So are gays/lesbians nonelects? How do people become gays/lesbians?

[Jon777]

The vast majority of Christians do not mean to be hateful but are trying to hate the sin while loving the sinner, in how they understand the standard set by the word of God. Sometimes it sounds angry and nasty, but I sincerely do not believe they actually mean it that way. Considering this I believe there are a couple of well-known concepts at play on this subject.

The idiom sometimes phrased “walk a mile in my shoes” is generally considered to mean instead of quick judgment, you’re asked to consider what it would feel like to live with another person’s problems, pressures, and history.

There is another term in psychology, “projection” in a sense meaning that we use our own inner experience to guess what others feel (“I know how I look when I’m sad, so I infer you’re sad”).

The typical man has at times experienced erotic or sexual thoughts about another male. If he is Christian, he will view it as a temptation which he quickly refuses to consider. I suppose that to this man it is legitimately considered a temptation. He then views anyone with any degree of homosexual orientation as in his own experience, he projects onto others what he experiences and to the vast majority of Christian men, this projection is fairly accurate. But for one man’s constitution that is exclusively desire for another man, it is not a temptation to be denied and it cannot be denied or changed. Yet it will still be viewed as a choice by most Christian men.

The BibleHub has a presentation of a type of projection in scripture:
https://biblehub.com/topical/p/projection.htm

There is a theological viewpoint on the topic under discussion and I quote it:

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270
The ethics of sex : Thielicke, Helmut, 1908-1986 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I’ll not continue on this subject as I have fully expressed my biblical and psychological understanding of this complicated issue.

 

[steve63]

The vast majority of Christians do not mean to be hateful but are trying to hate the sin while loving the sinner, in how they understand the standard set by the word of God. Sometimes it sounds angry and nasty, but I sincerely do not believe they actually mean it that way. Considering this I believe there are a couple of well-known concepts at play on this subject.

The idiom sometimes phrased “walk a mile in my shoes” is generally considered to mean instead of quick judgment, you’re asked to consider what it would feel like to live with another person’s problems, pressures, and history.

There is another term in psychology, “projection” in a sense meaning that we use our own inner experience to guess what others feel (“I know how I look when I’m sad, so I infer you’re sad”).

The typical man has at times experienced erotic or sexual thoughts about another male. If he is Christian, he will view it as a temptation which he quickly refuses to consider. I suppose that to this man it is legitimately considered a temptation. He then views anyone with any degree of homosexual orientation as in his own experience, he projects onto others what he experiences and to the vast majority of Christian men, this projection is fairly accurate. But for one man’s constitution that is exclusively desire for another man, it is not a temptation to be denied and it cannot be denied or changed. Yet it will still be viewed as a choice by most Christian men.

The BibleHub has a presentation of a type of projection in scripture:
https://biblehub.com/topical/p/projection.htm

There is a theological viewpoint on the topic under discussion and I quote it:

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270
The ethics of sex : Thielicke, Helmut, 1908-1986 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I’ll not continue on this subject as I have fully expressed my biblical and psychological understanding of this complicated issue.

"But for one man’s constitution that is exclusively desire for another man, it is not a temptation to be denied and it cannot be denied or changed"

So sinful desires that are "exclusive" should not be denied? A pedophile could use that argument to claim his desires should never be denied. Where in the Bible do you find this idea that "exclusive" sexual desires should never be denied? The Bible teaches we are born with corrupt natures so it should not be surprising at all that some people have sexual desires that are "exclusively" disordered.

 

[Jon777]

"But for one man’s constitution that is exclusively desire for another man, it is not a temptation to be denied and it cannot be denied or changed"

So sinful desires that are "exclusive" should not be denied? A pedophile could use that argument to claim his desires should never be denied. Where in the Bible do you find this idea that "exclusive" sexual desires should never be denied? The Bible teaches we are born with corrupt natures so it should not be surprising at all that some people have sexual desires that are "exclusively" disordered.

You begin your reply “So sinful desires…” but does the Bible call all desire sinful? For instance:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44, KJV)

The English “lusts”, what I underlined, is the Greek G1939 ἐπιθυμία epithumia.

Then it is recorded of Jesus, using the same Greek word:

“And Jesus said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:” (Luke 22:15, KJV)

Both “desire” and “desired” are translation of the same Greek word G1939 ἐπιθυμία epithumia.

When you say desire is sinful, you have to show context indicating that what is desired is sinful in itself, or according to what is desired. A male who exclusively desires a loving, full relationship to another male is never called sinful in the New Testament for Christians. In fact, I know of NO verse applicable to the New Covenant believer that condemns male with male sexual conduct in itself alone, only in context is such shown to be sinful. The male-on-male sex condemned in Paul’s writings indicate abusiveness, even on the scale of rape.

I find it funny how so many are eager to use the modern word “pedophile” to describe a horrible sin, as if it is to be found in the Bible. The word “pedophile” has a specific meaning in psychology. Does the Bible anywhere give the “Age of Consent?” You have to go by natural, physical hints, puberty.

In America in 1776, the usual “Age of Consent” was considered to be 10-12 years of age. Isn’t the Virgin Mary thought to have been about 14 when she gave birth to Jesus?

Yes, Yes, I was not going to make any more replies, but I felt this one required an answer because it expressed the common belief among conservatives in this day. By the way Steve63, I do not mean to pick at you, especially since you are a new member. I answered because you expressed what is the common thought among evangelicals. In spite of replying to you in disagreement, I do indeed welcome you to the Forum.

 

[steve63]

You begin your reply “So sinful desires…” but does the Bible call all desire sinful? For instance:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44, KJV)

The English “lusts”, what I underlined, is the Greek G1939 ἐπιθυμία epithumia.

Then it is recorded of Jesus, using the same Greek word:

“And Jesus said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:” (Luke 22:15, KJV)

Both “desire” and “desired” are translation of the same Greek word G1939 ἐπιθυμία epithumia.

When you say desire is sinful, you have to show context indicating that what is desired is sinful in itself, or according to what is desired. A male who exclusively desires a loving, full relationship to another male is never called sinful in the New Testament for Christians. In fact, I know of NO verse applicable to the New Covenant believer that condemns male with male sexual conduct in itself alone, only in context is such shown to be sinful. The male-on-male sex condemned in Paul’s writings indicate abusiveness, even on the scale of rape.

I find it funny how so many are eager to use the modern word “pedophile” to describe a horrible sin, as if it is to be found in the Bible. The word “pedophile” has a specific meaning in psychology. Does the Bible anywhere give the “Age of Consent?” You have to go by natural, physical hints, puberty.

In America in 1776, the usual “Age of Consent” was considered to be 10-12 years of age. Isn’t the Virgin Mary thought to have been about 14 when she gave birth to Jesus?

Yes, Yes, I was not going to make any more replies, but I felt this one required an answer because it expressed the common belief among conservatives in this day. By the way Steve63, I do not mean to pick at you, especially since you are a new member. I answered because you expressed what is the common thought among evangelicals. In spite of replying to you in disagreement, I do indeed welcome you to the Forum.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men" (Romans 1:26-27)

There is nothing in this text about rape or abuse. Revisionists have foisted these concepts onto the passage in order to explain away the clear meaning they are desperately trying to deny. Paul's complaint is not that people abandoned loving relationships for "abusive" ones. That is not stated or even implied by his language. His complaint is that women were having sex with women and men were having sex with men. He calls the sex acts they engage in "unnatural", which is obvious since all sexual acts between people of the same gender involve using body parts for doing things they were clearly not designed for. And if abuse was the only concern, why would he bring up gender at all? That's the elephant in the room the revisionists never address in this passage. Why is gender even mentioned in this passage if God doesn't care whether sex acts are taking place between the same or complementary genders? Nobody will answer this, they'll just keep repeating the talking point that this passage is only talking about rape, abuse, prostitution, etc. Moreover, the New Testament treats ALL sexual activity outside of marriage as sinful. And Jesus clearly defined marriage as the union of male and female (Matt 19:4-5). So even if there were zero passages in the Bible that condemned homosexuality, it's sinfulness is implicit simply because it stands outside the clear boundaries that Scripture sets up around sexual behavior.

 

[Jon777]

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men" (Romans 1:26-27)

There is nothing in this text about rape or abuse. Revisionists have foisted these concepts onto the passage in order to explain away the clear meaning they are desperately trying to deny. Paul's complaint is not that people abandoned loving relationships for "abusive" ones. That is not stated or even implied by his language. His complaint is that women were having sex with women and men were having sex with men. He calls the sex acts they engage in "unnatural", which is obvious since all sexual acts between people of the same gender involve using body parts for doing things they were clearly not designed for. And if abuse was the only concern, why would he bring up gender at all? That's the elephant in the room the revisionists never address in this passage. Why is gender even mentioned in this passage if God doesn't care whether sex acts are taking place between the same or complementary genders? Nobody will answer this, they'll just keep repeating the talking point that this passage is only talking about rape, abuse, prostitution, etc. Moreover, the New Testament treats ALL sexual activity outside of marriage as sinful. And Jesus clearly defined marriage as the union of male and female (Matt 19:4-5). So even if there were zero passages in the Bible that condemned homosexuality, it's sinfulness is implicit simply because it stands outside the clear boundaries that Scripture sets up around sexual behavior.

Steve, you are making it difficult for me to stop replies. I’ll quote your words and then answer.

Steve: “Paul's complaint is not that people abandoned loving relationships for "abusive" ones. That is not stated or even implied by his language. His complaint is that women were having sex with women…”

First, when deciding what Paul meant in his condemnation of certain male-male sex sins, you must compare all three statements he made upon it, not just single one out as the entire description: Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10. The abusiveness comes in on the 2nd and 3rd reference, and use the KJV, check the 1828 Webster’s definition on “abusers” and “defile” and you see the abusiveness, even rape. The authoritative OED says basically the same thing for the meaning of the English in 1611 AD.

On v26, you are reading into the verse out of religious tradition, not the biblical wording and grammar. NOTHING is said about women doing anything with other women in that verse. Matthew Poole gives a reference to Clement of Alexandria (150-211) Ad praeposteros et sodomiticos concubitus sese maribus prostituerunt. Meaning “They prostituted themselves to men for perverse and sodomitic intercourse.” John Gill the 18th century Baptist scholar gives this as one meaning also “prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature”

Steve: “Moreover, the New Testament treats ALL sexual activity outside of marriage as sinful. And Jesus clearly defined marriage as the union of male and female.”

In what verse do you find ALL sexual activity outside of marriage as sinful? You are using a theological construction, NOT what the scriptures state and we know what Paul says about going beyond what is written, 1 Cor. 4:6. Where have I ever approved of or endorsed same-sex marriage or the activism of the LGBTQ group. You earlier mentioned you had not read the entire thread, so maybe you do not know my full belief on this topic.

The complementarian argument falls back on using the created order as what defines sex sin, but it is God’s law for the proper Covenant that defines sin: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1John 3:4, KJV) Jesus in Matt. 19:8 in context teaches that divorce was not the created order, but he gave the okay in the case of an unfaithful spouse. Did Jesus give the okay for a sinful act? Trying to make Eden the definer of sin runs into many problems.

If you wish to talk “revisionism”, look to the modern evangelical translations on 1 Cor. 6:9 and compare with the KJV using the proper English dictionary for the KJV, the 1828. The modern translations sound like they are translated from a psychology source, not the scriptures! The modern translations are who decided that “malakos” or soft/effeminate meant a “catamite”. The earlier translations rendered it “effeminate” and I’ve yet to find that defined as sexual conduct in the sense of intercourse. Steve, you are determined to keep me posting, even after I had decided to stop.

 

[steve63]

NOTHING is said about women doing anything with other women in that verse.

It talks about women committing unnatural sex acts and then says "in the same way" men burned with lust for other men. Paul is paralleling what the women were doing with what the men were doing. Even if your argument were correct that these women were engaging in the "unnatural" act of anal intercourse with men, the passage is still condemning anal intercourse. Are you seriously trying to argue that anal intercourse is only sinful for women and not men?

Also, you have failed to address my point as to why gender is being brought up at all in Romans 1. Changing the context to 1 Corinthians does not answer the question as to why Paul is complaining that men abandoned the natural use of women. You are trying to deflect the discussion to another passage you believe can be explained away more easily. I'll try one more time...why would Paul bring up gender at all if God doesn't care about gender when it comes to sexual activity?

In what verse do you find ALL sexual activity outside of marriage as sinful?

"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor 7:1-2)

Paul says marriage is the remedy to avoid sexual immorality. Later on in the same chapter (v36) he reiterates the point:

"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin" (1 Cor 7:36)

Again, he restates the same point by saying that if someone can't control their sexual passions they should get married to avoid sin. The implication is clear. His entire argument presumes the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage and his words would make zero sense if that were not true.

The same principle is stated by the author of Hebrews:

"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" (Hebrews 13:4)

The author of this verse is contrasting the sexual activity that takes place within the marriage bed to sexual immorality. Again, if sex outside of marriage were not sinful his argument makes zero sense. It presumes sex outside of marriage is immoral.

The other fact you have to deal with is that Jesus accepted the sexual ethic of the Old Testament law which explicitly condemned both homosexuality and premarital sex. While it's true that Jesus did repeal some of the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament he never repealed the moral laws. He frequently condemned "sexual immorality". Any first century Jew would have understood he was talking about the laws regulating sexual morality outlined in Leviticus which declared homosexuality to be an abomination.

 

[Jon777]

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1Cor 7:1-2, KJV)

Paul starts out the passage in reference to biblical marriage, male and female, man and woman. Unless one wishes to adopt preposterous ‘gay marriage’, this restricts the flow of thought to sexual relations between men and women.

“For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1Cor 7:7-9, KJV)

The solution for male/female relationship sins is marriage. That does not fit two men who burn in sexual desire, they can't marry.

Why does gender matter, as in Rom. 1:27? Because it was the men who were known to be doing the leaving, not the women leaving men. The question of “natural” in Paul’s words in Rom. 1:26,27 refers to the created order, the original perfection of creation. It cannot mean just “nature” because same-sex activity is observed in many animals. Not only do we have the scripture context of Paul’s statements, but we also know how it fits history at the time, see the JFB commentary. Notice the progression as to how it grows…

From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse

Phrasing lifted from text numbered 133 through 152

"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."
http://demonax.info/doku.php?id=text:dio_chrysostom_orations_1-20#the_seventh_or_euboean_discourse

When quoting Lev. 18:22 for Christians, you are putting them under the wrong covenant, contrary to gospel teaching: “These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.” (Lev 27:34, KJV)

There is no scripture verse authorizing dividing the Law into “moral, civil, ceremonial”. Jesus abolished the entire law, Eph. 2:15. When God gave laws on civil matters, or ceremonial observances, were those immoral laws?

Does the Bible describe exactly which sexual acts between consenting sexual partners are sin and which is moral? If you wish to stay with scripture, according to Gen. 1:28, sex for any other reason than for the purpose of procreation is sin. That's where you go, trying to read into scripture what is not there with literalism. Steve, you sure have read up on the arguments of modern evangelicalism.

 

[steve63]

Because it was the men who were known to be doing the leaving, not the women leaving men. The question of “natural” in Paul’s words in Rom. 1:26,27 refers to the created order, the original perfection of creation. It cannot mean just “nature” because same-sex activity is observed in many animals.

But you still have not explained why he is complaining that they were rejecting women as sexual partners. If the only problem was "abuse", why mention women? He is clearly stating men were doing things with men that are only natural with women. And yes I agree with you that "natural" is talking about the original perfection of creation. So are you going to argue that part of God's original perfect design for creation was for men to insert their reproductive organs into the rectums of other men??? It amazes me that such clear language can be so casually jettisoned by those who insist on finding a way to justify homosexuality. I'm afraid you are not dealing with Paul's larger argument in Romans 1. He is zeroing in on this idea of how men exchange the truth of God for a lie. In Romans 1 he is addressing the question as to why the Gentiles who never had any knowledge of the Bible were still accountable for their sin. He points out that Creation itself tells men enough about the nature of God that they know certain things must be wrong but they suppress that knowledge. For many years it puzzled me that when Paul begins his litany of sins that can be charged against humanity (Romans 1:26-32), he begins the list with homosexuality (v26). Why would he pick out a sin that affects just a minority of people to lead the list? Then I realized the reason..it fits perfectly into his broader argument as to how men ignore what should be obvious just from looking at Creation. You don't need a Biology degree to understand that our sexual organs were designed to join male and female body parts. The anus was not designed as a sex organ. Creation itself tells us that, but men in their blindness "suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). What should be obvious by simply examining the anatomy of a human being is suppressed by men so they can excuse their own sin (or the sin of someone they love). Paul's point is that we don't even need Scripture to understand that homosexuality is not part of God's design for human beings. But such is the blinding power of sin that such clear evidence from both Creation and Scripture can be so casually dismissed. But this is what happens when men “professing themselves to be wise, they become fools” (Rom 1:22)

 

[shyamuraix]

Looks like someone has NOT read Leviticus!

 

[legion]

"But for one man’s constitution that is exclusively desire for another man, it is not a temptation to be denied and it cannot be denied or changed"

So sinful desires that are "exclusive" should not be denied? A pedophile could use that argument to claim his desires should never be denied. Where in the Bible do you find this idea that "exclusive" sexual desires should never be denied? The Bible teaches we are born with corrupt natures so it should not be surprising at all that some people have sexual desires that are "exclusively" disordered.

The guy simply doesn't understand the simplicity that is that God had a design regardless of his reasons or motives he made it a certain way And that lifestyle is not a part Of his intended People It's not personal. It's against the natural Order of Things.

I mean at one point God was telling us that we can't eat lobster that's his prerogative it has nothing to do with us as his creation having feelings or any other desire we are a broken race without Jesus you need to play by the rules or pay the consequences of breaking those rules.

 

[steve63]

The guy simply doesn't understand the simplicity that is that God had a design regardless of his reasons or motives he made it a certain way And that lifestyle is not a part Of his intended People It's not personal. It's against the natural Order of Things.

I mean at one point God was telling us that we can't eat lobster that's his prerogative it has nothing to do with us as his creation having feelings or any other desire we are a broken race without Jesus you need to play by the rules or pay the consequences of breaking those rules.

Well while I don't know this guy's heart, I do know that most of the time when people twist and/or explain away Scripture it's because they have already decided what they want to believe based on their feelings, then they go to the Bible looking for loopholes to help them get to where they have already decided they are going to land. And in this age of the Internet, there is no shortage of "teachers" out there who will offer them dazzling word salads that sound scholarly but are nothing but desperate attempts to explain away clear Scripture by offering "interpretations" that not a single bible scholar, translator or theologian ever entertained for almost 2,000 years until the Sexual Revolution came along.

 

[legion]

Well while I don't know this guy's heart, I do know that most of the time when people twist and/or explain away Scripture it's because they have already decided what they want to believe based on their feelings, then they go to the Bible looking for loopholes to help them get to where they have already decided they are going to land. And in this age of the Internet, there is no shortage of "teachers" out there who will offer them dazzling word salads that sound scholarly but are nothing but desperate attempts to explain away clear Scripture by offering "interpretations" that not a single bible scholar, translator or theologian ever entertained for almost 2,000 years until the Sexual Revolution came along.

Ha yeah that and Hebrew roots.

 

[Lovea]

I read part of one of these kinds of books that tried to justify homosexuality by saying that if homosexuality were so wrong, why on earth did Jesus not mention it even one time throughout his entire life and ministry?

 

[Lovea]

There was another part in this same book that asked the question of, who was this effeminate St. John who Jesus "loved", who was always leaning on Christ's breast during dinner? Somehow implying that there was a sexual relationship between this saintly, celibate man and Jesus, who was also celibate.

 

[Lovea]

The reason why Jesus stayed silent on the subject of homosexuality is because according to holy tradition, going back 2000
years, homosexuality itself was/is not considered a sin by the church. It is the gay or lesbian 'sexual act' that is the sin and not
the condition of being homosexual.

 

[Lovea]

None of us are "elects". We all have to work with fear and trembling toward our salvation.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and asexuals are all born this way.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

None of us are "elects". We all have to work with fear and trembling toward our salvation.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and asexuals are all born this way.

This is a blessing that someone shared with me as a young teenager. I wondered why such an obvious truth had never been shown me growing up. I know why now.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

There was another part in this same book that asked the question of, who was this effeminate St. John who Jesus "loved", who was always leaning on Christ's breast during dinner? Somehow implying that there was a sexual relationship between this saintly, celibate man and Jesus, who was also celibate.

That is a bad book that presents a false Jesus. I'll provide you an electronic Bible that will guide you and shows us all truth.

Jesus and John were best friends.
There was nothing effeminate about them. Jesus was perfectly masculine. That was John's best friend, Savior, Lord and brother.
He realized that he was forgiven much, just like the woman who went and wiped Christ's feet with her hair. Nothing sensual about those two actions. The Devil always twists that which is pure in order to attack the Lord's character. That's what the Sodomite aka LGBTPS community did with the sign of God's rainbow.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

There was another part in this same book that asked the question of, who was this effeminate St. John who Jesus "loved", who was always leaning on Christ's breast during dinner? Somehow implying that there was a sexual relationship between this saintly, celibate man and Jesus, who was also celibate.

Here's the real gospel of John and the rest of the Bible.
Bookmark it and use it. There's No copyright.
Blessings

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-Chapter-1/

 

[Jon777]

There is an answer for the born anew man, a Christian who loves only men, not women -

The conservative churches are quick to read into the Scriptures what is not there, and then condemn the man who loves only men, not women. They do not offer any real answer, just pious sounding answers. But there is a workable answer from:

“Thomas Brooks (1608–1680) was a leading English non‑conformist Puritan preacher and author, best known today for his intensely practical, pastorally focused books on holiness, prayer, and spiritual warfare—especially Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices.”

Thomas Brooks (Puritan) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From Puritan Thomas Brooks
“God has nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I cannot find in the whole book of God where he has promised any such strength or power against this or that particular sin, as that the soul should be forever, in this life, put out of a possibility of falling again and again into the same sins. And where God has not a mouth to speak, I must not have a heart to believe. God will graciously pardon those sins to his people, which he will not in this life totally subdue in his people. I have never seen a promise in Scripture, which says that when our sorrow and grief has been so great, or so much, for this or that sin—that then God will preserve us from ever falling into the same sin. The sight of such a promise would be as life from the dead to many a precious soul, who desires nothing more than to keep close to Christ, and fears nothing more than backsliding from Christ. In some cases the saints have found God better than his word. He promised the children of Israel only the land of Canaan; but besides that he gave them two other kingdoms which he never promised. And to Zacharias he promised to give him his speech at the birth of the child—but besides that he gave him the gift of prophecy.” p106
Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices

The gay man can repeatedly engage in promiscuous sex, then repent, over and over; or, he can take the advice of Dr. Smedes and have an enduring, loving relationship with a mate. Isn’t the answer below the more sensible and biblically sound?

Dr. Lewis B. Smedes, Fuller Theological Seminary, has written:
"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.
I think that, as a class, homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.
I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.
I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.
I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available."
From page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California... a Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. book.

For any Pastor or Elder to lift Phil. 4:13 and/or 1 Cor. 10:13 out of context and give that to the gay as the answer is an inexcusable spiritual malpractice!