellous thing Jesus has done ..
1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[b] 7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Lots of us can download texts from Bible Gateway (I presume) ... but doing so doesn't advance our argument.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Baptist Trainfan,
It does if one believes the Biblical texts hold the revelation of God's purposes rather than our own human ideas.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Isn't that a rather big and vastly multifaceted "IF"?

[ 31. December 2009, 09:22: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Robert Armin,
I would add, if there is neither male nor female in Christ, that which God created, there certainly isn't any heterosexual nor homosexual in Christ, that which God didn't even create.

Apart from the last six words, I would agree with this 100%. To paraphrase Galatians 3.28: "In Christ there is neither rich or poor, black or white, straight or gay for he welcomes you all".
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
quote:
Apart from the last six words, I would agree with this 100%. To paraphrase Galatians 3.28: "In Christ there is neither rich or poor, black or white, straight or gay for he welcomes you all".
Again I ask where did you get gay from when God created woman for man, which is man for man and woman for woman? So the word of God is showing the concept of ‘gay’ is contrary to what God has created.
I would also add that these passages in Galatians 3 and Colossians 3 refer to being in Christ, so that can only be what God has ordained and one cant suggest ‘gay’ unless one can show from scripture that is of God, which cant be done.
 
Posted by aggg (# 13727) on :
 
If you read the minor prophets, you'll see that overconsumption and excess in the face of global poverty is "contrary to what God has created".

So you're conveniently talking about the sin that doesn't apply to you (homosexuality) to gloss over the one that does (greed).

I'd submit you'd be better off concentrating on your own sinful lifestyle than pontificating about others.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Again I ask where did you get gay from when God created woman for man, which is man for man and woman for woman? So the word of God is showing the concept of ‘gay’ is contrary to what God has created.

Do you believe in the creation stories literally?

Was woman created from man's rib?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Robert Armin,
quote:
Apart from the last six words, I would agree with this 100%. To paraphrase Galatians 3.28: "In Christ there is neither rich or poor, black or white, straight or gay for he welcomes you all".
Again I ask where did you get gay from when God created woman for man, which is man for man and woman for woman?
According to Genesis 2 God created woman after man; in Genesis 1 they are created together, in the image of God. I can't help wondering of your "biblical" view of women involves them being inferior to men in some way.

And do you think that God created some people rich and some poor? (In which case it might be seen as a sin to try to change your economic position.) My understanding of Galatians 3.28 is that this world contains all sorts of different types of people. The world may use those differences to grade humans into "acceptable" and "unacceptable", but Christ welcomes them all.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To leo,
quote:
Do you believe in the creation stories literally?

Was woman created from man's rib?

I have asked you where you get the concept of gay from and you have merely responded by asking me another question.
I believe God’s revelation can only be derived from what the creation accounts literally say, do you literally not believe them? I do know that I can see man and woman exists and reproduce together, so that part of the Bible must be true, and thus the question remains where do you get the concept of gay from?
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
quote:
According to Genesis 2 God created woman after man; in Genesis 1 they are created together, in the image of God. I can't help wondering of your "biblical" view of women involves them being inferior to men in some way.
The question was where do you get the concept of gay from, in debate try and keep your mind on the points presented to you rather than your mind wandering off on other things.

quote:
And do you think that God created some people rich and some poor?
I would be glad to answer your question, provided you answer the one I asked first.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Gay people exist. I get the concept from the people I know; I talk to them, laugh with them and so on. I just don't think they are mentioned in the Bible. In the same way I know epileptics exist, as do dyslexics, people with autism, Olympic medal winners and rocket scientists. None of these labels exist in the Bible, but the people still exist. People made the labels, God made the people.

[ 02. January 2010, 09:41: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To leo,
quote:
Do you believe in the creation stories literally?

Was woman created from man's rib?

I have asked you where you get the concept of gay from and you have merely responded by asking me another question.
I believe God’s revelation can only be derived from what the creation accounts literally say, do you literally not believe them? I do know that I can see man and woman exists and reproduce together, so that part of the Bible must be true, and thus the question remains where do you get the concept of gay from?

Gay isn't a 'concept'. It is term used to describe about ten per cent of the human race. It is used to describe people that I know, to describe some of the people in my congregation.

I am glad that you have 'come out' as believing in the creation stories literally. It confirms that you are coming from a minority, dinosaur posoyion - but then dinosaurs aren't mentioned in Genesis so they, and you, don't exist.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Robert Armin,
quote:
Gay people exist.
People who identify themselves as gay exist and who have same sex relations, but that’s what they think. They aren’t necessarily actually gay, not from a scientific pov or from a Biblical one.
quote:
I get the concept from the people I know;
I see from the Bible the concept is contrary to God’s creation.
quote:
I just don't think they are mentioned in the Bible.
I don’t see how not when the Bible refers to men with men instead of women. How can you not see it?
quote:
God made the people.
No He didn’t, I can see from the Bible He made man to be united with woman. You keep claiming what is obviously not true.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To leo,
quote:
Gay isn't a 'concept'. It is term used to describe about ten per cent of the human race. It is used to describe people that I know, to describe some of the people in my congregation.
How? God created man to be with woman so how does gay come about except a word to describe a sexual attraction opposite to what God has created people for?
 
Posted by aggg (# 13727) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
How? God created man to be with woman so how does gay come about except a word to describe a sexual attraction opposite to what God has created people for?

See - the problem is that it is next to impossible to communicate with you when you fall back on the 'because-the-bible-says-so' argument.

What on earth do you mean 'how does gay come about'?

'snonsense. But more than that, it isn't a debate - it is you attempting to be the mouthpiece of God and repeatedly using your bible trump card.

I don't accept your biblical interpretation. That should answer all of your questions.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
People who identify themselves as gay exist and who have same sex relations, but that’s what they think. They aren’t necessarily actually gay, not from a scientific pov or from a Biblical one.

I'm going to say this in both the homosexuality thread and the abortion thread because it's important in both.
You cannot say that because a concept comes from outside the Bible it is irrelevant to the correct interpretation of the Bible. A glaring example: Psalm 98:8 'Let the floods clap their hands; let the hills sing together for joy'. If we did not allow knowledge from outside the Bible to determine the way we read the Bible we would be forced to the conclusion that the seas and lakes have hands.
The Bible won't teach us the English language (or Hebrew or Greek). If we don't know a language from outside the Bible we won't understand the Bible at all.
So you can't say that just because a concept comes from outside the Bible it is irrelevant to the Bible.

In this case, just because the Bible doesn't have the concept of gay men, doesn't mean that you can say there aren't gay men.

[ 04. January 2010, 10:44: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To agg,
quote:
See - the problem is that it is next to impossible to communicate with you when you fall back on the 'because-the-bible-says-so' argument.
Well its not just the Bible, procreation as a function of sexual intercourse between the two sexes is an observable fact.

quote:
What on earth do you mean 'how does gay come about'?
Not ‘how does gay come’ about but ‘God created man to be with woman so how does gay come about except a word to describe a sexual attraction opposite to what God has created people for?’

quote:
But more than that, it isn't a debate - it is you attempting to be the mouthpiece of God and repeatedly using your bible trump card.
I am referring to what Jesus said "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]?
Who is your god then?

quote:
I don't accept your biblical interpretation.
I haven’t given an interpretation I have merely quoted and cited what is recorded as what God has said.
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To Dafyd,
quote:
I'm going to say this in both the homosexuality thread and the abortion thread because it's important in both.
You cannot say that because a concept comes from outside the Bible it is irrelevant to the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Neither can you say it is.

quote:
A glaring example: Psalm 98:8 'Let the floods clap their hands; let the hills sing together for joy'. If we did not allow knowledge from outside the Bible to determine the way we read the Bible we would be forced to the conclusion that the seas and lakes have hands.
So is where a man marries a woman and where men with men instead of women something that can be seen and done or not? Otherwise why can you not distinguish between the two?

quote:
In this case, just because the Bible doesn't have the concept of gay men, doesn't mean that you can say there aren't gay men.
If one believes the Bible one can say man and woman are created to be united and men with men instead of women is error.
I, like yourself, can say whatever we want, what I am referring to is what the Bible says because I believe it is the word of God.
 
Posted by aggg (# 13727) on :
 
Oh God please give me something to do which means that I don't have time to waste on this.

quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To agg,
quote:
See - the problem is that it is next to impossible to communicate with you when you fall back on the 'because-the-bible-says-so' argument.
Well its not just the Bible, procreation as a function of sexual intercourse between the two sexes is an observable fact.
Is anyone arguing that single-sex relationships can reproduce? Have you heard of the concept of a straw man?

quote:
quote:
What on earth do you mean 'how does gay come about'?
Not ‘how does gay come’ about but ‘God created man to be with woman so how does gay come about except a word to describe a sexual attraction opposite to what God has created people for?’
First - not all strong relationships in life are between man and woman. Not even all those in the bible: Jonathan-David, Jesus-disciples, Elijah-Elisha, the brothers of Joseph. So we can agree that not all important relationships are about sex.

Second - there are a variety of sexual relationships in the bible, many of which you'd presumably also describe as 'the opposite of what God intended'. Such as - sex with slave, sex with concubines, sex with many wives.

If you assert that certain things are against what God Intended, maybe you also need to address why these other deviant sexual relationships were allowed to continue so often in the bible.


quote:
quote:
But more than that, it isn't a debate - it is you attempting to be the mouthpiece of God and repeatedly using your bible trump card.
I am referring to what Jesus said "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]?
Who is your god then?

The one who looked at the woman caught in adultery with compassion. Who spent time with the ritually outcast. Shame on you for using religion in this way to put me down.

quote:
quote:
I don't accept your biblical interpretation.
I haven’t given an interpretation I have merely quoted and cited what is recorded as what God has said.
I think you need to get a dictionary and look up 'biblical interpretation'.

[ 04. January 2010, 11:19: Message edited by: aggg ]
 
Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :
 
To aggg,
Well its not just the Bible, procreation as a function of sexual intercourse between the two sexes is an observable fact.

quote:
First - not all strong relationships in life are between man and woman.
sorry can you re-read the question please. ‘God created man to be with woman so how does gay come about except a word to describe a sexual attraction opposite to what God has created people for?’ I was asking about a particular relationship.

quote:
Second - there are a variety of sexual relationships in the bible, many of which you'd presumably also describe as 'the opposite of what God intended'. Such as - sex with slave, sex with concubines, sex with many wives.
I wouldn’t argue what was against God’s purpose such as sex with slave and many wives etc as what God intends, though you might seeing as you seem to be supporting same sex relations.

quote:
I think you need to get a dictionary and look up 'biblical interpretation'.
I think you do, I have quoted what all can see the Bible says, my interpretation of what it means could be the anything otherewise.
 
Posted by aggg (# 13727) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
I wouldn’t argue what was against God’s purpose such as sex with slave and many wives etc as what God intends

Right, so show me how you get from the clear message of the bible that concubines and multiple wives are wrong. Then explain to me how you have developed a theology that says they are wrong without using any interpretation of the text.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0