To Be or Not to Be a ****sexual

[Bob Carabbio]

The position of the AoG as espoused by the Southwestern ***embly of God University in Waxahachie appears to be that they DO NOT claim that "all ****sexuals are ****sexual by choice", and allow for a natural "flawed gender ***ociation".

They also state accurately that there are any number of "Natural Heterosexual Behaviors" that persons can (and do) engage in that are sinful.

IN THAT light, a "Natural ****sexuality" (whether it exists or not) really doesn't cons***ute any sort of argument for justification of ****sexual/lesbian ACTIVITY - which is ALWAYS and without exception represented as "sinful" behavior in the Bible.

ALL "Sexual sin" is at issue, and ****sexuality isn't a "Super sin" - just another sinful activity that sinful humans fall into - naturally - it's our nature to sin.

What's fascinating to me is that the Stereotypical "effeminate man" - and the "Masculine Woman" are likely to be the PHYSICAL result of known chromosomal disorders which in extreme cases result in sterility, and A-sexuality - no sexual orientation AT ALL without hormonal treatments.

And like or not, a significant percentage of live births are "gender ambiguous" to one degree or another - in some cases to the extent that the hospital is simply incapable without chemical testing of determining the sex of a newborn through an examination of the genitalia.

[BrotherBrian]

Originally Posted by Columcille

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...unions_en.html


I therefore would reject any Catholic who says that they are ****sexual, yet are chaste. They can allude to the fact that they have lustful desires, but they should never claim to be "****sexual" as James clearly demonstrates in 1.13-14.

Hi Columcille,

I'm new here, but wanted to ask you, what term would you find acceptable for someone who was celibate, Christian, and yet never had any sexual attraction to members of the opposite gender, and always have had sexual attraction exclusively to members of the same gender? Thanks for your thoughts!

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by BrotherBrian

Hi Columcille,

I'm new here, but wanted to ask you, what term would you find acceptable for someone who was celibate, Christian, and yet never had any sexual attraction to members of the opposite gender, and always have had sexual attraction exclusively to members of the same gender? Thanks for your thoughts!

To answer your question, I would not call them anything but what you just described. Celibate and Christian. The deeper aspects of our iden***y is more than just our fleshly bodies. Better the person not reflect on "orientation" and focus more on practicing relational aspects and virtues with and toward the Lord.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm

I think the above link describes a little about the human and divine virtues. Cardinal and theological virtues. Prudence, Justice, For***ude, and Temperance along with Faith, Hope, and Charity (love of an agape sort).

Trinity,
I've seen the video of the lesbians going into a Christian church and throwing out condoms and yelling Jesus is Gay and kissing. There was even one caught on camera of a ****sexual actually hitting a lady who was a Christian. I have not seen the violence you are suggestion by mainstream Christian groups. Even when there are rougue professing Christians, the Christian churches in America will state their condemnation of such acts. I have not condoned any verbal or physical abuse of the ****sexual. I think because my position shows for***ude, that you mistake that to be something of a vice. You stated the following Trinity:

According to your cons***ution the state and religion should be separate

There is no cons***utional "seperation of Church and State." The United States Cons***ution does not endorse any religion, but does not say to the politicians who are elected and have in their campaign maintained their religious integrity to keep their moral views as held by their religion to sit at the door when they sit down to vote what is before them or to be silent when they is presenting their case before the rest of the Congress. I think it rather an unfair advantage of the Christian to always have to compromise his integrity when he become a politican, but the other folks to advance their own cause. After so much expecting the conservative to give up so much, there comes a time that the conservative has nothing left, and so they must redefine conservativism. You can replace "conservative" and "conservativism" and replace it with whatever you want... compromise of this nature that seeks to moralize the once immoral is a heresy that God does not take lightly, and I sincerely hope you are not part of the same address to the church of Laodicea or of Sardis.

[BrotherBrian]

Originally Posted by Columcille

To answer your question, I would not call them anything but what you just described. Celibate and Christian. The deeper aspects of our iden***y is more than just our fleshly bodies. Better the person not reflect on "orientation" and focus more on practicing relational aspects and virtues with and toward the Lord.

Thanks for your thoughts. Can I ask, then what if the person is celibate and Christian and attracted exclusively to members of the opposite gender? Would you be opposed to calling them heterosexual? If not, then why do you oppose calling someone who is celibate and Christian and yet attracted exclusively to members of the same gender ****sexual? It seems to be a disconnect in the Church that somehow even identifying oneself as ****sexual is just as grave an error as someone engaged in ****sexual expressions. Yet we don't see that dicotomy when it comes to one who is heterosexual, even those who engage in heterosexual expressions.

It seems to be a double standard. In other words, the Church seems to treat all sin equally, but to even identify as a sinner in need of grace is only permissable when that person is heterosexual, because to be ****sexual and Christian is viewed as doctrinally impossible, even though the church recognizes there are indeed people in the world who do identify exclusively as ****sexual, not in an effort to identify with a sinful behavior, but to be honest about the nature of their particular nature.

It seems that the Church would rather ****sexuals be dishonest with members of the ***embly and say they are heterosexual or celibate, and actually inadvertently teach it is better to lie, which is as grievous a sin as any. One of the 10 Commandments is thou shall not lie, but there are no commandments saying, thou shall not be ****sexual, and if you are then thou shall lie about it.

What's a gay Christian to do when approaching the church for guidance in this manner? Yes, I am gay, and yes I am Christian, and yes I am celibate.

Not trying to set you up with a trick question here, just really confused as to how a gay person is to navigate Christianity if we cannot even be honest about who we are. Thanks in advance for your time.

[Columcille]

Brother Brian, it should be enough to state one's gender and leave it at that. Genesis 1.27c "Male and female he created them." I find it rather annoying to have to tell people I am white, male, or something rather obvious. There is really no need for people to parade around saying I am a heterosexual or a ****sexual. It serves no purpose except to agitate, or even more annoying still as a means of a frank pick-up line. Anyone have to say "I am a heterosexual" in a normal conversation, I find it a little awkward.

[BrotherBrian]

Originally Posted by BrotherBrian

Thanks for your thoughts. Can I ask, then what if the person is celibate and Christian and attracted exclusively to members of the opposite gender? Would you be opposed to calling them heterosexual? If not, then why do you oppose calling someone who is celibate and Christian and yet attracted exclusively to members of the same gender ****sexual? It seems to be a disconnect in the Church that somehow even identifying oneself as ****sexual is just as grave an error as someone engaged in ****sexual expressions. Yet we don't see that dicotomy when it comes to one who is heterosexual, even those who engage in heterosexual expressions.

It seems to be a double standard. In other words, the Church seems to treat all sin equally, but to even identify as a sinner in need of grace is only permissable when that person is heterosexual, because to be ****sexual and Christian is viewed as doctrinally impossible, even though the church recognizes there are indeed people in the world who do identify exclusively as ****sexual, not in an effort to identify with a sinful behavior, but to be honest about the nature of their particular nature.

It seems that the Church would rather ****sexuals be dishonest with members of the ***embly and say they are heterosexual or celibate, and actually inadvertently teach it is better to lie, which is as grievous a sin as any. One of the 10 Commandments is thou shall not lie, but there are no commandments saying, thou shall not be ****sexual, and if you are then thou shall lie about it.

What's a gay Christian to do when approaching the church for guidance in this manner? Yes, I am gay, and yes I am Christian, and yes I am celibate.

Not trying to set you up with a trick question here, just really confused as to how a gay person is to navigate Christianity if we cannot even be honest about who we are. Thanks in advance for your time.

Originally Posted by Columcille

Brother Brian, it should be enough to state one's gender and leave it at that. Genesis 1.27c "Male and female he created them." I find it rather annoying to have to tell people I am white, male, or something rather obvious. There is really no need for people to parade around saying I am a heterosexual or a ****sexual. It serves no purpose except to agitate, or even more annoying still as a means of a frank pick-up line. Anyone have to say "I am a heterosexual" in a normal conversation, I find it a little awkward.

Thanks for the response....I find your explanation did not actually answer my questions though.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker

****sexuality continues to be a hot topic in many forms of media.

Indeed.

How is it viewed in the Christian sect?

There are MANY Christian 'sects' (in my view); and surely not all who are "Christian" view ****sexuality in the exact same ways, nor do that 'handle' it as such.

Some people say that they are born as a ****sexual.

They say that most times, because they have valid reasons to claim the same. It is fair to say, that those of various religious doctrines or mindsets, may not necessarily agree with such claims. Still, that should not ultimately diminish the human rights of those who happen to be ****sexual.

Do you agree with this view?

I would agree that some people may be able to "choose" their sexual-orientation, but generally think that many and most do not have any conscious opportunity to do so.

Or, is it a choice?

What many decide to do as a course of living may indeed be "choice" but I cannot see how most ****sexual people could choose their sexual-orientation.

Many churches are welcoming and accepting ****sexuals.

I believe that is reasonable; I see no evidence that Jesus rejected ****sexual people, as many churches do even today. Not to say that He would agree that ****sexual expressions were 'correct', but that Jesus is not evidenced to be against all ****sexual PEOPLE as many (not all) Christian clearly are today.

According to the Bible, ****sexuals will not enter into heaven.

Really, that depends upon various translations and interpretations. I ultimately think that it (being in Heaven) is between The Lord and the individual human being. That determined by the interpretation to others; I don't believe it is.

It seems God is casting judgment on them, even though they cannot help it. Do you agree or disagree?

I personally cannot think that I would understand "God". I also believe that many who think they understand God, likely do not; it is a human limitation. Even so, I think that the BEST things are those tools Jesus encouraged in all who would consider Him.

Nevertheless, I don't see any cookie-cutter-cut, perfected answers in "words" we can offer humanity; but that the essence of Christ's love remain the primary and positively-affective component of what many would refer to as "Christianity". Beyond that, I think we can and should share our opinions, views and beliefs... in that same love.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker

Some people say that they are born as a ****sexual. Do you agree with this view? Or, is it a choice?

a moot point.

it does not matter what you were born with a predisposition toward, the bible is clear in teaching that ****sexual acts are a sin, and therefore you are to avoid them....case closed.

[alanmolstad]

I think I will tell a story that opened my eyes on this topic...

[alanmolstad]

in our church we have speakers come in and give talks about different issues of the day.
one time a person came to talk to us about the local "Home for Boys", run by the catholic monastery.

One of the Brothers of the monastery come to talk to us about the Home.
After the talk, (intended to build support for the Home within the community ) there was a time set aside for Q&A.

A question was asked about the type of boys at the Home?
And the answer was surprising...

I had ***umed that most of the young boys where there because that had lost their parents and had no place else to go, but I was wrong.

It turns out that the vast majority of boys at this home where there because that had committed many sexual crimes and were listed as repeat sexual offenders.

We then learned what they did at this Home to help the boys .
and that is what i wanted to tell you guys here now.

the Brother was asked if "counseling" actually helped any of the boys that were sexual offenders?
The Brother's answer was not what I expected....


The Brother asked me if i was a confirmed Heterosexual ?
I answered that i was.

Then the Brother asked me if I thought that any "counseling" would ever be able to change that and change me into being a guy who was sexually attracted to boys?

My answer was a definite "NO!"

The Brother then pointed out to me , that although I'm never going to be other than a strictly Heterosexual , yet because I also am married I have found that I have been able to "control" my more wild Heterosexual proclivities and thus am not subject to the more base animal sexual nature inside me.

This is what is the hope for the staff there also at the Home for boys.



From this i came away with the following conclusion-
I came away with the idea that when i hear people debating over the question of "Born Gay Or Not?" I have a different answer than most Christians...

My answer is..."Its a moot point"....."It does not matter"...""The bible is clearly speaking to the evils of ****sexual acts, and so even if you are born gay it does not mean you are doomed to be forever in sin"

For i believe that regardless we have the ability to limit our actions to conform to accepted behaviors.

[alanmolstad]

and....I think the AZ law would have been a bad idea.

I think it was a bad idea for a law from the start, and would have only served to bring out the darker side of our human nature.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

in our church we have speakers come in and give talks about different issues of the day.
one time a person came to talk to us about the local "Home for Boys", run by the catholic monastery.

One of the Brothers of the monastery come to talk to us about the Home.
After the talk, (intended to build support for the Home within the community ) there was a time set aside for Q&A.

A question was asked about the type of boys at the Home?
And the answer was surprising...

I had ***umed that most of the young boys where there because that had lost their parents and had no place else to go, but I was wrong.

It turns out that the vast majority of boys at this home where there because that had committed many sexual crimes and were listed as repeat sexual offenders.

We then learned what they did at this Home to help the boys .
and that is what i wanted to tell you guys here now.

the Brother was asked if "counseling" actually helped any of the boys that were sexual offenders?
The Brother's answer was not what I expected....


The Brother asked me if i was a confirmed Heterosexual ?
I answered that i was.

Then the Brother asked me if I thought that any "counseling" would ever be able to change that and change me into being a guy who was sexually attracted to boys?

My answer was a definite "NO!"

The Brother then pointed out to me , that although I'm never going to be other than a strictly Heterosexual , yet because I also am married I have found that I have been able to "control" my more wild Heterosexual proclivities and thus am not subject to the more base animal sexual nature inside me.

This is what is the hope for the staff there also at the Home for boys.



From this i came away with the following conclusion-
I came away with the idea that when i hear people debating over the question of "Born Gay Or Not?" I have a different answer than most Christians...

My answer is..."Its a moot point"....."It does not matter"...""The bible is clearly speaking to the evils of ****sexual acts, and so even if you are born gay it does not mean you are doomed to be forever in sin"

For i believe that regardless we have the ability to limit our actions to conform to accepted behaviors.

another of one of my better posts!

[DrDavidT]

I was reading Tony Compolo's book red Letter Christians recently and in it he state that ****sexuals have been ****sexuals for so long that they do not remember it being a choice. ****sexuality is a choice and it is a deception, like transgenderism is, from evil. It is part of its plan to ruin and destroy God's creation