__________________
People who are always looking for fault,can find it easily all they have to do,is look into their mirror.
There they can find plenty of fault.
One of the "delivered" gay men I know was married for many years. He was a pentecostal (independent) pastor. Finally gave up on the charade and divorced his wife. The other ex-gay man I know is also now ex-ex-gay and divorced. To be fair, I may know some ex-gays without knowing that they are.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
One of the "delivered" gay men I know was married for many years. He was a pentecostal (independent) pastor. Finally gave up on the charade and divorced his wife. The other ex-gay man I know is also now ex-ex-gay and divorced. To be fair, I may know some ex-gays without knowing that they are.
Unfortunately, what you have described happens way too often. I have heard of homosexuals who get saved, pray for years and years for deliverance from their feelings, get married and make families, and finally give up and go back to the gay lifestyle because they never really got any "deliverance".
Unfortunately, what you have described happens way too often. I have heard of homosexuals who get saved, pray for years and years for deliverance from their feelings, get married and make families, and finally give up and go back to the gay lifestyle because they never really got any "deliverance".
Yes, and leaving a devastated family behind. I have to wonder, what's more dangerous: preaching the evils of homosexuality and convincing gays that they must change or burn forever, or just letting it go? Leave gays alone, and let the Holy Spirit do all the convicting and changing that He thinks is necessary. (IMO, that will be zero, but hey, I'm not the HS. He can do whatever He wants.) Isn't that His job?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Yes, and leaving a devastated family behind. I have to wonder, what's more dangerous: preaching the evils of homosexuality and convincing gays that they must change or burn forever, or just letting it go? Leave gays alone, and let the Holy Spirit do all the convicting and changing that He thinks is necessary. (IMO, that will be zero, but hey, I'm not the HS. He can do whatever He wants.) Isn't that His job?
I am not against preaching against homosexuality, any more than I am against preaching against any other sin. I am, however, against the way homosexuality is preached against. You don't win people over by demonizing them.
I am not against preaching against homosexuality, any more than I am against preaching against any other sin. I am, however, against the way homosexuality is preached against. You don't win people over by demonizing them.
It's funny how some "sins" need preaching before people even know they're sins. E.g., depending on whose list you use, homosexuality, women wearing pants, TV, drinking, short sleeves, etc. Others seem to be pretty universal: stealing, lying, killing, etc. Anybody here ever have to preach against murder?
Now, that isn't to say that nobody has a problem with stealing or lying. Or killing, for that matter. Obviously, many people do. But I think they usually know it's wrong. But they are tempted, and some give in to it.
But where is the temptation angle, with homosexuality? I've been straight my whole life, never been "tempted" in the area of homosexuality. Born that way, I suppose. It would be completely out of character for me to look at some hunk, or any male, and lust for him. There is no temptation that even needs resisting.
For some guys, it's the other way around. Women don't tempt them. Men do. Nobody just up and decides, "Hey, wouldn't it be fun if I got turned on by another guy?" Not most guys, anyway. Some just have something in their character that gives them that attraction. It's who they are. When they hear the preaching, if they believe it, they think that "who they are" is inherently evil. They want to change. Sometimes they are desperate to change. Most times, they fail, even if they do everything right - trust in God, pray through, lay their burden at His feet, whatever.
It doesn't work. At least in the vast majority of cases. Sometimes, as mentioned before, they pretend it worked, ending up with a devastated family. Sometimes it leads to depression. Sometimes suicide.
I happen to believe that homosexuality is not a sin. But even if it is, wouldn't it be better just to let God take care of it? Don't OPs teach that the Holy Spirit convicts and changes? Someone here the other day said they don't even have to preach about dress standards. The HS takes care of it. Why can't He do that for homosexuality, too? How powerful is He, anyway? How loving is He? If it's important to God, He'll take care of it!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
And some still wonder why the "old timers" preached against going to the prom??
__________________
The Bible is open to those that want Truth, and if they want Truth, they find Truth. They watch individuals squabble over Bible symbolism on the Internet, and leave the Message boards to enter into the real world where live people dwell, and they find Truth. The World Wide Web is full of Internet Ayatollahs who speak their mind. There is only one Truth, and it is not hidden. No matter what anyone says, Truth still converts the sincere. -DD Benincasa, 12/06/03
Antipas, you give excuse for those that don't have a choice, I beg to differ, God is going to judge mankind based upon his choice. I do not see any reason why men couldn't make the choice to abstain from the behavior. The chemical imbalance thing isn't going to work standing before God. Just as poor behavior because of road rage isn't going to work when standing before a traffic judge; what would the judge say to the perp when he says "sorry judge, I have a chemical imbalance whenever I'm on the highway and someone does something to set me off"? Do you think the judge will let him off the hook because there was nothing he could do about the chemical imbalance? Especially if he harms or kills someone,Dude, get real.
I think you’re misinterpreting my position. I fully agree with you, one’s biology doesn’t absolve them of the choices they make. But it does give us a context with which to aid us in how we deal with these individuals. My flesh is hardwired for sin also (though not this sin). I’m responsible to God for my choices to give into those urges. However, no one expects me to stop being who I am. I can’t just choose to be something I’m not. My point is that neither can these individuals. They have a biological or genetic (i.e. fleshly) predisposition or propensity toward this kind of behavior. Knowing that this is a condition that isn’t a “choice”, I’m led to have far more compassion on them and patience with them. I realize that without a miracle that changes their biology they will have these attractions for most of their lives. I can accept the fact that no degree of Christian pop-psychology will change them. I also understand that it would be unwise to condition them to claim to be straight and encourage them to marry to “fix” their problem, knowing that this will most likely end in broken homes as they realize that they are what they are. I won’t demand that they cease being who they are through efforts to “change” themselves. I can admit that their change can only come from a miraculous touch from Jesus. I can advocate self control. I can advocate that they not engage in these behaviors and that they accept a life of celibacy. This doesn’t mean they have to cease having these feelings (they can’t stop these feelings anyway). It does mean that they not act out on them with others. Like anyone who is called to a life without marriage we call them to purity in their current state. In the ancient world they would be admitted to the class of eunuchs and allowed to function in a single, unmarried, individuals. No one would expect them to change and be straight. All that would be expected would be a life of purity and an acceptance of living as a single human being.
I know this position might bother some of our liberal friends and brethren who might even advocate that they be allowed to dwell in monogamous civil unions. I am not yet convinced that the ancient cultural code of the Bible would allow for civil unions or binding covenants between two individuals of the same gender. Though on a political level the only value with civil unions would be in creating a culture in which intercourse, rather sanctioned by Scripture or not, is expected to be kept within the bounds of a social contract. This is what some liberals call the, “Golden Standard of Marriage.”
I think you’re misinterpreting my position. I fully agree with you, one’s biology doesn’t absolve them of the choices they make. But it does give us a context with which to aid us in how we deal with these individuals. My flesh is hardwired for sin also (though not this sin). I’m responsible to God for my choices to give into those urges. However, no one expects me to stop being who I am. I can’t just choose to be something I’m not. My point is that neither can these individuals. They have a biological or genetic (i.e. fleshly) predisposition or propensity toward this kind of behavior. Knowing that this is a condition that isn’t a “choice”, I’m led to have far more compassion on them and patience with them. I realize that without a miracle that changes their biology they will have these attractions for most of their lives. I can accept the fact that no degree of Christian pop-psychology will change them. I also understand that it would be unwise to condition them to claim to be straight and encourage them to marry to “fix” their problem, knowing that this will most likely end in broken homes as they realize that they are what they are. I won’t demand that they cease being who they are through efforts to “change” themselves. I can admit that their change can only come from a miraculous touch from Jesus. I can advocate self control. I can advocate that they not engage in these behaviors and that they accept a life of celibacy. This doesn’t mean they have to cease having these feelings (they can’t stop these feelings anyway). It does mean that they not act out on them with others. Like anyone who is called to a life without marriage we call them to purity in their current state. In the ancient world they would be admitted to the class of eunuchs and allowed to function in a single, unmarried, individuals. No one would expect them to change and be straight. All that would be expected would be a life of purity and an acceptance of living as a single human being.
I know this position might bother some of our liberal friends and brethren who might even advocate that they be allowed to dwell in monogamous civil unions. I am not yet convinced that the ancient cultural code of the Bible would allow for civil unions or binding covenants between two individuals of the same gender. Though on a political level the only value with civil unions would be in creating a culture in which intercourse, rather sanctioned by Scripture or not, is expected to be kept within the bounds of a social contract. This is what some liberals call the, “Golden Standard of Marriage.”
Then why are we arguing? You obviosly misrepresented my words as well.
Why do some people steal and some do not? Why do some people commit adultery and some do not? Why do some people kill and some do not? It is because certain people have certain weaknesses that are there temptations to fight. One doesn't choose to be gay because of his strength to be straight, one chooses to be gay because of a weakness. Just as some people who do not have an issue with not stealing, and not committing adultery, and not killing, and not.......... well, you get my point.
Anyone who has ever worked with the handicapped or the mentally retarded knows that genetics and biology can be a factor in violent and/or irrational or psychotic behavior. This isn’t always a “choice” nor is it a “spirit”. It’s a part of our fallen human biological condition. Down through the centuries the church has believed that nearly every physiological ailment (for example the palsy) was the result of an unclean spirit. But today we in the church know that some cases are spiritual in nature and others are biological. Why couldn’t this also be truth of this condition? Certainly some may have “chosen” this behavior later in life as a result of abuse or unchecked lust (as Paul condemns). However, there may also be those who have struggled with this since they were the smallest of children. These individuals may indeed be bound by their biology and in need of more compassion that we are offering.
The Bible never addresses how we are to deal with those who have been this way from birth or their earliest years. For these individuals this isn’t a “lust” it’s a condition. Paul’s condemnation was aimed at those of the same gender who burned in lust one toward another and abandoned their previous natural interests as a result of their pagan godlessness. But what about a person who was never attracted to the opposite gender? Are these individuals to be viewed as abominations or people struggling with a condition?
My point is that there may be a distinction between those who give themselves over to homosexual lust for the sake of pleasure and those who have never felt heterosexual. No doubt one would even take advantage of the other. I feel saddened at how this can open up the one struggling with this to abuse. For example I’ve heard stories about how a young man might open up to his pastor about this struggle he’s had all his life…and then the pastor seeks to take advantage of him by propositioning the young man. Who’s the sinner? The young man who has never felt straight and is battling this; r the pastor who has been straight for most of his life, is married, but now preys upon this person struggling with this condition?
There may be a difference. I don’t have the answers…I’m just asking the questions.
Hybrid Mode
