Sexual immorality abounds

[Gail]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Homosexuals are sexually active, and are able to reach organism.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am going to chalk that up to typo... LOL

[Amelia]

RoFL

[jasd]

>>What is it that makes you think that Christ was refering to homosexuals.<<

Actually, Gregory Matthews, I really don’t think that Jesus was saying that there are some men formed in their mother’s womb without stones. I think the text is most properly read as -- there are some men whose spirit is female and that it is so from the womb. I think Christ’s words in Matthew 19 support an argument for “gender orientation” more than it does any other aspect of homosexuality that is currently dialogued on this thread.

“Homosexuality” is a rather complicated issue with too many variants and facets -- making systematic categorization difficult.

>>Homosexuals are sexually active,…<<

I suppose most are.

>>…and are able to reach organism.<<

You see, what do I know of the ‘gay’ community…? I had no idea. [/kidding Matthews]

>>Oriental history is clear as to the role that eunuch played in court affairs…<<

Mary Renault did a memorable treat on the subject with her historical novel of The Persian Boy and Alexander the Great. Speaking of the Oriental…

without purport as to how the word ought to be defined in OT literature, there is

Jer. 34:19 The princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed …

Notice the hierarchical placement of the eunuchs…

Lastly, I have met many gay people and as a lot those whom I’ve met were justifiably admirable people, deserving of respect -- even being more ‘Christian’ than a whole lot of nominal ‘Christians’ I’ve met; and yes,

there are those that embrace the gay lifestyle who would have no difficulty disengaging -- and others for whom it would prove wrenchingly difficult and might

oughta be met in Christ-like reflection.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I am going to chalk that up to typo... LOL"

It was not the first. It will not be the last.

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Gregroy and happy thanksgiving to you and your family.

I have been busy the last few days and did not have the time to post what I wanted. I will be brief this as we have to leave and go visit family today.

If gay people are so by “orientation” then you have just created a group of people for whom salvation is not provided without works. Not only must they believe the gospel but they cannot be saved unless they never give in to their “orientation.” There’s nothing new under the sun and the human wisdom that promotes orientation is only doing harm to those poor lost souls who are looking for acceptance so much, that they will believe a lie.

Tell them the truth and let them run to the Savior like all of us and He will save them and transform them so that they can be free of this completely. I say this respectfully; using Paul’s thorn in the flesh as an example to relate to ones “orientation” shows that you don’t understand human nature, the nature of sin and the power of God to change us. Paul was specifically permitted to endure that thorn in the flesh to keep him humble.

We are in the field of saving souls not looking to human wisdom for answers to make people feel good so they’ll accept Christ. (This wisdom is flawed due to the agenda of the gay activists) This is only perpetuating the selfishness within. If left to themselves they cannot sustain life and this is not productive, this is selfish to the point of self destruction.

I say it again, there are not three genders; male, female and gay. You also used schizophrenia as an example to show try and prove that “orientation” is like that. Well it is in a sense in that (as I have said since we started this discussion) it is either a mental illness, demon possession or a choice, it is not natural. Again if it is natural, then you have created a class of people that cannot be saved without works; without abstaining from the “nature.” They must abstain, (according to the theory you believe) because if they don’t then they are committing and abomination. Sexual sins are different then other sins as Paul states (1Co 6:18 "Avoid immorality. Any other sin a man commits does not affect his body; but the man who is guilty of sexual immorality sins against his own body.)" GNB This is a serious matter. I have other points to make but will spare the long posts for today.

God bless you Gregory

Norman

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "If gay people are so by “orientation” then you have just created a group of people for whom salvation is not provided without works. Not only must they believe the gospel but they cannot be saved unless they never give in to their “orientation.” There’s nothing new under the sun and the human wisdom that promotes orientation is only doing harm to those poor lost souls who are looking for acceptance so much, that they will believe a lie."

You may believe that.

I do not.

God's plan of salvation is sufficient to save, and within the frame of reference that I beleive.

I am time limited, and must go now.

[Gregory Matthews]

While going about my business, and that of other people, today a wonderful thought came to me.

I will reference this with personal reference to Norman. I will make some assumptions about him, but if I am wrong, Normam can correct them. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Assumptions:

1) Norman is a heterosexual.

2) At some time in the past, after Norman reached sexual maturation, and Norman was unmarried, he was celebate.

Question:

Norman at that time when you were celebate, were you a heterosexual?

You see, some, and they have included people other than Norman, who have informed us that a homosexual who was no longer sexually active with people of the same gender was no longer a homosexual.

If that is true, would the same apply to a heterosexual? Is a heterosexual, no longer sexually active with people of the opposite gender, now no longer a heterosexual?

It would seem to me that if the one is accurate, so also should be the other.

Sorry to pick on you, Norman, but it makes a point, even if not exactly the point that you would have made.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "If gay people are so by “orientation” then you have just created a group of people for whom salvation is not provided without works. Not only must they believe the gospel but they cannot be saved unless they never give in to their “orientation.” There’s nothing new under the sun and the human wisdom that promotes orientation is only doing harm to those poor lost souls who are looking for acceptance so much, that they will believe a lie."

I do not desire to get into a theological discussion in the level represented here. But, I will say that the above, and other elements of that post contain theological representations thet are not mine.

I do not say to unmarried heterosexuals that they will never find salvation unless they never give in to their orientation, while unmarried. If I do not say such to heterosexuals, why would I say so to a homosexual?

There are some Seventh-day Adventists who may believe that they can not find salvation unless they never give in to their pet sins. But, that is not my belief. It is not the teaching of the SDA Church. Such beleife is basicly a denial of the power of God to save. Rather salvation teaches that Jesus Christ is powerful enough to resolve the sin problem. It does not say that JC can only do so with people who never give in to their pet sin.

[Amelia]

How did this get from kids to homosexuals?

[Bravus]

It started with sex in society generally, and has threadjacked off in all directions... Apparently straight sex isn't interesting enough.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Apparently straight sex isn't interesting enough.

---

And crooked sex is????

[Bravus]

to parahrase Ed D's sig line: "There's no straight sex for crooked people?" <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Gregory,

Quote:

---

Assumptions:

1) Norman is a heterosexual.

2) At some time in the past, after Norman reached sexual maturation, and Norman was unmarried, he was celebate.

Question:

Norman at that time when you were celebate, were you a heterosexual?

---

Gregory, the premise of your question is based on falsehoods. You assume that orientation is a valid & absolute science. There are too many variables to use this so called science to define human conditions and sexuality, not to mention Christian morality.

To answer your example of heterosexual Norman reaching sexual maturity and abstaining from sex, proving that I am a heterosexual male, I would say that I would be a male virgin.

The history of sexuality and specifically the categorizing of sexuality are founded on evolution and someone’s attempt at normalizing male / male sexual relations.

Hetero- comes from the Greek word heteros, meaning "different" (for other uses, see heterozygote, heterogeneous), and the Latin for sex (that is, characteristic sex or sexual differentiation). The term "heterosexual" was coined shortly after and opposite to the word "homosexual" by Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1868 and was first published in 1869. [2] "Heterosexual" was first listed in Merriam-Websters's New International Dictionary as a medical term for "morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex", but in 1934 in their Second Edition Unabridged it is a "manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality". (Katz, 1995)

. The motivation of Karl Maria Kertbeny’s study was the suicide a male friend of his who did so because he was being blackmailed because of his sinful behavior of having sex with another or other men. He thought that this was unjust that his friend and others should be treated that way and wanted to rid the world of this animosity towards men who wanted to have sex with other men. (Note there is a big difference in the way AA was started. AA was to help the drunk overcome where as this was done to normalize perversion) This has a lot to do with the beginning of the gay activist movement that we have today, who are trying to tell us and our kids that it’s ok to be in love with the same sex. They seek to push us into accepting their idea that marriage to the same sex is ok and that if it is not accepted then we, (specifically Christians) are the ones who have a problem of bigotry.

I am happy to tell you (just because I don’t want you to be misled) that this movement (starting with Karl Maria Kertbeny) has been lying to us and that can to adhere to the Biblical definitions of sexuality.

We have the mention of David and Jonathan loving one another more than the love of a man for a woman. 2Sa 1:26 "I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan; how dear you were to me! How wonderful was your love for me, better even than the love of women.”

This is called deep friendship, they could do so because of the morals and self control that they possessed. The problem we are seeing today is lack of self-control, empowered by a self pitying and self defeating mindset of western culture that leads to deception and rejection of God’s word. Remember expression deepens impression and if a man is told that he is a homosexual and he believes it he will tell himself this over and over in order to overcome the guilt and shame he will naturally come to experience.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Maria_Kertbeny

for more on this.

Norman

[Amelia]

STOP, STOP JUST STOP

It's obvious that this morph the thread has taken is just going to go round in circles with no one convincing anyone of the other. Can we move on?

Everyone go read my blog. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Gregory,

Quote:

---

I do not say to unmarried heterosexuals that they will never find salvation unless they never give in to their orientation, while unmarried. If I do not say such to heterosexuals, why would I say so to a homosexual?

---

You said this at the beginning of our discussion

Quote:

---

Being homosexual is no more a choice than is my heterosexuality a choice of mine.

Our gender orientation often came to us at birth. As such, I have to say that it is NOT a sin to be a homosexual. It is a condition that will last a lifetime.

The practice of homosexuality is different from being a homosexual

---

and I said

"If gay people are so by “orientation” then you have just created a group of people for whom salvation is not provided without works. Not only must they believe the gospel but they cannot be saved unless they never give in to their “orientation.” There’s nothing new under the sun and the human wisdom that promotes orientation is only doing harm to those poor lost souls who are looking for acceptance so much, that they will believe a lie."

This was in direct reponse to this

Quote:

---

The practice of homosexuality is different from being a homosexual

---

Considering that this behavior and thinking is an abomination to God, you have no choice but to add something to the Gospel for them. They must not think or do anything along these lines and since they are constantly battling this problem they must be saved by the Gospel and their efforts. They become a catagory unto themselves if this theory is true. Do you not see that?

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Amelia,

I want you to know that I enjoy this discussion with Gregory and have no bad feelings at all towards him or anyone. I say this so that you don't think that Gregory and I are having a "fight" of any sorts.

As a result of this topic I have learned a lot and am thankful for the privledge of being able to discuss this with a person like Gregory, who has a good mind.

I am tenacious when I find something that interests me. That tenacity has to be controlled though, as I can tell you that in the past I used to play video games for hours and hours. (Now I wish I had spent those hours in study)

ciao for now.

Norman

[Robert]

Homosexual...heterosexual, hmmm?

Here's the way I see it: The nature I have belongs to the camp of Lucifer. It is perverted and it is self-loving. I have a nature that, outside God's influence, could drive me to being a "dog"...sleeping with as many women as possible. I, like all males, was born with this warped, egocentric driver whose primary purpose is concerned with what it can get out of life....You know, me, me, me!

So by nature my sex drive is perverted. God never intended me to lust after any woman....His intent was for me to love one woman for life. So you could say by nature I am a "[censored]" Does that mean I have to be controlled by those lusts and desires? No!

Why does God look at the heart...the intent? Because that's where He sees our mindset...our character...our motivation. The heart really refers to mind...its desires and emotions. So in my mind...in my heart I have said goodbye to the desires of the flesh, but too many times when the rubber meets the road the flesh gets its way.....

Let's quickly look at what Paul states (this is important issue):

Romans 7:18 For I [that is, "I" in my mind] know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh....

[skipping to Paul's conclusion:]

Verse 21 So I find this law [a force...like the law of gravity] at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

22 For in my inner being I [my mind] delights in God’s law; 23 but I see another law [other than my mind...my willpower] at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

Paul here is speaking of the converted man....His mind is in harmony with the principles of God's law, but his flesh...his nature strongly opposes it.

His point? The converted mind...the law written on the heart...is no match for the flesh. It is there where all sexual perversions, lust, hate and greed has its center. As Mark says, "For from within, out of men’s hearts [the mind controlled by the flesh], come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery...."

So yes...just as heterosexual males are born with an appetite to go from one woman to another, homosexuals have the same perverted appetite only in the unnatural sense.

The solution to the desires of the flesh?

Jesus Christ:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

To those failing (and we all do) to live the good life, well, what are your intentions....Where is you heart? For those whose mind is in harmony with God, but whose flesh keeps taking them down...God has something to say:

"There is no condemnation for those 'in Christ'"!

Why?

Verse 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.

Please note the past tense! "In Christ" my old humanity came to an end because "in Him" it was set free from indwelling sin [the law of sin] and eternal damnation [the 2nd death]. That's the good news..., but there's more:

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do:

The law...be it "the law of God" or "the law of my mind" [my willpower] cannot defeat the flesh....Who can?

[God] sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and because of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh [He defeated the desires of the flesh],

Why?

4 so that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

For those who live according to the flesh [i.e., condone and practice what it desires] set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

Okay...by nature we are sinners...all of us, but by God's grace as we walk in the Spirit we can experience the liberating power from flesh. So you can't say that a person, defined by his heart, is once a homosexual, always a homosexual. Yes...nature wise, but God looks at the mind...the character....

I know...

[Fran]

To no one in particular:

Intersexuality

Where do we fit in the Intersexual person?

Where do we fit the 47xxy/ 46xy male person that has Klinefelter Syndrome?

What about being externally male but have ovaries and PMS? Where do these folks fit in the scheme of things?

This affects 1:1,000 births and in 1:500 male births! It is not that uncommon.

Many are attracted to males. Since they have more female tendencies than male, are they homosexual?

What are they: male or female? They are neither one. They are Intersexual and born that way. It is not a choice. It is in the chromosomes. Sometimes a book can not be read by the cover only.

[Gregory Matthews]

Amelia, I think that both Norman and I consider the other to be our friend, and a worthy opponent.

I doubt that either of us expects at this point to be able to convince the other to change their position,no matter how wrong that might be. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> But, I think that each if us is interested to see how the other responds to what the other has said. Such can be a learning point for us. I have learned in this discussion. That is part of what I like in discussions such as this that are carried on with vigor, and respect for the other. I learn more as to what the other thinks.

I do not expect that either of this will carry this discussion on forever. We ae basicly bringing up new points, and waiting to see how the other responds. So, it will probably die out sooner or later. But, that will likely be when we both decide that we have covered all of the areas of discussion that we want to talk about at this time.

Maybe later we will begin again?

Have a good Sabbath, both you, Amelia, and Norman.

[Gregory Matthews]

Fran:

You raise several questions, and not just one. So, there may be more than one resposne. Anyway, here are my responses to your very valid questions:

1) I have some knowledge regarding some of the issues that you raise. But, I believe that my knowledge is so limited that I probably am unable to make an intelligent resposne.

2) You reference situations (conditions) in which I would not call the person homosexual.

3) Is gender determined by: a) outward sexual organs? inner sexual organs? c) factors that may also include the brain/mind?

NOTE: I raise what I consider to be valid quesitons, but, do not concude any specific personal answer to this questions from me.

[Beryl]

Robert, know that you and I hove often disagreed on a subject, but this time I find your post to be spot on!

God bless,

Beryl

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Here's the way I see it: The nature I have belongs to the camp of Lucifer. It is perverted and it is self-loving. I have a nature that, outside God's influence, could drive me to being a "dog"...sleeping with as many women as possible. I, like all males, was born with this warped, egocentric driver whose primary purpose is concerned with what it can get out of life....You know, me, me, me!

---

I think you are drastically exagerating the situation.

Both by nature and reason, men are NOT driven to have intercourse with as many other people as possible. It is very VERY rare to come across a non-christian male OR female with this attitude.

Most people determine fairly early that the best way to achieve the "me me me" goal is actually to join a team, a strong team, and especially to have a bond, a strong bond, with a mate.

Remember that the divorce rate within and outside organized christianity is much the same... and that is with the strong social pressures inside NOT to divorce...

This "woe is me, everything I do and am is disgusting" attitude is not Biblical. It is an early perversion of Christianity from about the 100-200AD era - the same time the celebate-is-holy nonsense got introduced.

Both have survived because the adherents don't want to admit they have been stupid, so they defend and proselatize like crazy, while the opponents feel bound by the rules of polite society to refrain from saying out loud...

1 - God made us smart

2 - God made us sexual

3 - That the monogamous marriage of two sensible people usually produces a wealthy, pleasant, and productive life for both

4 - it is odd that the people sitting around moaning how flawed they are don't realize that [:"red"]since they are so badly flawed, obviously their ideas are badly flawed also[/]

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Both by nature and reason, men are NOT driven to have intercourse with as many other people as possible. It is very VERY rare to come across a non-christian male OR female with this attitude."

Bevin, you are basicly correct in this. Such, of course does not mean that non-Christians, are celebate while un-married, or that they always remain faithful to their spouse. But, the normal person, to include non-Christian, is not seeking to have sexual intercourse with as many people as possible. People who do such are typically considered to be in need of counseling.

[Paula]

I've been wondering if I should join this discussion or not... but here goes.

While I do believe that sex was given to us by God, and that it is something holy and righteous and special between a godly husband and wife, the reality is that there is something to what Robert is saying as well. While I disagree with Paul's statement against marriage (can you imagine if the early Christians had followed his directions? They all would have died out.), I think we all must admit that sex IS a big problem for many of the married couples in our churches. Sin HAS perverted, not only sex, but all of us, and I am sure that many many couples struggle with these perversions. Of course no one talks about it, because no one wants to admit to having to deal with it, but the church really needs to open its eyes and minister to this problem. I know too many wives in the church who must deal with their Sexually addicted SDA husbands. Even wives who's husbands are in the ministry. No one can truly know the heartache of living with a husband who wants to spend time on the internet looking at porn. Or worse, the husband who pressures his wife to look at porn with him to spice up their marriage, and when she expresses concern that it is wrong, and won't really help their marriage, she is told that she is a prude, that she is frigid, that theres nothing wrong with it if they do it together... and this is what she deals with on at least a weekly basis. I know another lady whos SDA husband wants to have anal sex with her. They've been married 10 years and about 5 years into their marriage, after having him constantly complain that she was a prude, and that she was frigid, and that she was no fun in the bedroom, she finally gave in because she just wanted to please her husband, she wanted him to find her sexy and exciting and enticing (for thats really what all wives want, for their husbands to be 100% fulfilled by them). She said, I thought we would do it (he had never done it before with any of his many "girfriends"), and that would be the end of it. Well now, 5 years later, he still wants to do it at least once a month. Even though he knows that she feels it is sinful, even though once its over HE feels it was sinful and prays for God to forgive them, etc.. (though she said that at first he was riddled with guilt, but lately he's been saying that maybe its not really wrong.. that its only wrong between a man and a man... he's even gone as far as to search the web for problems that this may cause a woman, and since he found none... hes starting to feel its ok... and is getting mad at her when she feels horrible after the fact)... This same lady told me that he just purchased a webcame, and wants to broadcast them having intercourse (he won't show their faces, so its not really wrong!!). She told him that they could do a video for him, that he could watch of the two of them together, but that she wasn't going to do something that would be shown to others, but this wasn't enough for him. He also has asked her to go swinging, and to have a woman come to their house so they could have a threesome. And when she tells him that its wrong, he calls her a prude, frigid, etc... he emotionally destroys her, in order to have her do what he wants... and whats worse, they have 5 kids, she is a stay at home mom, who has no means of supporting herself, doesn't own a car, and can't even kick him out. He is involved in the ministry, and when his "episodes" as she calls them are over (it seems that this goes in cycles, he'll be fine for a month or two and not want to do anything wrong... in fact he gets so scared of what he is going to do, that he trys to even stay away from having sex), then when he gets into his Sexual Addict "episodes" he'll go for 2 or 3 months wanting more and more, crazier, sleazier sex... then when the rollercoaster ride is over, she says that he cries, and laments how weak he is, etc.. etc... but he doesn't change. And because this is a sickness,and he is such a great guy when he is not having his crises, she feels bad about kicking him out. Also, he has never betrayed her with another woman. He says that he loves her, and that he would never be unfaithful, that having a 3some or a 4 some with another couple wouldn't be cheating cause they would be having a fun adventure together, but that to go outside of the marriage would be wrong. And she says that she believes 100% that he is faithful. While she has not allowed him to bring anyone from outside into their bed, and she has not allowed him to publish their acts on the internet, I wonder how much longer she'll be able to stand her ground. I cannot imagine the thought of living with someone, and wanting to live with them for 50, 60 years, knowing you will be dealing with this always. She has no family, very few close friends (he tends to isolate her from people). I am the only person she has confided in, and she won't think of coming to stay with us. Our home is only 1200 square feet, and hardly fits the 5 of us, so she feels that to come here with her 5 kids, wouldn't work and she would just end up going back home again. And anyways, she doesn't want a divorce, she wants God to change him. And she wants to be enough for him (physically), and she wants to be enticing and fulfilling. And so, while she suffers when she gives in to please him, she also suffers when she doesn't, because then she is rejected.

All this to say that, yeah sex can be amazing between a couple, but for many more SDA's than you imagine, it IS a burden, it IS a pain, it IS destruction. It is where the devil wreaks havoc on the lives of parents, and by extension their children. It is where the "couples retreats" and family ministry should be focusing... but no one does. Everyone, from the leadership on up, to the individual members, pretends that it doesn't happen, and so people go on, struggling with their sinful desires, and dealing with their sinful spouses, all the while we pretend that sex is not a problem in the church, unless you are single and having it out of wedlock. Instead of worrying about the homosexuals, we need to clean our own house. We need to have guidance for those who are part of the flock. We've had couples retreats where one pastor comes and says that oral sex is ok. Then 3 months later another pastor comes to do a couples retreat and tells us that oral sex is wrong. Then another comes and says that Ellen White was against it (but then again, she was pretty much agaisnt sex)... then comes another and says that in Song of Solomon there is an act of oral sex that is described, and that proves that it is ok, and on and on and on. Some come and say that the marriage bed is undefiled, and that this means that once you are married, you can do anything you want in bed... Another came and said that only missionary position is allowable. And while our leaders are only worried about positions and oral sex, our members are having to deal with hardcore sexual problems. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

[cricket]

Paula,

Thank you so much for posting this. It is a topic that well deserves discussion in this Internet forum.

As Stan so often says, courage!

Chrys