Apostolic Friends Forum - Gay Pastor's(xupc)recent Letter to the UPCI ! ! !

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Deep Waters (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Gay Pastor's(xupc)recent Letter to the UPCI ! ! ! (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=2828)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne (Post 92891)

Brad, I'll play along here and agree that you were born to be homosexual. Here is your problem....we were all born with the predisposition to sin. We are sinners from birth.

That said, do we excuse people from sinning because we were born that way?

That would become a problem, because then we wouldn't need the legal system to judge folks who commit crimes. One sin isn't worse than another in the eyes of God, and since He is the judge, you can't complain if someone wants to come into your house and rip you off after cutting your throat.

After all, they were born that way.

As I've stated before (by the way, these are grossly hysterical examples you are making), murdering God's creation is not a God-given, natural desire. Human companionship is. I have agreed all along that homosexuality deviates from the first human relationship (Adam & Eve) but believe that it deviates as the result of a naturally occuring genetic mutation (such as hermaphroditism, intersexism, or any other genetically altered deviation). This belief is based on the fact that orientation is most definitely genetically determined due to the amazingly high correlation that exists between chromosomal sex and orientatin (i.e., most males are attracted to females and visa versa).

Because I know from first hand experience that I COMPLETELY lack an attraction to females and, instead, have an attraction to males, I know that my genetically determined orientation has deviated from the norm but is real, true, and natural nonetheless. This disqualifies me from being an individual who has been turned over to homosexuality because of idolatry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 92892)

Since "naturally developing" means that which develops the majority of the time and is normative for the species, it is self-evident simply by observing the species that heterosexual orientation is naturally developing and that all other orientations (because they are not normative for the species and do not develop the majority of the time) are aberrations.

I have stated from the beginning of this thread that homosexuality deviates from the normative sexual orientation of humans. However, that does not make it unnatural.

Let me present this to you and other readers. If heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not, then why is it that homosexuals are not ALSO heterosexual? How does something unnatural mystically replace something you say is natural? Wouldn't homosexuality behavior have to co-exist with a natural, heterosexual orientation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne (Post 92899)

Brad, arguing genetics is fruitless considering that no proof of a genetic tie has yet to be found. I think you need to find a different excuse.

First of all, it's not an excuse. Second, I am justified in arguing genetics because it is a rebuttal to other arguments that hetersexuality is the genetic norm.

Let me also make a bold statement that may cause most in this room to roll their eyes in complete in total disbelief.

I have given the majority of my life to prayer over this issue and have not come to these conclusions lightly or of my own ability. I have laid in bed, countless nights, sobbing and begging God to help me understand all of this.

I know in my heart that I love God yet I could never accept His love because I could not reconcile that fact that I was one of the idolaters of Romans 1. It was after asking God to show me His will and to truly help me understand why I was gay that I began to see things from the perspective I am sharing with you in this forum. No man will ever be able to take away the divine understanding that I have received from God. I am only here to share it and to do so with as much clarity and conviction as I can and in hopes of helping someone who may be dealing with the same confusion, lonliness, bitterness that I once faced on a daily basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne (Post 92905)

That's funny. You can make claims without proof but you tell someone else they can't make claims without proof.

:hypercoffee

All I've ever said (to my recollection) is that you cannot say homosexuality is unnatural while saying that heterosexuality IS natural. In order to prove homosexuality is unnatural one must begin by attempting to prove that heterosexuality is natural. Of course, by proving heterosexuality is natural you have to admit that orientation is natural because heterosexuality is directed toward BOTH males and females and is only sex-specific based on the GENETIC construction of the individual with the orientation. Therefore, a genetic orientation toward someone of the same sex is no more unnatural than being born with any other genetic variation from the norm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 92910)

Genetic specifically refers to the presence of genes. There is no evidence of a specific "sexual orientation" gene or other evidence of something existing in the person from the womb that causes one to develop a sexual orientation. Further, "genetic" does not mean "natural." While I realize that many people like to define "natural" as simply "that which occurs in nature," I prefer to equate "natural" with "normal" or "normative," i.e. that which occurs in nature the majority of the time and is normative for a particular species.

It has been said that there is a "genetic predisposition" toward breast cancer in certain women. However, just because there may be a genetic predisposition doesn't automatically mean the woman is going to develop breast cancer. So also, even if it can be shown that there is a "genetic predisposition" toward homosexuality doesn't mean one is automatically going to become homosexual.

First, let me suggest that "genetic" refers to not only genes but the epigentic system as well. For example, there are genes for certain traits but those traits are often determined as the result of the genes interaction with the environment (height, eye color, skin color, handedness, etc.). Epigenetics must and are included in the discussion of genetics.

Second, natural and normative are two totally different terms. Natural is a scientific termed used to refer to that which occurs naturally - though anyone can chose to use the word "natural" however they want to. Normative, however, is less a scientific term as it is a sociological term. Because homosexuality (as well as this thread of discussion) has many scientific AND sociologic influences it is possible that all of us have used the terms out of context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad2723 (Post 92954)

Homosexuality is an aberration, a deviation from the norm. That is why it is "unnatural" (is not the norm within nature). Homosexuals are not heterosexuals because homosexuals do not have a heterosexual orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad2723 (Post 92983)

So, while you say there are "genes" for specific traits such as height, eye color, skin color, handedness, etc., you're also saying there is at least some part of these that is determined by environment? For normal people (people outside of "science"), the term "genetic" suggests only one thing: that a person is born that way. Has anyone ever been able to show us a specific gene and show it actually causing a person to have a particular height, eye color, etc.?

Quote:

Second, natural and normative are two totally different terms. Natural is a scientific termed used to refer to that which occurs naturally - though anyone can chose to use the word "natural" however they want to. Normative, however, is less a scientific term as it is a sociological term. Because homosexuality (as well as this thread of discussion) has many scientific AND sociologic influences it is possible that all of us have used the terms out of context.

So-called "science" today is based on a wicked, worldly philosophy called "naturalism." On that basis alone it is to be automatically treated with suspicion. To normal people "natural" means "normal." As for sociological terms, I'm sure at least some sociologists would object to you essentially saying that sociology is not a science, i.e. the study of society.

What makes an influence "scientific"? Is it that someone has applied the scientific method to it? Is it that atheistic, humanist and otherwise scientists who adhere to naturalism have expressed opinions about it?

Quote:

Leviticus 18:22-24 (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. [23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. [24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Leviticus 20:13-16 (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [14] And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. [15] And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. [16] And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:24-32 (KJV)
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. [28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, [30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: [32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
1 Cor. 6:9-11 (KJV)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Tim. 1:8-11 (KJV)
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; [11] According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Thus saith the word of God...

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad2723 (Post 92977)

you may scoff at my remarks as I have not kept up with this thread but one comment struck me as ludicrious.....you cannot say homosexuality is unnatural while saying that heterosexuality IS natural.

if this were the case, it wouldnt have been Adam and Eve in the Garden, it would have been Adam and Bob, or Eve and Lucille....

God meant for man and woman to be together as one complete unit..one man, one woman.

anything else is an unnatural adaptation b/c of sin.

Genetic? I dont think so, its a variation b/c of sin and becoming an accepted "mutation" of what God designed.

people can try to justify it all they want, it's wrong.

but then so again is hatred, malice, envy, strife...all those nasty things we all can be party too..

just my :2cents

carry on

Quote:

REPROBATE that which is rejected on account of its own worthlessness (Jeremiah 6:30; Hebrews 6:8; Gr. adokimos, "rejected"). This word is also used with reference to persons cast away or rejected because they have failed to make use of opportunities offered them (1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5-7).

Just what is a reprobate...